Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

[Phantom Roxas]

https://twitter.com/page88/status/1104385343871205377

https://twitter.com/stacey_kent/status/1104394520169308161

https://twitter.com/page88/status/1104402454974742533

 

Overall some good casual insights on Judge Ellis. Even though he suggested that the Russian probe should not be mentioned during the trial, he had no qualms about using dog whistles to pander to Trump's base, and his ruling was based entirely on spiting the special counsel. He also has a history of rewarding white privilege, while he will pursue the harshest possible sentences against African-Americans guilty of the same crimes as the white men that Ellis is lenient towards have committed.

 

I realize that "owning the libs" means that abuses in the justice system shouldn't be criticized if the decision favors Trump's side, because scoring points for your own party is somehow more important than following due process, but Ellis ruled entirely by his own racial bias and defying Mueller, when neither should have been a factor in his judgment. I'm hoping Jackson gives Manafort more than a slap on the wrist.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Did you complain when the 9C0A bent rules to support leftist injunctions and had to be slapped down by SCOTUS repeatedly?

 

Also, random twitter blue checks aren't exactly the final judgment in white privilege 

[Phantom Roxas]

Did you complain when the 9C0A bent rules to support leftist injunctions and had to be slapped down by SCOTUS repeatedly?

Nothing in this comment addresses anything regarding my actual argument. Stick to Manafort's case instead of deflecting onto something else. Again.

 

Also, random twitter blue checks aren't exactly the final judgment in white privilege

Where exactly did I say they were the "final judgment"? I'm bringing up these comments because I thought that they were useful to the topic. You're making this about their checkmarks when I'm trying to focus on what they're saying, and how Ellis' own actions reflect on his judgment, to establish that he has a pattern of acting disproportionately lenient towards white men.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/judge-amy-berman-jackson/index.html

 

Since Winter seems to have abandoned his bad faith argument because he failed to back up a talking point he parroted from Tucker Carlson even though it had already been debunked, let's keep an eye on Manafort's sentence hearing tomorrow. Roger Stone will be also in court on Thursday for a potential trial date.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/11/mueller-investigation-end-1214817

 

Status reports are also due from Rick Gates and Michael Flynn, who have been cooperating with the special counsel.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Breaking: Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been sentenced to an additional 3.5 years in prison

 

Get funked

[Phantom Roxas]

I don't see how Trump's former campaign advisor getting a higher sentence is any cause for bragging. Jackson was only able to sentence him up to a maximum of ten years, and to give him seven and a half years out of those ten does not somehow mean it's a victory for you. You're going to have to explain the logic of how Manafort getting sentenced for conspiracy against the United States is supposed to "owns the libs".

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I don't see how Trump's former campaign advisor getting a higher sentence is any cause for bragging. Jackson was only able to sentence him up to a maximum of ten years, and to give him seven and a half years out of those ten does not somehow mean it's a victory for you. You're going to have to explain the logic of how Manafort getting sentenced for conspiracy against the United States is supposed to "owns the libs".

Concurrent sentences 

 

So that's 43 months additional time on top of the EDVA sentence, for a total of 90 months, or 7.5 years. He gets credit for time served, will get good-time credit of up to 15%, and may get additional credit under the new and untested First Step Act.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/paul-manafort-indicted-by-ny-prosecutors-after-federal-sentencing.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/nyregion/manafort-indictment.html

 

Manafort faces additional charges of bank fraud. These are state charges, which means that Trump cannot pardon Manafort if he is convicted.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/14/roger-stone-trial-1221289

 

Roger Stone's trial has been set for Nov. 5, where he faces charges of lying to Congress and obstructing the Russia investigation.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/14/house-resolution-release-mueller-report-1221287

 

Congress unanimously passed a resolution calling for the findings of Mueller's report to be made public.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/22/robert-mueller-report-president-trump-russia-election-investigation/2213214002/

 

Muller's report has been submitted to the Attorney General. Now to see if it is released to the public.

