Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[fishonjazz]

BS

Whats BS?

 

[fishonjazz]

The honorable human being you are praising made up viscious rumors about me and my family and posted them on this site. Do you also find that behavior justified?

No i dont. I also dont think that he would be the first honorable human being to make a mistake either.

 

[LogGrad98]

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?

Are you eenie-meenie? Wasn't it him that claimed this before? Or did it happen to multiple people?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Are you eenie-meenie? Wasn't it him that claimed this before? Or did it happen to multiple people?

I don't know anything about eenie-meenie or any claims he might have made. My claims about Bulletproof (formerly Gameface) are easily provable.

 

[Heathme]

 

[Stoked]

Lol

 

[sirkickyass]

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.

At some point you're just playing a semantic game about what "complicit" means. The Mueller report is clear, for example, that the Trump campaign was promised dirt on Hillary Clinton and 1) set a meeting to receive that dirt, which was attended by the President's son, son in law, and campaign manager; and 2) didn't tell anyone in the federal government about the meeting. What differentiates that activity from being "complicit" in your mind?

The campaign's end run strategy was to amplify the impact of Russian intelligence on the election: Trump campaigned heavily on Wikileaks. He expected that Russian interference would help him and actively sought to maximize the impact of that aid. What differentiates that activity from being "complicit" in your mind?

During the president-elect period the campaign actively undercut the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference through Michael Flynn, has blocked efforts to prevent future interference, and has at various points actively denied that the Russians helped them at all. What differentiates that activity from being "complicit" in your mind?

Attempting to help criminals evade responsibility for their crimes after the fact makes you an accessory to the crime itself. I understand you like Trump, but this is not a particularly close call.

So Collusion isnt a crime. Got it.

Why was there an investigation again? What is even the point of this anymore? Seriously?

You understand that the ability to choose our own leaders without foreign interference in the process is a critical component of sovereignty right? It's a national security issue of the highest order.

Just curious. Why the Dems so worried about transparency now?

As a transparency advocate I'm sure you're demanding the release of the President's tax returns.

Just kidding, we know you don't actually care about "transparency."

For what it is worth, I'm not concerned in the slightest about real transparency. The Barr investigation is designed to fuel conspiracy theory fires about a deep state coup, it's not a real investigation designed to shed light on anything. It's just a rehash of whatever it was that Devin Nunes did last year.

I've posted article length posts in this thread why one particular strain of that conspiracy theory, arguing that the real collusion with Ukraine, is deeply misguided and damaging to democracy around the world. No one is really even arguing that point. The efforts to muddy the waters come at a real cost - and on the geopolitical level that cost is actual people's lives and livelihoods.

 

[Hotdog]

At some point you're just playing a semantic game about what "complicit" means. The Mueller report is clear, for example, that the Trump campaign was promised dirt on Hillary Clinton and 1) set a meeting to receive that dirt, which was attended by the President's son, son in law, and campaign manager; and 2) didn't tell anyone in the federal government about the meeting. What differentiates that activity from being "complicit" in your mind?

The campaign's end run strategy was to amplify the impact of Russian intelligence on the election: Trump campaigned heavily on Wikileaks. He expected that Russian interference would help him and actively sought to maximize the impact of that aid. What differentiates that activity from being "complicit" in your mind?

During the president-elect period the campaign actively undercut the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference through Michael Flynn, has blocked efforts to prevent future interference, and has at various points actively denied that the Russians helped them at all. What differentiates that activity from being "complicit" in your mind?

Attempting to help criminals evade responsibility for their crimes after the fact makes you an accessory to the crime itself. I understand you like Trump, but this is not a particularly close call.



You understand that the ability to choose our own leaders without foreign interference in the process is a critical component of sovereignty right? It's a national security issue of the highest order.



As a transparency advocate I'm sure you're demanding the release of the President's tax returns.

Just kidding, we know you don't actually care about "transparency."

