What's new
By:
Filters

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

  • Total voters
    29
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?
 
Zombie said:
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.
Click to expand...

It occurs to me, that were we talking about Russia extending election help while Trump was already president, and he acted with complicity toward that help, knew it was happening, but kept quiet that our chief geopolitical adversary of the past 70 years was interfering in our elections, that alone might constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors". And while he did do that in 2016, yet was not yet president, high crimes and misdemeanors does not apply to a private citizen. Yet, intrinsically, it is still a type of betrayal.

By crying "no collusion" on a near daily basis, Trump helped "hide" from view, to a great degree, the fact that he was willing to be complicit in an attack on our democratic institutions by the Russian dictator. Putting himself above his nation to win an election to the highest office in his nation.

And of course he would indeed welcome that help again in 2020, the difference being we are wise to Putin now. The bigger problem is not enough Americans are wise to Trump, which is remarkable, IMO.
 
silesian said:
Yeah, I'd want to change the subject if I were you. Let's talk about Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Haha. Hilarious. I dont want to change the subject. This is just about to get good. Can you say declassification? Dont cry about it either. We want transparency.
 
NPC D4617 said:
Just curious. Why the Dems so worried about transparency now?
Click to expand...
While I'm not a card carrying democrat, so maybe you're not talking to me, but I'm not worried about transparency.

I hope if this step is taken that it is taken with an honest desire to find truth, just like the Muller investigation was an attempt to find truth. If misconduct is found it should be handled appropriately.

I believe in truth, justice and the American way. If you stick around long enough, NPC, you'll eventually realize that.
 
Bulletproof said:
While I'm not a card carrying democrat, so maybe you're not talking to me, but I'm not worried about transparency.

I hope if this step is taken that it is taken with an honest desire to find truth, just like the Muller investigation was an attempt to find truth. If misconduct is found it should be handled appropriately.

I believe in truth, justice and the American way. If you stick around long enough, NPC, you'll eventually realize that.
Click to expand...

Well you have spelled it out about a hundred times. Pretty sure that hack lacks the intellect to realize it.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Well you have spelled it out about a hundred times. Pretty sure that hack lacks the intellect to realize it.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
Or maybe he recognizes that the content of bullet's posts is in disagreement with what bullet says about himself. For example, he has gone on numerous rants saying that he does not care how Trump is removed, just that he is removed. Unfortunately, if the investigation of the investigators turns up wrongdoing (which I believe it will), mentality similar bullet's will undoubtedly be a large part of the reason that it happened.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Or maybe he recognizes that the content of bullet's posts is in disagreement with what bullet says about himself. For example, he has gone on numerous rants saying that he does not care how Trump is removed, just that he is removed. Unfortunately, if the investigation of the investigators turns up wrongdoing (which I believe it will), mentality similar bullet's will undoubtedly be a large part of the reason that it happened.
Click to expand...
Just shows you how much of scumbag trump is. Bulletproof is about as honorable a human being there is. Yet even he would make an exception for a piece of **** like trump. Sometimes you have to let go of some of your scruples for the greater good. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette sometimes.
 
fishonjazz said:
Just shows you how much of scumbag trump is. Bulletproof is about as honorable a human being there is. Yet even he would make an exception for a piece of **** like trump. Sometimes you have to let go of some of your scruples for the greater good. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette sometimes.
Click to expand...
BS
 
fishonjazz said:
Just shows you how much of scumbag trump is. Bulletproof is about as honorable a human being there is. Yet even he would make an exception for a piece of **** like trump. Sometimes you have to let go of some of your scruples for the greater good. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette sometimes.
Click to expand...
The honorable human being you are praising made up vicious rumors about me and my family and posted them on this site. Do you also find that behavior justified?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top