Mueller indicts 13 Russian nationals over 2016 election interference

[Falvlun]

You said:

"We are saying that it is proven that Russia has worked to support Trump and denigrate Clinton. We are saying that there is some evidence that trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians.

We are not saying that it is proven that Trump or his campaign colluded. We are saying that we need to wait until Mueller’s investigation is completed."

I have said, as well, I will wait to see the collusion. Manifort is being charged with money laundering before the Trump campaign even began. He has not been proven guilty of any collusion with Russia while working on the Trump campaign.

Robert Mueller Subpoenas Paul Manafort's Global Bank Accounts in Russia Investigation

What evidence of collusion are you talking about in your words above? The words I have emboldened and underlined.

And then you say this:

"I really don’t know why you keep responding to anything I say with “Trump collusion not proven!”. You can’t possibly still be under the impression that I’m claiming that."

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are saying "there is some evidence". Evidence is factual. It's used in court. Where is the evidence?

If you cannot present "evidence" it means you are "speculating".

Are you abandoning, then, your original question as to the difference between Steele and possible Russian collusion?

Evidence does not equal “proven”. It does not mean I have judged Trump or his campaign “guilty”. I have also stated that the evidence might not be enough to convict or even illegal.

The evidence so far includes:
Don Jr’s meeting in Trump Tower for information that he was explicity told came from the Russian government.

The fact that the Special Counsel is charged with investigating whether Trump’s campaign colluded. This is circumstantial, but you don’t start an investigation without some evidence to begin with. We know the FBI has been investigating this possibility since summer of 2016.

Trump hired Michael Flynn as his National Security Advisor despite many warnings that he was compromised. Flynn and his firm have been lobbying on behalf of a pro-Russia Ukrainian Party. He was fired in 2014 by Obama for temperament and mismanagement issues. He appeared and spoke on RT (Russia state tv) for $45,000 (which he failed to report). He spoke with the Russian government about sanctions relief prior to Trump’s inauguration and then lied about it to the FBI. Trump didn’t act upon the many warnings given to him of Flynn’s activity prior to Flynn’s resignation in Feb. Trump furthermore continued to try to protect him.

The fact that multiple campaign advisors had extensive ties to Russia.
Manafort was indicted for money laundering, tax fraud, and failing to register as foreign agents. He has received "millions of dollars" from Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs and is in debt to pro-Russian interests by as much as $17 million by the time he joined Trump's campaign team in March 2016.

Papadopoulos wanted to arrange a meeting between Trump and Russian officials after learning of a hoard of Kremlin dirt on Clinton. His loose lips to an Australian diplomat helped launch the FBI’s investigation into possible Russia-Trump collusion. He also lies to the FBI.

Page who also tried to set up Trump - Russia meetings, is another pro-Russia Trump foreign policy advisor. FBI also has been interested in the possibility he’s a foreign agent.

The fact that the FBI found that the Steele was credible and the Dossier corroborated some of their own investigation. They were planning to pay him to continue his investigation prior to him publishing it, which broke off their working arrangement.

Trump’s obstruction of the investigation. He stated that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. He reportedly wanted to fire Mueller but was talked down. His long term refusal to accept our intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russians were behind the hacks, and that it was Russians who worked to influence the election on his behalf.

Trump’s apparent praise and liking of Putin and his Russian financial ties as well.

All of this is evidence. It presents a scene of plentiful Russian contact. It is enough to present suspicion. But much is circumstantial, and I understand that. I too await Mueller’s conclusions.

 

[Phantasman]

Yeah, you're right about the indictments. But we do know for a fact that multiple members of Trumps staff met with the Russians, and we know his son had a meeting specifically about Russia helping Trump in the election. These may not rise to the level of arrestable offenses. But when coupled with the current batch of arrest, it's hard not to see collusion as likely to anyone with any sense.