For what it is worth, I'm not concerned in the slightest about real transparency. The Barr investigation is designed to fuel conspiracy theory fires about a deep state coup, it's not a real investigation designed to shed light on anything. It's just a rehash of whatever it was that Devin Nunes did last year.

I've posted article length posts in this thread why one particular strain of that conspiracy theory, arguing that the real collusion with Ukraine, is deeply misguided and damaging to democracy around the world. No one is really even arguing that point. The efforts to muddy the waters come at a real cost - and on the geopolitical level that cost is actual people's lives and livelihoods.

Take what you said then plug in the Russia investigation.

The Russian collusion investigation was nothing more than a political game to fuel a conspiracy. You have it backwards. The REAL investigation is about occur. The Dems and Muller had their chance, they proved nothing.

 

[Just Ted]

I love that we discuss this with such ferver. Each of us will take what we will from the explanations provided. Just look at Foxnews Vs. CNN.. Two totally different opinions from the same set of information. Everyone has an agenda. I'd love to hear if this forum has actually changed one persons mind about President Trump, Robert Mueller, Hillary etc.....

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

At some point you're just playing a semantic game about what "complicit" means. The Mueller report is clear, for example, that the Trump campaign was promised dirt on Hillary Clinton and 1) set a meeting to receive that dirt, which was attended by the President's son, son in law, and campaign manager; and 2) didn't tell anyone in the federal government about the meeting. What differentiates that activity from being "complicit" in your mind?

Russian agents hacking DNC servers and delivering emails to Wikileaks did not involve or require involvement from Trump's team. The Russians did that on their own. Simply being informed about the Russian hacking doesn't make the Trump campaign an actor or accomplice.

Moreover, even though a sitting president cannot be indicted under Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) rules, his staff sure can. Mueller did not uncover evidence sufficient to meet criminal standards against anyone on Trump's team, either for collusion or obstruction. The indictments against Manafort (mortgage fraud) and Popdopoulos (lying to the FBI) were not related to the collusion/conspiracy or obstruction question.

During the president-elect period the campaign actively undercut the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference through Michael Flynn, has blocked efforts to prevent future interference, and has at various points actively denied that the Russians helped them at all. What differentiates that activity from being "complicit" in your mind?

I'd like more details on this.

You understand that the ability to choose our own leaders without foreign interference in the process is a critical component of sovereignty right? It's a national security issue of the highest order.

Of course, but every country with which the US has relations "interferes" with our politics on a daily basis. The US has been in the pocket of Saudi Arabia since the 70s. China has imposed its interests on the US in all sorts of insidious ways using its financial leverage. An argument can be made that all significant US military decisions are cleared with Israel. A number of 'globalist' strategies that Hillary Clinton represented on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations have little to do with protecting American sovereignty. That's why it's disingenuous to call out a small band of Russian Intelligence agents who hacked servers and released information to wikileaks a threat to US sovereignty. The Chinese do this all the time as a matter of policy, and the US often helps them to do it. Did Russian agents commit crimes? Yes. Are they being prosecuted? Yes. But it has little, if any, impact on Presidential politics. James Comey, who was supposedly protecting Hillary, did far more damage to her before the election when he said that her emails should be investigated. The whole 'Russia tainted our election' narrative is a reach.

As a transparency advocate I'm sure you're demanding the release of the President's tax returns.

I don't care either way whether Trump releases his tax returns or other financial records. Normally when an individual (or a president) is investigated, it starts with an actual accusation or charge that leads to a discovery process to gather evidence, rather than rummaging around looking for a crime. It's beyond obvious that the Democrats are looking for anything they can to accuse the President of, but they should make a clear accusation as a pretense for seeking evidence rather than the other way around. Also, it's not a constitutional requirement for Trump to reveal all of his finances and business dealings to the public or to his business competitors. Other presidents haven't done this.

 

[Archie Moses]

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?

What?

When did this happen?

 

[One Brow]

James Comey, who was supposedly protecting Hillary, ...

How did you reach a conclusion that Comey was supposedly protecting Clinton?