[#NoCollusion] Should Trump go after the media and Democrats?

Funny how even the easiest to ascertain facts are often ignored...

AP report: Website with GOP ties funded research on Trump dossier

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/website-with-gop-ties-funded-research-on-trump-dossier

That has been well-reported for over a year now.

This is not accurate either. Unless you have read the final report and are quoting a different passage than what barr quoted, Mueller did not say "there was nothing to prove collusion, he said there was not enough evidence to establish that members of trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russians:

And without the full report to go into more details, all we can reasonable infer based on that quote is that Mueller did find some evidence (otherwise, barr would have quoted Mueller as saying there was no evidence). This also the point judge napoltano of fox news was making:



And yes, it appears Mueller kicked the topic of obstruction to others (the attorney general, congress, or ?). Why? Without reading the full report, and perhaps testimony from Mueller, we don't know. Its possible he preferred to stay very narrowly to the topic of "collusion" since that was his initial instruction. Or perhaps the "politics" of "obstruction" was deemed better handled by politicians. Whatever the reason, there was no conclusion on "obstruction" communicated by Mueller, and he definitely did not say there was no obstruction.

Here is what the barr summry said:

Again, this not only does not indicate that there was no obstruction, but instead suggests that there was. And, despite what rudy g says, you can be convicted of obstruction without an underlying crime. It may be more difficult, but a well know example is Martha Stewart, who was convicted of obstruction and lying to investigators. And Scooter Libby is another example, convicted of obstruction, perjury, and false statements in the Valerie Plame outing.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

Again, the full report is needed to get a better understanding of what Mueller's investigation found. But continually making false statements when even what little is known is disingenuous.

 

Ugh. I even gave you the dates that have been testified yto and you still get it wrong.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...e-conservatives-didnt-fund-the-steele-dossier

Here is the Free Beacon on the issue:

“The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele,” the group’s top brass said in a statement. “Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.”

FIFY

It is accurate. If Mueller could prove collusion he would of charged. 'not enough evidence' means i don't have proof. Maybe you should look up the word proof.

 

I remember when people laughed at Bill Clinton parsing the word "is".

Your defense of trump is now based on whether there was enough evidence to prove trump colluded with russians, not that there was no evidence of his collusion. Just so we both agree that there was evidence he colluded.

Who would have thought we would have a president where evidence exists he colluded with russia. Congrats trump!

Again, when the final report released, IF the final report is released these questions will be answered.

 

Those have been posted and added on this bbs several times as more things from the report have been verified.

Also, the claim of trying to prove a negative doesn't work in this case. For instance, if the report said Page met with someone in New Zealand in August, but it turns out that he was in Nigeria in August, that would be proven to be false. So things from this report could be proven to be true.

But here's the thing, since you have failed to show one thing from the report that was false, and there have been multiple postings of things from the report that have, in fact, been verified, then your claim that the dossier is completely BS doesn't hold an ounce of water. It is just a silly claim based on nothing to give folks ammunition to try and discredit Mueller's investigation.

Now go do your research and look up the multiple postings of things that have been verified from the dossier.

 

Actually, he got some of spellings wrong. As for what was on point, I described what I meant in the post you quoted. Seems kinda silly to repeat myself, but I'm referring to how Steele reported on things in real time regarding Trump campaign contacts and Russian hacking that were not yet being investigated by our official agencies, and these were shown to be true.

To take one example, he wrote a note in July 2016 about Carter Page being the campaign's contact with the Russians. Newspapers started writing about him in September, and how the NSA was looking into Page was talking to Russians about lifting sanctions. Page denied it at the time but soon after stepped down from Trump Admin. The FBI got a warrant to investigate Page later, in October 2016. In November 2017, Page testified to the House Intelligence Committee that he did in fact meet with Russian officials in July 2016 (like Steele had reported) and reported on the outcome to the Trump campaign. In all of this, the dossier says that Page was acting as a conduit for a literal conspiracy between Trump and the Russians and apparently that cannot be sufficiently proved by the SC. But, the 'broad strokes' I referred to here is that the Trump campaign did have people like Carter Page acting as intermediaries with the Russian government. Steele could not have picked up and ran with some existing narrative that journalists were writing about or the CIA was already looking into because he was the first on the story. These meetings happened in July 2016, Steele wrote about them in July 2016, and it was ultimately proved with testimony by Carter Page in November 2017. Steele was right and in real time.