[vla1ne]

At the moment all we know is that there are no further indictments against trump. Going by that alone, i can say with with confidence that this probe was a rather large waste of time. Nothing as of yet has tied in to the initial reason for the probe, and we have confirmation that nothing more is coming. aside from people getting pinned for things we already knew about, What of substance exactly, could be in there at this point that would change the current course it's heading towards? That course being nothing at all of substance coming forth. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

At the moment all we know is that there are no further indictments against trump. Going by that alone, i can say with with confidence that this probe was a rather large waste of time. Nothing as of yet has tied in to the initial reason for the probe, and we have confirmation that nothing more is coming. aside from people getting pinned for things we already knew about, What of substance exactly, could be in there at this point that would change the current course it's heading towards? That course being nothing at all of substance coming forth. 

Ok, so lets say why reason why the president isn't indicted due to being unable to indict a sitting president. Fine, let's concede that. Why would Mueller not indict ANYONE else on collusion either? Even people like Manafort and Flynn weren't hit on collusion. Trump Jr straight up wasn't slapped at all. It's pretty clear he got nothing

There will be vengeance against the democrats for this travesty they've inflicted on the nation

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Report isn't public yet, last time I checked, so don't count your chickens before they hatch. That goes for all sides.

[Phantom Roxas]

No idea how the Democrats are somehow to blame for this, but I guess scapegoating them is all the GOP can do.

 

I love how we're claiming that Manafort wasn't hit on collusion, completely ignoring that he was specifically charged for conspiracy to defraud the United States because of his work with a pro-Russian agent.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Report isn't public yet, last time I checked, so don't count your chickens before they hatch. That goes for all sides.

It was stated there are no further indictments, what's the spin on that. No further ones, no sealed ones

No idea how the Democrats are somehow to blame for this, but I guess scapegoating them is all the GOP can do.

 

I love how we're claiming that Manafort wasn't hit on collusion, completely ignoring that he was specifically charged for conspiracy to defraud the United States because of his work with a pro-Russian agent.

Is that sarcasm? That first line. I can't tell if you're mocking lol

 

The Judge sure didn't think so at second line

[Nathanael D. Striker]

It was stated there are no further indictments, what's the spin on that. No further ones, no sealed ones

 

That much I got from NYT; however, "With department officials emphasizing that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry was over and his office closing, the question for both Mr. Trump’s critics and defenders was whether the prosecutors condemned the president’s behavior in their report, exonerated him — or neither."

 

Hence the need not to count your chickens before they hatch.

[vla1ne]

That much I got from NYT; however, "With department officials emphasizing that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry was over and his office closing, the question for both Mr. Trump’s critics and defenders was whether the prosecutors condemned the president’s behavior in their report, exonerated him — or neither."

 

Hence the need not to count your chickens before they hatch.

Way i see that is, if they condemned him, this would not close out the way it looks to be closing out.  I get where you're coming from, as there is always the chance that somebody could be getting hammered out of the blue, but it really doesn't look like it from the way things are going right now.

 

 

No idea how the Democrats are somehow to blame for this, but I guess scapegoating them is all the GOP can do.

 

[spoiler=Well they may not all be culpable...]

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-files-lawsuit-alleging-russia-the-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks-conspired-to-disrupt-the-2016-campaign/2018/04/20/befe8364-4418-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.4374a5b3af20

But they damn sure went hard with the narrative.

 

 

 

 

[Phantom Roxas]

Is that sarcasm? That first line. I can't tell if you're mocking lol

 

The Judge sure didn't think so at second line

 

Yes, it's sarcasm. The GOP loves to act like Democrats are somehow traitors because they investigated treason.

 

You weren't talking about the judge. You asked why Mueller didn't indict anyone on charges of collusion, which completely ignores that he did specifically charge people for conspiracy to defraud the United States.

 

[spoiler=Well they may not all be culpable...]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJeIZSdh1JA

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLZ2cBfQ8X0

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ2d-ew66fQ

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-files-lawsuit-alleging-russia-the-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks-conspired-to-disrupt-the-2016-campaign/2018/04/20/befe8364-4418-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.4374a5b3af20

But they damn sure went hard with the narrative.