Like I said, there's plenty of blame to pass around on both sides. Clinton had as much activity outside the country as Trumps campaign did. I want to know who violated the laws of the election. Who did something illegal. We know that politicians aren't concerned about what is ethical as they are getting caught with something that could put them in an unlawful status. If I listen to the US MSM, I would hate Putin and the Russians. If I listen to Pravda and BBC, I see a difference in how the world views our internal divisions as baseless.

Both sides have an agenda to make people see their side of the division. I see both sides and refuse to choose a side. Lady Justice holds a scale. Until the facts are at a conclusive end, I refuse to tip the scale in one direction or the other. My patriotism of the laws of this country prevent me from doing so.

Sorry. My views are Independent. Not divisive. And not influenced by a media that is just as divisive. The only things that seem to eliminate such divisiveness in this country is catastrophes. It never used to be that way.

 

[Phantasman]

Are you abandoning, then, your original question as to the difference between Steele and possible Russian collusion?

Evidence does not equal “proven”. It does not mean I have judged Trump or his campaign “guilty”. I have also stated that the evidence might not be enough to convict or even illegal.

The evidence so far includes:
Don Jr’s meeting in Trump Tower for information that he was explicity told came from the Russian government.

The fact that the Special Counsel is charged with investigating whether Trump’s campaign colluded. This is circumstantial, but you don’t start an investigation without some evidence to begin with. We know the FBI has been investigating this possibility since summer of 2016.

Trump hired Michael Flynn as his National Security Advisor despite many warnings that he was compromised. Flynn and his firm have been lobbying on behalf of a pro-Russia Ukrainian Party. He was fired in 2014 by Obama for temperament and mismanagement issues. He appeared and spoke on RT (Russia state tv) for $45,000 (which he failed to report). He spoke with the Russian government about sanctions relief prior to Trump’s inauguration and then lied about it to the FBI. Trump didn’t act upon the many warnings given to him of Flynn’s activity prior to Flynn’s resignation in Feb. Trump furthermore continued to try to protect him.

The fact that multiple campaign advisors had extensive ties to Russia.
Manafort was indicted for money laundering, tax fraud, and failing to register as foreign agents. He has received "millions of dollars" from Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs and is in debt to pro-Russian interests by as much as $17 million by the time he joined Trump's campaign team in March 2016.

Papadopoulos wanted to arrange a meeting between Trump and Russian officials after learning of a hoard of Kremlin dirt on Clinton. His loose lips to an Australian diplomat helped launch the FBI’s investigation into possible Russia-Trump collusion. He also lies to the FBI.

Page who also tried to set up Trump - Russia meetings, is another pro-Russia Trump foreign policy advisor. FBI also has been interested in the possibility he’s a foreign agent.

The fact that the FBI found that the Steele was credible and the Dossier corroborated some of their own investigation. They were planning to pay him to continue his investigation prior to him publishing it, which broke off their working arrangement.

Trump’s obstruction of the investigation. He stated that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. He reportedly wanted to fire Mueller but was talked down. His long term refusal to accept our intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russians were behind the hacks, and that it was Russians who worked to influence the election on his behalf.

Trump’s apparent praise and liking of Putin and his Russian financial ties as well.

All of this is evidence. It presents a scene of plentiful Russian contact. It is enough to present suspicion. But much is circumstantial, and I understand that. I too await Mueller’s conclusions.

Oh please. You want me to believe a site from:

Ezra Klein is the editor-at-large and founder of Vox. Before that, he was columnist and editor at the Washington Post, a policy analyst at MSNBC, and a contributor to Bloomberg. He's written for the New Yorker and the New York Review of Books, and appeared on Face the Nation, Real Time with Bill Maher,

Just proof that you follow the side that feeds your view, rather than seeing the big picture. Like MSNBC and Bloomberg are truth rather than leftist outlets. Nice try.

