/dev/null Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 7 hours ago, DC Tom said: So your evidence of collusion is that the end result is that there's no evidence of collusion, which can only mean that they colluded to not go with the original plan they colluded on? And this seems rational to you? 7 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Tom, try adding something to the conversation sometime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 8 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: OK, one more.... Yes, if there were problems with the warrant, by all means let's investigate, hold violators accountable, and improve the process for the future. I don't think our government should be spying on citizens without just cause. The problem I have is that many are using the dossier's inclusion in the warrant to say there is no reason now to investigate Trump because of the origin of the dossier. For god's sake, even hyper partisan Gowdy says the FISA/dossier issue should not invalidate the Trump-Russia investigation. So, as long as we can continue to investigate both issues, I am fine with digging a lot deeper into the FISA warrant process and holding any criminals accountable. If there's something for Mueller to uncover, then by all means, yes, investigate it. Mueller had better keep it to the Russian Collusion story in my book, though -- and he's found nothing so far. There have been a lot of leaks from Mueller's people to the press, and nothing of note has resulted. The three indictments are unrelated to the issue of Trump/Russia "collusion". Before Mueller was appointed, this particular investigation was commenced from a dossier created by people who were politically motivated to smear Trump. And the smear job occurred both before and after he got elected. Even if the FBI had pure motives to investigate the contents of the dossier at the outset, they don't seem to have come up with anything. It is fairly apparent that politics have outweighed Justice, and that's been going on since at least the spring of 2016 (in this particular case). So if Mueller has anything then he should come forward, and if he's got nothing, then wrap it up already. The longer this goes with nothing the more Mueller comes across as a hack for political opponents of the President. All you hear from one side of the aisle is "not my president", "resist", "investigate", "impeach", "Muller good", "can't wait until the midterms". It is a really bad narrative. That can't be overstated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 All this is just to establish that Trump wasn't colluding with Russia, and that Obama, HRC and the rest were working to undermine, and smear Trump. Very bad stuff. But I'm waiting for the real goods. I'm waiting for the nefarious activities of the Clintons and Obama (Clinton Foundation, Obama/Iran, and more) to be exposed. This is just setting the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Does this qualify as evidence? Quote Russian trolls posed as black activists on Tumblr and generated hundreds of thousands of interactions for content that ranged from calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” to supporting Bernie Sanders and decrying racial injustice and police violence in the US, according to new findings from researcher Jonathan Albright and BuzzFeed News. Why isn't there an FBI investigation of collusion between Russia and the sole Soviet sympathizer in the 2016 race? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 9 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: What? Your tale relies on massive conspiracies. You have so many people conspiring that it stretches credulity and now the press is all in on it too. I have not looked at all of the evidence you presented (yet) but the general problem is that your solution is so much more complicated than what I see as the truth. The much more simple explanation is more likely, imo. Well, I am signing out for tonight. Sleep well. "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 I thought of a question I would like to pose to the Trump defenders. Please take a moment to consider and answer. Hypothetical Question If today you, and you alone, came across evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that Trump conspired with the Russians to help him get elected in exchange for future favors, would you come forward with it or would you bury it forever? In this scenario, assume that your actions would be anonymous and also assume no one would ever discover you buried the evidence if that was your decision. What do you think? Please be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Bob, you're ridiculous. A better thing would be to pose that question, rephrased to the DOJ, FBI, Clinton Campaign workers who apparently DID do exactly what your theoretical postulation outlines. They conspired against a political candidate out of partisan desires to take him out. They DID assume their actions would never be uncovered because... "She was never supposed to lose". On the other hand, re-reading your postulation, I wonder if you're conceding the very facts I just mentioned, and think that well, they got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, so what? What would you guys do if your side did the same thing... cover it up like my side is doing? Disingenuous drivel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Nanker said: Bob, you're ridiculous. A better thing would be to pose that question, rephrased to the DOJ, FBI, Clinton Campaign workers who apparently DID do exactly what your theoretical postulation outlines. They conspired against a political candidate out of partisan desires to take him out. They DID assume their actions would never be uncovered because... "She was never supposed to lose". On the other hand, re-reading your postulation, I wonder if you're conceding the very facts I just mentioned, and think that well, they got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, so what? What would you guys do if your side did the same thing... cover it up like my side is doing? Disingenuous drivel. I was wondering what those favors might be? Selling them uranium? Being more flexible after the next election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 No opposition to their moves in the Balkans and their "buffer" states? Create a deeper vacuum in the ME so they can increase their presence? Outlaw fracking so Russia and Iran have huge leverage on oil production and prices? Gee. I'm stumped. Too bad Hillary lost, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I was wondering what those favors might be? Selling them uranium? Being more flexible after the next election? This is why credibility suffers. Surely you must know by now that this Uranium One story has been hyped as a distraction. Yet many here continue to toss it out there whenever