 

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/robert-mueller-everyone-charged-russia-investigation

 

What "narrative"? There was a narrative about Paul Manafort being sentenced for witness tampering and obstruction of justice? There was a narrative about Roger Stone lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks? There was a narrative about Mueller indicting twelve Russians who work for the Internet Research Agency? There was a narrative about Mike Flynn lying to Congress about his contacts with a Russian ambassador? There was a narrative about George Papadopoulos lying about his meetings with Russians to get "dirt"?

 

You want to vilify the Democrats as traitors to the nation when all the did was respond to an investigation that indicted more than a fair amount of people with connections to the President. Even if you want to claim that the worst crimes were that these mean lied to Congress or the FBI, I really have to ask, why is it that the recurring pattern is that they lied specifically about contacts with Russians, either about Trump's business plans, or about getting dirt on Clinton?

 

Seriously, look at you absurd your reaction is. The special counsel charges multiple people with connections to either Trump or Russia, or even both… and it's the Democrats who are the traitors? And their worst crimes are that they agree with Mueller's indictments? This is, of course, also ignoring that Devin Nunes abused his position on the House Intelligence Committee to bury evidence to protect Trump, so what I'm seeing is that Republicans committed crimes because of this investigation, meaning that they were only guilty after the fact, so claiming that people were getting pinned for things we already knew about is completely false.

 

Treating the Democrats like the real villains here is the least logical course of action here. It just means you're less mad at the person who did something wrong, and more mad at the person who called them out for it.

 

EDIT:

https://patribotics.blog/2019/03/23/mueller-schiff-blumenthal-cicilline-predict-indictments/

 

“Well, what it means is that the Office of the Special Counsel, which is essentially a contract attorney to the Justice Department, that that Office won’t be bringing any further indictments. It doesn’t mean, of course, that main Justice, or the Southern District of New York US Attorney’s office, or the Eastern District or others may not bring indictments; in fact, given the lengthy redactions in many of the pleadings of the Special Counsel alluding to other investigations, I think it’s entirely possible, if not likely, that there will be other indictments. Now how central or peripheral they’ll be to the core issues of potential conspiracy is yet to be determined.”

 

And there were 37 indictments that were made thanks to this investigation. vla1ne, can you honestly say that this investigation didn't change anything?

[Nathanael D. Striker]

POLITICO: Pelosi tells Dems she'll reject highly classified briefing on Mueller findings.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/23/pelosi-mueller-report-1233317

 

One interesting tidbit as to a reason why no indictments happened: "Internal Justice Department guidelines state that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and senior DOJ officials, including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, have indicated that the department would not disclose damaging information about individuals who are not indicted. But Democrats have argued that Congress is entitled to such information as part of its own sweeping investigations into obstruction of justice and abuse of power on the part of President Donald Trump."

 

I don't know whether or not there is anything as we still don't have the report, but keep this in mind.

[vla1ne]

 

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/robert-mueller-everyone-charged-russia-investigation

 

What "narrative"? There was a narrative about Paul Manafort being sentenced for witness tampering and obstruction of justice? There was a narrative about Roger Stone lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks? There was a narrative about Mueller indicting twelve Russians who work for the Internet Research Agency? There was a narrative about Mike Flynn lying to Congress about his contacts with a Russian ambassador? There was a narrative about George Papadopoulos lying about his meetings with Russians to get "dirt"?

 

You want to vilify the Democrats as traitors to the nation when all the did was respond to an investigation that indicted more than a fair amount of people with connections to the President. Even if you want to claim that the worst crimes were that these mean lied to Congress or the FBI, I really have to ask, why is it that the recurring pattern is that they lied specifically about contacts with Russians, either about Trump's business plans, or about getting dirt on Clinton?

 

Seriously, look at you absurd your reaction is. The special counsel charges multiple people with connections to either Trump or Russia, or even both… and it's the Democrats who are the traitors? And their worst crimes are that they agree with Mueller's indictments? This is, of course, also ignoring that Devin Nunes abused his position on the House Intelligence Committee to bury evidence to protect Trump, so what I'm seeing is that Republicans committed crimes because of this investigation, meaning that they were only guilty after the fact, so claiming that people were getting pinned for things we already knew about is completely false.