 

[Falvlun]

Oh please. You want me to believe a site from:

Ezra Klein is the editor-at-large and founder of Vox. Before that, he was columnist and editor at the Washington Post, a policy analyst at MSNBC, and a contributor to Bloomberg. He's written for the New Yorker and the New York Review of Books, and appeared on Face the Nation, Real Time with Bill Maher,

Just proof that you follow the side that feeds your view, rather than seeing the big picture. Like MSNBC and Bloomberg are truth rather than leftist outlets. Nice try.

Indicate which specific source you are objecting to and I will replace it with a different one.

I note that you did not address any of the others.

Besides I thought you were saying that you look at both sides. Kinda hard if you reject out of hand something you consider a “leftish” source. (Note: I do not find anything particularly objectionable with the resume you listed.)

I also wonder: Do you now understand the difference between “I believe there is some evidence of collusion” vs “I believe collusion has been proven”?

 

[Falvlun]

Like I said, there's plenty of blame to pass around on both sides. Clinton had as much activity outside the country as Trumps campaign did.

You claim, unironically, without providing a shred of evidence. How amusing.

Does it occur to you that Clinton isn’t president? Trump is. Therefore it is much more pertinent to the safety of our nation if he has been compromised.

Both sides have an agenda to make people see their side of the division. I see both sides and refuse to choose a side. Lady Justice holds a scale. Until the facts are at a conclusive end, I refuse to tip the scale in one direction or the other. My patriotism of the laws of this country prevent me from doing so.

Seeing as you don’t even accept things that have a conclusive end— the fact that the Russians supported Trump’s election and hurt Clinton— I have little faith that you’d accept other conclusions that may go against Trump.

 

[Phantasman]

Indicate which specific source you are objecting to and I will replace it with a different one.

I note that you did not address any of the others.

Besides I thought you were saying that you look at both sides. Kinda hard if you reject out of hand something you consider a “leftish” source. (Note: I do not find anything particularly objectionable with the resume you listed.)

I also wonder: Do you now understand the difference between “I believe there is some evidence of collusion” vs “I believe collusion has been proven”?

Let's take one. Firing Comey. Your site said Trump fired him over the collusion investigation. Trump fired him due to the mistrust of Comey over the Clinton email fiasco and the deterioration of the office Comey held.

Trump fires FBI Director Comey

Trump knew the investigation would continue. He didn't want an inept person doing it.

FYI- Collusion is not against the law even if they find out collusion did exist.

What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?

I want to see what laws were broken and how the election was changed. So far .........none or nothing.

 

[Phantasman]

You claim, unironically, without providing a shred of evidence. How amusing.

Does it occur to you that Clinton isn’t president? Trump is. Therefore it is much more pertinent to the safety of our nation if he has been compromised.



Seeing as you don’t even accept things that have a conclusive end— the fact that the Russians supported Trump’s election and hurt Clinton— I have little faith that you’d accept other conclusions that may go against Trump.

And you wanted Clinton as President, right?

Hillary Clinton rigged DNC against Bernie Sanders, Brazile Claims

It’s no secret that Putin doesn’t like Clinton. She often tussled with Putin and his administration while serving as secretary of state, overseeing the so-called "Russian reset." But he also may not like Trump’s unpredictable nature, said Dmitry Gorenburg, a senior research scientist at CNA, a think tank.

Putin believes Clinton stoked protests in Russia surrounding its 2011 elections. So if Putin did intentionally interfere in the U.S. election, it might have been to get back at Clinton rather than an attempt to prop up Trump, Gorenburg added.

Did Russia pick the president?

How about that Hillary Clinton. Hates the taste of her own medicine, it appears.

 

[Falvlun]

Let's take one. Firing Comey. Your site said Trump fired him over the collusion investigation. Trump fired him due to the mistrust of Comey over the Clinton email fiasco and the deterioration of the office Comey held.

Trump fires FBI Director Comey

Trump knew the investigation would continue. He didn't want an inept person doing it.

