What's new
By:

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

  • Total voters
    29
I stand corrected.

When I was looking for stuff in the Mueller report related to this thread several weeks ago I was looking for descriptions of specific meetings on yachts, with reference to Alexey Navalny, a Belorussian escort, and a few other details. I had forgotten about these passing references to Prikhodko and the St. Petersburg event. Turns out there's a lot to keep track of.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
It bothers you that Trump would refute the mainstream media/Democratic Party claim that he is throwing temper tantrums all the time? Doesn't it matter to you if the characterizations they are giving you of Trump's behavior are incorrect? Have you heard his family members and friends talk about his demeanor? Doesn't it seem strange that they consistently say that his behavior is different from the way that CNN etc. reports it?
Click to expand...

Why do we need CNN to tell us what we see him say on TV and read on his juvenile tweets every day.

I think we’ve forgotten how professional our past presidents behaved. I remember when Howard Dean was deemed unfit when he got a little excited and let out a scream. Now we are living in a country run by a person with elementary school maturity level. My daughter saw trump on tv and she said “what is wrong with him, Dad?” She doesn’t need CNN to report what she sees with her own two eyes and hears with her ears.
 
sirkickyass said:
A couple of things here:

First, you're moving the goalposts. Your claim was that some deep conspiracy against Trump was going to be unleashed that pointed the finger at Comey et al as the genesis of the Russia investigation. My point was that the inciting event is clearly defined: it's Papadopoulos talking to the Australian's while plastered. I don't have to win that collusion actually existed (although it did) in order to demonstrate that Papadopoulos is the "first in time" event that starts the investigation. The entire conspiracy theory involving corrupt motives falls apart when you just put the events on a linear timeline.

Second, the answer to the question your are asking is pretty clearly yes.

The Trump campaign's foreign policy team was pretty lightly staffed. Papadopoulos was plainly involved at a pretty high level. Trump himself tweeted a photo of Papadopoulos at a high level meeting with Trump on foreign policy.

View attachment 7358

So the drunken blurting story is about 1) a high level trump foreign policy advisor; 2) with specific knowledge about the Russian hacking of the DNC and its contents; and 3) advance knowledge that the information would be used to Trump's benefit.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why that looks collusive and why it triggered an investigation.
Click to expand...

I see. I can see why Papadopoulos having knowledge of something and blurting out about it is suspicious. In his findings, Mueller concluded that since the Trump campaign did not actually participate in the hacking or the planning, they were not complicit. Interference from Russia happened. A group in Russia didn't like Hillary, but their actions did not require or involve help from the Trump campaign for it to take place. That's why collusion wasn't actionable.
 
So you're misrepresenting the findings now.

Catchall said:
In his findings, Mueller concluded that since the Trump campaign did not actually participate in the hacking or the planning, they were not complicit.
Click to expand...

Mueller did not conclude that the Trump campaign was not "complicit." In fact, he concludes in the first few pages that the Trump campaign expected it would benefit from the Russian activities. What it determined was that there no was conspiracy or coordination with the Russian government (a key distinction here, since that would not include intermediaries like Deripaska).

There's no doubt that the Trump campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian help with the campaign. They did so publicly. ("Russia if you're listening....")

upload_2019-5-28_16-26-19.png

Interference from Russia happened. A group in Russia didn't like Hillary, but their actions did not require or involve help from the Trump campaign for it to take place. That's why collusion wasn't actionable.
Click to expand...

"Collusion" isn't a legal term. That's why it wasn't actionable.

upload_2019-5-28_16-29-54.png

At the end of the day in order for there to be a prosecutable conspiracy or coordination claim there would have had to be an actual agreement between the Russian Government and Trump. I don't think anyone believed that investigators were going to turn up a document that said "in exchange for hacking the Dems, I Donald J. Trump, promise favorable policy, please don't release the pee pee tape." But that's what the criminal standard effectively required.

The plausible theory of the case is and always has been that Trump traded more favorable foreign policy, specifically on sanctions and Ukraine, in exchange for help during the campaign and personal financial benefits. That's what Russia expected to receive in return for their efforts. And those promises were implicit or made through intermediaries. It doesn't take a genius to guess what Trump's intentions on Russia were: he notably refused to criticize Putin during the primary debate process - even lying about times he supposedly met him in the Green room for a television show.

If you're fine with selling foreign policy that way I guess that's your political preference. But hiding behind a defense of "it's all above board as long as Trump's campaign didn't personally direct the hacking of the DNC" is an incredibly weak sauce argument.
 
sirkickyass said:
So you're misrepresenting the findings now.

Mueller did not conclude that the Trump campaign was not "complicit." In fact, he concludes in the first few pages that the Trump campaign expected it would benefit from the Russian activities. What it determined was that there no was conspiracy or coordination with the Russian government (a key distinction here, since that would not include intermediaries like Deripaska).

There's no doubt that the Trump campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian help with the campaign. They did so publicly. ("Russia if you're listening....")