Just demonstrating that one data point was work enough for me, so I'm not going to illustrate any others. I think we could do this same exercise with, for example, hacking the DNC emails. The dossier is not fabricated out of whole cloth. Some of it might be (probably is) wrong. But it tried to provide good information and succeeded in doing so in multiple instances.

Which is kinda the thought process everybody went through when they saw Trump doing all of this obstruction in plain sight and concluded there must be some underlying crime he's trying to prevent from coming to light. We said at the time, where there is smoke there must be fire. So Mueller looked for the fire and came back and said he can't find the fire. Now, you're telling me that because Mueller didn't find any fire, I must not have seen any smoke. Umm, we all saw the smoke. He fired the head of the FBI for 'the Russian thing.' His campaign had 100 contacts with Russian operatives and he lied about every single one of them until they were proven to have taken place.

 

what smoke did you see? firing his employee Comey who both sides agree was an incompetent moron? lying about russian contacts? Most of it the trump administration knew was being recorded because by law it was recorded (Flynn conversation). I also love that an incoming administration talking to the Russian government ('operatives' as you call them) is some how suspect to you. Finally, phone calls to Russia isn;t obstruction. SO basically you are telling me the smoke you saw was Comey got fired. Whata load of crap. Maybe Comey got fired because he was investigating something Trump knew was horseshit.

It takes so much dam stupidity to think the guy who opened up the entire coast for drilling is a Russian puppet. You realize Russia is a petro state?

 

If you don't see how the consistent policy across the entire Trump campaign of lying about every contact they had with Russia is obstructive, including lying to the public, lying to Congress, and lying to the FBI, I don't know what to tell you. If you're okay with a president-elect and even before that just a presidential candidate undermining the foreign policy of the sitting president, I don't know what to tell you. I think those things aren't acceptable by themselves. But as for being smoke, why is it exactly do you think Trump did those things? For example, the famous Trump Tower meeting -- first they lied and said it was about adoption policy, then they said it was about getting dirt on Clinton but lied about Trump not knowing about the meeting, then they admitted Trump knew of the meeting but said nothing came of it and there's nothing wrong with it. At the time, it might have hurt election chances, but it didn't become public until well after the election. Do you think it was merely the political embarrassment of the appearance of impropriety they were trying to avoid, and they thought the best way to avoid that is by lying?

 

So the Washington Examiner just conveniently hired Fusion GPS during the GOP primaries....

Per your article:

And then several months later the same company was bankrolled by the DNC and we are supposed to believe that none of the opposition research bankrolled by the GOP several months earlier was used when the project became bank rolled by the Dems?

Right, enough proof to satisfy the legal threshold of doubt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Which isn’t to be confused with Trump acted appropriately and befitting of a presidential candidate.

 

Really no way to know. Everything is conjecture at this point.

 

But, it really shouldn't be, should it? After all, here is our nation's leader and a public servant and he's trying to accomplish something pretty significant in our foreign policy. And he won't explain what or for what reason? Why should this elected official be given carte blanche to do whatever he intends to do regarding Russia without explaining himself?

 

Theorize the answer. I don't know.

 

You don't know if you, as a citizen and a voter, want to understand the direction your president is trying to take your country? Do you plan on giving him carte blanche again in 2020?

 

Lol. I think beating the Libs trumps all, pun intended.

 

I’m just glad Barr didn’t politicize this with a summary of the report, just a summary of the principle conclusions...

 

FIFY

 

Here comes the backpedaling.

 

While it may provide barr a small sense of cover, it really doesn't matter and his initial summary/principal conclusions or whatever he describes it accomplished what trump needed... trump can claim "exoneration" regardless of what the real investigation found. Just needed it to have enough of a delay to allow trump and supporters time to bang the drum.

 

You can raise questions about plenty of things... fill in the answers all you want. The report exonerated the man. End of story unless more comes out.

 

Funny since you are the closest thing to a flat earther at this point.