So, Trump was lying when he stated: “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’” VIDEO

FYI- Collusion is not against the law even if they find out collusion did exist.

What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?

I want to see what laws were broken and how the election was changed. So far .........none or nothing.

Why do you think I don’t know that? I’ve already twice stated as such— “if it’s even illegal”.

I also suggest you read through your own source. While “collusion” is not a criminal legal word, “conspiracy” is. The fact that the media and us laymen are using “collusion” to describe the possible criminal activities does not mean that possible criminal activities didn’t occur.

From your source:
“Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign.”

 

[Falvlun]

And you wanted Clinton as President, right?

Hillary Clinton rigged DNC against Bernie Sanders, Brazile Claims

However unsavory, there is nothing illegal— or comparable to a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT— about a private American organization (the DNC) choosing their candidate.

It’s no secret that Putin doesn’t like Clinton. She often tussled with Putin and his administration while serving as secretary of state, overseeing the so-called "Russian reset." But he also may not like Trump’s unpredictable nature, said Dmitry Gorenburg, a senior research scientist at CNA, a think tank.

Putin believes Clinton stoked protests in Russia surrounding its 2011 elections. So if Putin did intentionally interfere in the U.S. election, it might have been to get back at Clinton rather than an attempt to prop up Trump, Gorenburg added.

Did Russia pick the president?

How about that Hillary Clinton. Hates the taste of her own medicine, it appears.

I fail to see how this changes the fact that the Russian government meddled in our election. Why do their reasons matter? The fact remains: they supported Trump’s Presidency and now he’s president.

 

[Phantasman]

[QUOTE="Falvlun, post: 5509910, member: 16545"]However unsavory, there is nothing illegal— or comparable to a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT— about a private American organization (the DNC) choosing their candidate.


I fail to see how this changes the fact that the Russian government meddled in our election. Why do their reasons matter? The fact remains: they supported Trump’s Presidency and now he’s president.[/QUOTE]

lol........so what? They have always "meddled" in our elections. Just as we "meddle" in other countries elections. The Obama administration was caught meddling in Israels elections a few years ago.

Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples

I supported Trump and he's President. So did a lot of Americans. Does that make us Russians?

The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries

Is Trump your President or not? If not, who is?

He's President until something proves otherwise. If he's not your President, you are just an anarchist, IMO.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news, more charges (tax fraud).....
Mueller adds new tax, bank fraud charges against Manafort, Gates

 

[Falvlun]

@Phantasman, please note that you are following a pattern: 1) make a claim or argument. 2) have that claim or argument rebutted. 3) ignore rebuttal, make new claim. 4) repeat process

This makes it difficult to follow any one line of argument to completion.

lol........so what? They have always "meddled" in our elections. Just as we "meddle" in other countries elections. The Obama administration was caught meddling in Israels elections a few years ago.

Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples

So now we are on to your next claim: It doesn’t matter that Russia meddled in our elections because the US has done it to other countries.
Without delving into whether the comparison is apt or whether it’s true that it always happens, we can show that this justification is unsupportable.

1) Does one crime somehow make the existence of another crime acceptable?

2) the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan. So does that mean it’s ok if another country drops nuclear bombs on us?

3) all countries perform espionage. That doesn’t mean that when a country’s spies are caught, that the effected country just shrugs and says it’s ok because they do it too.

4) as an American patriot, why do you think it’s ok for a foreign government to attack our democracy? Why are you trying to justify their actions against our country?

I supported Trump and he's President. So did a lot of Americans. Does that make us Russians?

This is farcical.

No, Phantasman. You can sleep soundly knowing you are not a Russian.

But the fact that you are not a Russian doesn’t mean that real Russians didn’t support Trump and work to get him elected.

Is Trump your President or not? If not, who is?

He's President until something proves otherwise. If he's not your President, you are just an anarchist, IMO.

Have I ever indicated that he’s not?

Are you implying that it is somehow unAmerican to acknowledge that the Russians influenced the election in favor of Trump and that it’s possible he worked with them?