View attachment 7360

"Collusion" isn't a legal term. That's why it wasn't actionable.

View attachment 7361

At the end of the day in order for there to be a prosecutable conspiracy or coordination claim there would have had to be an actual agreement between the Russian Government and Trump. I don't think anyone believed that investigators were going to turn up a document that said "in exchange for hacking the Dems, I Donald J. Trump, promise favorable policy, please don't release the pee pee tape." But that's what the criminal standard effectively required.

The plausible theory of the case is and always has been that Trump traded more favorable foreign policy, specifically on sanctions and Ukraine, in exchange for help during the campaign and personal financial benefits. That's what Russia expected to receive in return for their efforts. And those promises were implicit or made through intermediaries. It doesn't take a genius to guess what Trump's intentions on Russia were: he notably refused to criticize Putin during the primary debate process - even lying about times he supposedly met him in the Green room for a television show.

If you're fine with selling foreign policy that way I guess that's your political preference. But hiding behind a defense of "it's all above board as long as Trump's campaign didn't personally direct the hacking of the DNC" is an incredibly weak sauce argument.
Click to expand...

You've laid out a theory that can't be proven or disproven. That Mueller didn't find Trump's campaign either complicit or not complicit is a stalemate at best.
 
sirkickyass said:
So you're misrepresenting the findings now.



Mueller did not conclude that the Trump campaign was not "complicit." In fact, he concludes in the first few pages that the Trump campaign expected it would benefit from the Russian activities. What it determined was that there no was conspiracy or coordination with the Russian government (a key distinction here, since that would not include intermediaries like Deripaska).

There's no doubt that the Trump campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian help with the campaign. They did so publicly. ("Russia if you're listening....")

View attachment 7360



"Collusion" isn't a legal term. That's why it wasn't actionable.

View attachment 7361

At the end of the day in order for there to be a prosecutable conspiracy or coordination claim there would have had to be an actual agreement between the Russian Government and Trump. I don't think anyone believed that investigators were going to turn up a document that said "in exchange for hacking the Dems, I Donald J. Trump, promise favorable policy, please don't release the pee pee tape." But that's what the criminal standard effectively required.

The plausible theory of the case is and always has been that Trump traded more favorable foreign policy, specifically on sanctions and Ukraine, in exchange for help during the campaign and personal financial benefits. That's what Russia expected to receive in return for their efforts. And those promises were implicit or made through intermediaries. It doesn't take a genius to guess what Trump's intentions on Russia were: he notably refused to criticize Putin during the primary debate process - even lying about times he supposedly met him in the Green room for a television show.

If you're fine with selling foreign policy that way I guess that's your political preference. But hiding behind a defense of "it's all above board as long as Trump's campaign didn't personally direct the hacking of the DNC" is an incredibly weak sauce argument.
Click to expand...

So Collusion isnt a crime. Got it.

Why was there an investigation again? What is even the point of this anymore? Seriously?
 
Catchall said:
That Mueller didn't find Trump's campaign either complicit or not complicit is a stalemate at best.
Click to expand...

The Cambridge Dictionary defines "complicit" as "involved in, or knowing about, a crime or some activity that is wrong". As @sirkickyass explained, the Mueller report concluded that the Trump campaign expected it would benefit from the Russian activities. Therefore, they were complicit, by virtue of knowing about a crime or some activity that was wrong. As Comey noted in the article @JazzGal posted, the Trump campaign did not tell the FBI what the Russians were doing.
 
Red said:
The Cambridge Dictionary defines "complicit" as "involved in, or knowing about, a crime or some activity that is wrong". As @sirkickyass explained, the Mueller report concluded that the Trump campaign expected it would benefit from the Russian activities. Therefore, they were complicit, by virtue of knowing about a crime or some activity that was wrong. As Comey noted in the article @JazzGal posted, the Trump campaign did not tell the FBI what the Russians were doing.
Click to expand...
And numerous times, Trump himself tried to cast doubt about what the Russians were doing.

To me at least, his constant denial of what the intelligence community and others had concluded about Russian involvement was the most persuasive argument that he was indeed putting his own interests above that of this country when it came to the Russian regime.
 
Last edited:
Methinks trump isn’t the only rotten apple of the bunch...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/business/rusal-russia-kentucky-aluminum-mill/index.html

London(CNN Business)Russian aluminum giant Rusal spent most of last year under US sanctions. Now it's pumping $200 million into a new project in Kentucky.

Rusal, the largest producer of aluminum outside China, will help fund and supply a low-carbon aluminum rolling mill under construction in the eastern part of the state, parent company En+ Group said Sunday.

The Russian company will take a 40% stake in the project, which is led by US startup Braidy Industries. The 2.5 million-square-foot plant in Kentucky will churn out metal for the auto and aerospace sectors.

The investment comes after the US Treasury Department in January lifted sanctions on Rusal, En+ Group and another firm with links to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.
Click to expand...

Which state is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell from?

I guess rolling back sanctions is good as long as your state can directly benefit from it... great foreign policy strategy, Amiright?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top