 

Treating the Democrats like the real villains here is the least logical course of action here. It just means you're less mad at the person who did something wrong, and more mad at the person who called them out for it.

 

EDIT:

https://patribotics.blog/2019/03/23/mueller-schiff-blumenthal-cicilline-predict-indictments/

 

“Well, what it means is that the Office of the Special Counsel, which is essentially a contract attorney to the Justice Department, that that Office won’t be bringing any further indictments. It doesn’t mean, of course, that main Justice, or the Southern District of New York US Attorney’s office, or the Eastern District or others may not bring indictments; in fact, given the lengthy redactions in many of the pleadings of the Special Counsel alluding to other investigations, I think it’s entirely possible, if not likely, that there will be other indictments. Now how central or peripheral they’ll be to the core issues of potential conspiracy is yet to be determined.”

 

And there were 37 indictments that were made thanks to this investigation. vla1ne, can you honestly say that this investigation didn't change anything?

 

The narrative was that trump was colluding with Russia. They have absolutely nothing yet that proves that. and as far as we know, we never did. I said that from the middle, and winter has, albeit roughly, explained from the start, exactly why the investigation was pointless. Manfort was busted on things that had nothing at all to do with trump. He got hit with charges for things he did years before he ran with trump. Roger stone was arrested on charges that were proven false. The Russians had approximately nothing to do with trump, they were in fact caught up in a cyberattack that was actually approved by trump, so how they count against this i'm not seeing. mike flynn lied to Congress, and that is what he got busted on, his lies do not connect to trump though, and he got caught up on multiple lies, so he's arguably just a liar. His entire testimony is unreliable as a result, so there's no conclusion to be drawn aside from he was just a casualty in the crossfire. George was the only person involved in his indictment and had no lasting effects on the election OR the trial.

 

I'm not making them villains, i'm pointing out that they have been dogmatic in their pursuit, even in the absolute absence of anything resembling collusion on trumps part. Had they taken a step back and looked at the case as a whole, they would have realized that the case held no grounds in the first place. let me remind you again, as winter has said prior, absolutely nothing that anybody was indicted for had anything to do with trump, and trump aside, very little of it was even remotely related to the 2016 election. So yeah, they hit people for anything they could find. and some idiots managed to shoot themselves in the foot as well.

 

[spoiler=To that argument, i say this:] 

and 

 

 

Democrats don't agree with the indictments, they just want anything they can hit trump with. I have proven this time and again, in the government thread. and this once again shows what i mean. Now that they know the investigation against trump is a nothing-burger with extra salt, some of them want to disregard the entirety of the probe. That's not justice. That's TDS. By the way, as we have seen already, from everything currently available, trump has done nothing wrong they have nothing on him. So your analogy falls flat rather quickly.

 

 

They already brought indictments from the higest seats in the land, coming off of a two year invesigation. Nothing came out that hurts trump, Let me repeat that: A two year long investigation from the highest seats in the land (as relating to such investigations) has to the best of our current knowledge, pulled up nothing that ties trump to russian collusion in the 2016 elections. What this means is that the entire point of this investigation, has been fruitless. No matter how many people got shot down on the side for unrelated issues, this investigation failed in it's actual goals, and nothing of any value was gained, practically everything anybody got hit for was from times well before trump sat in, or ran for office. the rest was solo action that produced no results on either end, and the entirety of the investigation was kicked off by a proven false dossier. So yeah, honestly, the investigation changed nothing of value.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Mueller did everything he wanted to do

[Phantom Roxas]

The narrative was that trump was colluding with Russia. They have absolutely nothing yet that proves that. and as far as we know, we never did. I said that from the middle, and winter has, albeit roughly, explained from the start, exactly why the investigation was pointless. Manfort was busted on things that had nothing at all to do with trump. He got hit with charges for things he did years before he ran with trump. Roger stone was arrested on charges that were proven false. The Russians had approximately nothing to do with trump, they were in fact caught up in a cyberattack that was actually approved by trump, so how they count against this i'm not seeing. mike flynn lied to Congress, and that is what he got busted on, his lies do not connect to trump though, and he got caught up on multiple lies, so he's arguably just a liar. His entire testimony is unreliable as a result, so there's no conclusion to be drawn aside from he was just a casualty in the crossfire. George was the only person involved in his indictment and had no lasting effects on the election OR the trial.

 

I'm not making them villains, i'm pointing out that they have been dogmatic in their pursuit, even in the absolute absence of anything resembling collusion on trumps part. Had they taken a step back and looked at the case as a whole, they would have realized that the case held no grounds in the first place. let me remind you again, as winter has said prior, absolutely nothing that anybody was indicted for had anything to do with trump, and trump aside, very little of it was even remotely related to the 2016 election. So yeah, they hit people for anything they could find. and some idiots managed to shoot themselves in the foot as well.

 

[spoiler=To that argument, i say this:] 

and 

Democrats don't agree with the indictments, they just want anything they can hit trump with. I have proven this time and again, in the government thread. and this once again shows what i mean. Now that they know the investigation against trump is a nothing-burger with extra salt, some of them want to disregard the entirety of the probe. That's not justice. That's TDS. By the way, as we have seen already, from everything currently available, trump has done nothing wrong they have nothing on him. So your analogy falls flat rather quickly.

 

 

They already brought indictments from the higest seats in the land, coming off of a two year invesigation. Nothing came out that hurts trump, Let me repeat that: A two year long investigation from the highest seats in the land (as relating to such investigations) has to the best of our current knowledge, pulled up nothing that ties trump to russian collusion in the 2016 elections. What this means is that the entire point of this investigation, has been fruitless. No matter how many people got shot down on the side for unrelated issues, this investigation failed in it's actual goals, and nothing of any value was gained, practically everything anybody got hit for was from times well before trump sat in, or ran for office. the rest was solo action that produced no results on either end, and the entirety of the investigation was kicked off by a proven false dossier. So yeah, honestly, the investigation changed nothing of value.

 

Manafort coordinated with Russians during the Trump campaign. He was specifically cited as someone who could be used by the Russians to influence Trump. His correspondences with Konstantin Kilimnik involved feeding information about the campaign. This connection was established by Mueller.

 

How were Roger Stone's charges "proven" false?

 

The entire problem with the Russians was that they were specifically acting to tear down Trump's opponents and boost Trump himself. The cyber attack doesn't matter after the fact when Mueller still established that they were acting to support Trump.

 

Flynn pleaded guilty for lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian ambassador. I'm not disputing that it's what he got busted on, but you seem to be purposefully disregarding what specifically he lied about, and how it does connect to Trump, at least through Jared Kushner.

 

George coordinated with Mueller, and Trump lied about George because one minute he was hand-picked as one of Trump's foreign security advisors, then the next Trump claims that George was "nobody".

 

I'd say the fact that we're even talking about this many individuals who all happened to participate in Trump's campaign to varying degrees, and in multiple cases were charged with lying about contacts with Russian officials is ridiculously suspicious. How can you possibly believe that none of this could reflect on Trump, when Trump and Russia tend to the common factors in most if not all of these individuals who were indicted? And no, you can't say "Trump aside, very little of it was even remotely related to the 2016 election." That's literally saying "Except for this candidate who won the 2016 election, this has nothing to do with the 2016 election." That's not something you can easily disregard as though it were some exception to the rule, because it is the rule.

 

No, you haven't "proven it time and again." In the government thread, I wrote counterarguments providing multiple alternative explanations for Democrats have every reason to oppose Trump, but you completely disregarded them. For as much as you get on my case about whether I'm attacking a person instead of their argument, you've been doing the same thing. You attack the Democrats' character, and ignore any actual argument. That's not being "proven" right, that's just repeating your argument ad infinitum because you're rejecting evidence to the contrary. And in case you think that's more of an attack on your character instead of your argument, let me be more direct: You have not been proven right. Accept that. Otherwise, your argument amounts to little more than "I'm right and you're wrong."

 

What has been proven is that communications with Russian officials occurred during Trump's campaign, on behalf of associates directly connected with Trump. To state that this investigation was fruitless is to ignore what is right in front of your eyes.

 

You and Winter have given me a lot of flack about acting in bad faith, but I will be more blunt here. vla1ne, your posts, specifically the claims that this investigation did not amount to anything, continue to be false. I'm only stopping from saying you're lying now because I'm not sure if you're choosing to lie, or if you honestly believe that what you are saying is true. The dossier also was not proven false - at most, it had some parts verified, while other parts remain unverified, but absolutely nothing about it was actively shown to be wrong - so once more you're making a claim that is simply not correct. I'm going to ask: Are you choosing to lie, or do you simply not understand why the claims that you are making are false?

[vla1ne]

Manafort didn't actually affect the election or Trump. This was never proven, nor was he nailed on this. He was suspected of doing so, but the charges he got hit with came from well before the election. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/manafort-hit-with-new-indictment-for-obstruction-of-justice-634983 The first video i posted in that reply would have reminded you of as much. they hit manafort for things he did before he met trump. as far as we know, He did absolutely nothing while on trumps team. they're hitting him for things he did before meeting trump, and trying to frame it as if it has anything to di with trump, when there is no connection that they have demonstrated linking the two events (said events being the collusion between manafort and russian propoganda in 2012-2014 and his actions during the 2016 campaign.) If they had anything, they would have swung with it before bowing out, or we would have at the very least heard of it. so to repeat the point, Manafort did not get nailed for actions taken  during the campaign, he got nailed for events that occurred well before it. so nothing there connects to trump.

 

The charges against Roger stone of collusion with russia were proven false. he didn't get nailed on collusion, he got nailed because he had a discussion that he denied having years ago, and they hit him for lying on that charge. his very texts exonerate him on the russa charges, so they have nothing on him there. so to repeat the point: Stone got hit for denying a conversation, but nothing about his current charges connect him to russia. in other words, the Russia allegations (the only ones that matter here) do not hold water. The lying to congress means nothing without those allegations backing them. thy can put him away on those charges, but the very discussion he "Lied about having" was revealed to be one of the things that actually proved he had nothing to do with russia. Personally, that sounds to me like an honest mistake.

 

European/ canadian politicians were blatantly threatening to deny trade if russia got elected. every major country was flexing some manner of muscle, that's how national politics works. What you have to prove, is that trump made plans with them, and there is approximately zero evidence of that yet. EU countries tried to use their power to push Hillary, and we have reason to believe that she was not only meeting with ukraine and turkey to get dirt on trump, but that she accepted donations from european factions overseas into the clinton foundation please don't act like countries flexing their powers to get favorable candidates is anything new. The goal here is proof of collusion. Not seeing who flexed what cyber muscle. We still don't have that yet.

 

The contacts have not been linked in any aspect to trump though. His own story has multiple holes in it. There is nothing here that points to trump, it is yet another dead end, Moreover, it's one that came from beating a dead horse this time. We already knew what his connections were, and they failed to connect them to trump in either trial. Dead end. Next stop.

 

This does nothing for the actual investigation though. Like i said before, George's actions were an isolated incident, and a somewhat accidental one if the testimony is to be believed. It never made it as high up as trump, and him and trump had a falling out later in either case. Once again, no lasting effects, and no noticeable effects. it held zero bearing on the election that we know of, Mueller has yet to publish anything even remotely implicating that it had, or that it has any ties to trump..

 

Much of what they did happened well before they met him, and none of it has been proven to have influenced that actual election, or been connected to trump in any manner. Let me remind you, even if Russia today came out and said they wanted trump to win, the only thing that would do is put them on par with countries in the EU, which backed hillary. An outside country having a favored candidate, or a country stating their support for a candidate, is par for the course. You have to prove actual collusion, or actual ballot interference, to have a case, otherwise you just have a government with a favored candidate. same as Canada, Britain, Germany, ect. 

 

You have only to look at the thread in question to see that you literally cut off your entire argument no less than three times when i replied to you. you can claim all you like that i ignored your points, but the thread itself tells a different story. when i pointed out him giving them everything they asked for not minutes prior and them still rejecting him? You went silent. When i pointed out the flaws in your own cited sources, using the very arguments that you yourself had conceded not two posts prior? you went silent. when i pointed out the dogmatic hatred of trump using multiple speeches that gave democrats everything they wanted? you went quiet. When i pointed out how democrats refused to clap for cancer survivors all because trump was the one praising the research? you went quiet. I bring up two videos pointing out that democtatic news stations are willing to disregard the muller probe because as of now, it has nothing that can hit trump himself? You go quiet. I have a video showing Maddow on the verge of tears because the report is not enough to bring down trump? You ignore it. We have video of an entire faction of democrats appearing at the state of the union, and refusing to so much as clap for anything trump says, no matter how positive (at least until they themselves get praised) I see nothing from you. See where i'm going with this? I don't use ad hominem. When i point out character flaw, i use a basis of actions and arguments made by said person, and tie it into the point i'm making as respectfully as possible. We've been here before.  Quote any number of times where i attacked anybodies character without clearly using the person in questions own arguments and actions to drive the point home. You can't. Because I don't attack character. I attack arguments. Don't play that game with me. It may work for you with winter but i will win every time.

 

The investigation was to uncover proof that trump colluded with russia, there is no proof that trump colluded with russia. the vast majority of what people have been nailed with are unrelated to trump. and much of it comes from well before trump ran for office. According to all the info available to us right now, they have nowhere near enough to achieve their goal of bringing trump down, and as such, this entire thing is fruitless.

 

It's already over. Trump, as far as this investigation is concerned, is clean. In the U.S.A. we play the the rules of innocent until proven guilty. They have not proven any reasonable involvement on trumps part. As such, they have nothing of substance to show for their investigation. that is all there is to it. They nailed some people on mostly unrelated or otherwise pointless charges in relation to this case, such as tax evasion. That's to be expected. The actual goal for the investigation was never accomplished. In any known book, that's a loss.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

"According to all the info availible to us right now,"

 

And this is why I'm telling you guys to wait. We don't have everything. It's okay to speculate, but don't consider your speculations as gospel as it is subject to a change in available information. That goes for everyone.

 

And to you suggesting the probe failed vlaine, you are missing the point entirely. The probe's purpose was to determine whether or not Russian intervention existed, and through who if it did exist. A determination of no doesn't not mean the probe failed, it just means that was it's conclusion. It shouldn't be called a witch hunt for this reason.

[vla1ne]

"According to all the info availible to us right now,"

 

And this is why I'm telling you guys to wait. We don't have everything. It's okay to speculate, but don't consider your speculations as gospel as it is subject to a change in available information. That goes for everyone.

 

And to you suggesting the probe failed vlaine, you are missing the point entirely. The probe's purpose was to determine whether or not Russian intervention existed, and through who if it did exist. A determination of no doesn't not mean the probe failed, it just means that was it's conclusion. It shouldn't be called a witch hunt for this reason.

That's the reason i use that sentence. I'm going by what we have on hand. I'm trying to keep that caveat to reign in my own arguments. They may have shown nothing yet, but i concede there very well may be something they have yet to reveal. Though i doubt they would have stayed their hand for this long were that the case.

 

I can agree to the fact that it was to determine the extent of, if any collusion, but there's no point pretending the launch of the probe was going for anything less than taking down trump. The conclusion has been reached, and from what we have, they found no reasonable evidence of collusion. imo, that's a good thing, it means the president is clean, but there's article after article, video after video, that backs my claim that the goal of this (as far as many democrats are concerned) was nothing less than the destruction of trump, and that there is a notable percentage of people who will not accept the conclusion if it doesn't bring him down. That is the context with which i call it a witch hunt. Is it a legitimate investigation? Yes, It checks off all the official boxes, meaning it's a legit investigation. That does not mean it is not, or cannot also be called a witch hunt though. The two are not directly related, but they are not mutually exclusive. At this point, again, going by what we've seen over the past two years from both the trials, and the news coverage, it still qualifies as a witch hunt imo.