Edit: For civility.

 

[Falvlun]

In the news, more charges (tax fraud).....
Mueller adds new tax, bank fraud charges against Manafort, Gates

Thanks for the update! These guys are toast.

 

[Revoltingest]

Has anyone else noticed that @Phantasman is following a pattern here? 1) make a claim or argument. 2) have that claim or argument rebutted. 3) ignore rebuttal, make new claim. 4) repeat process

I think it can be useful to advise a poster on some dysfunctional patterns,
but it's a bad idea to speak of them in 3rd person, even if alerting them.
Things could get ugly if we criticize someone to others.
(I offer this out of fearful & selfish reasons.)

 

[Falvlun]

I think it can be useful to advise a poster on some dysfunctional patterns,
but it's a bad idea to speak of them in 3rd person, even if alerting them.
Things could get ugly if we criticize someone to others.
(I offer this out of fearful & selfish reasons.)

I’ll change it to first person. I think. Can’t remember this grammar tense.

 

[Phantasman]

@Phantasman, please note that you are following a pattern: 1) make a claim or argument. 2) have that claim or argument rebutted. 3) ignore rebuttal, make new claim. 4) repeat process

This makes it difficult to follow any one line of argument to completion.

So now we are on to your next claim: It doesn’t matter that Russia meddled in our elections because the US has done it to other countries.
Without delving into whether the comparison is apt or whether it’s true that it always happens, we can show that this justification is unsupportable.

1) Does one crime somehow make the existence of another crime acceptable?

2) the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan. So does that mean it’s ok if another country drops nuclear bombs on us?

3) all countries perform espionage. That doesn’t mean that when a country’s spies are caught, that the effected country just shrugs and says it’s ok because they do it too.

4) as an American patriot, why do you think it’s ok for a foreign government to attack our democracy? Why are you trying to justify their actions against our country?

This is farcical.

No, Phantasman. You can sleep soundly knowing you are not a Russian.

But the fact that you are not a Russian doesn’t mean that real Russians didn’t support Trump and work to get him elected.

Have I ever indicated that he’s not?

Are you implying that it is somehow unAmerican to acknowledge that the Russians influenced the election in favor of Trump and that it’s possible he worked with them?

Edit: For civility.

This is unproductive and a waste of time. I'm moving on.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’ll change it to first person. I think. Can’t remember this grammar tense.

You want 2nd person.

 

[fantome profane]

FYI- Collusion is not against the law even if they find out collusion did exist.

What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?

This maybe the very reason behind this indictment. It establishes as a legal fact that what the Russians did is a crime. Therefore if anyone is found to have knowingly helped them commit this crime they are also guilty of a crime.

 

[Underhill]

Like I said, there's plenty of blame to pass around on both sides. Clinton had as much activity outside the country as Trumps campaign did. I want to know who violated the laws of the election. Who did something illegal. We know that politicians aren't concerned about what is ethical as they are getting caught with something that could put them in an unlawful status. If I listen to the US MSM, I would hate Putin and the Russians. If I listen to Pravda and BBC, I see a difference in how the world views our internal divisions as baseless.

Both sides have an agenda to make people see their side of the division. I see both sides and refuse to choose a side. Lady Justice holds a scale. Until the facts are at a conclusive end, I refuse to tip the scale in one direction or the other. My patriotism of the laws of this country prevent me from doing so.

Sorry. My views are Independent. Not divisive. And not influenced by a media that is just as divisive. The only things that seem to eliminate such divisiveness in this country is catastrophes. It never used to be that way.

I couldn't care less what politicians think. I have my own spine. When I see staff meeting with Russians and the Russians tampering with elections, it angers me. If it doesn't anger you then you have chosen a side. It's really that simple.

 

[Falvlun]

This is unproductive and a waste of time. I'm moving on.

I only hope this has caused you to question some of your talking points.