a distraction is needed. See the Fox News piece by Shep Smith on Youtube that debunks the whole story if you truly are still uninformed. Just investigate Trump and his administration and keep the Russians from exerting significant influence on our elections. Investigate any other issues that make sense but stop trying to derail the Mueller investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 49 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I thought of a question I would like to pose to the Trump defenders. Please take a moment to consider and answer. Hypothetical Question If today you, and you alone, came across evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that Trump conspired with the Russians to help him get elected in exchange for future favors, would you come forward with it or would you bury it forever? In this scenario, assume that your actions would be anonymous and also assume no one would ever discover you buried the evidence if that was your decision. What do you think? Please be honest. Are you ever going to add anything to the conversation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Bob in Mich, when did Russia become an evil place to the Democratic Party? Even during the worst days of the Cold War the Dems highest condemnation of the USSR was position of detente.... Russia isn't remotely a threat or place to worry about since 1991.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 13 minutes ago, Nanker said: Bob, you're ridiculous. A better thing would be to pose that question, rephrased to the DOJ, FBI, Clinton Campaign workers who apparently DID do exactly what your theoretical postulation outlines. They conspired against a political candidate out of partisan desires to take him out. They DID assume their actions would never be uncovered because... "She was never supposed to lose". On the other hand, re-reading your postulation, I wonder if you're conceding the very facts I just mentioned, and think that well, they got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, so what? What would you guys do if your side did the same thing... cover it up like my side is doing? Disingenuous drivel. Not disingenuous in the least. My hypothetical is a legitimate question. It appears from what I read that many defending Trump don't want him caught even if they think he is guilty of conspiring. They appear tickled to be in control and don't wish to upset that. I will answer your question. Please answer mine. I can't answer for 'my side' but I can for myself. If I found evidence of wrongdoing in an attempt to smear Trump, I would certainly come forward with the truth. If Trump did nothing wrong, I don't want to convict him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: Are you ever going to add anything to the conversation? I guess that's a solid "no" from you then. Tool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: This is why credibility suffers. Surely you must know by now that this Uranium One story has been hyped as a distraction. Yet many here continue to toss it out there whenever a distraction is needed. See the Fox News piece by Shep Smith on Youtube that debunks the whole story if you truly are still uninformed. Just investigate Trump and his administration and keep the Russians from exerting significant influence on our elections. Investigate any other issues that make sense but stop trying to derail the Mueller investigation. The uranium deal was a colossal mistake, not a distraction. Shepard Smith is about as credible as Rachel Maddow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, row_33 said: Bob in Mich, when did Russia become an evil place to the Democratic Party? Even during the worst days of the Cold War the Dems highest condemnation of the USSR was position of detente.... Russia isn't remotely a threat or place to worry about since 1991.... Did you post in the wrong thread? What does that have to do with whether the administration conspired with Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 12 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Did you post in the wrong thread? What does that have to do with whether the administration conspired with Russia? Bob, we take it for granted that you have some history knowledge... you didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, right? The Dems rarely condemned even open collaboration with the USSR during the height of the Cold War. And detente (ask your teacher) was their position, which I never disagreed with... So again, when did Russia become some major-league enemy to the Democratic Party? It's kinda meant as a rhetorical (again, ask your teacher) question, but if you could pinpoint when this happened, I would enjoy increasing my knowledge. 1991, 1995, when Trump won? And why??? This is like certain Protestants going on and on about the Pope being the Antichrist when the Pope hasn't remotely been a threat since the 1600s... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 minute ago, row_33 said: Bob, we take it for granted that you have some history knowledge... Speak for yourself. I only take it for granted that he's stoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 1 minute ago, row_33 said: Bob, we take it for granted that you have some history knowledge... you didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, right? The Dems rarely condemned even open collaboration with the USSR during the height of the Cold War. And detente (ask your teacher) was their position, which I never disagreed with... So again, when did Russia become some major-league enemy to the Democratic Party? It's kinda meant as a rhetorical (again, ask your teacher) question, but if you could pinpoint when this happened, I would enjoy increasing my knowledge. 1991, 1995, when Trump won? And why??? Your wish to turn the conversation to when and where Russia became an enemy is immaterial to the conversation I am having. Maybe someone else wishes to follow your lead or perhaps you could just do some research on your own. Better yet, start a new thread where that is the question for discussion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 23 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Not disingenuous in the least. My hypothetical is a legitimate question. It appears from what I read that many defending Trump don't want him caught even if they think he is guilty of conspiring. They appear tickled to be in control and don't wish to upset that. If that's your take-away from these discussions, then you're more stoned than we thought. Many people participating in these discussions think Trump is an idiot, but are appalled that laws were apparently broken to rig the election. There's far more EVIDENCE that people inside the government broke laws than anything that resembles collusion with the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts