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

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It should be called a witch hunt because the president was called a traitor due to it for 2 years

[Phantom Roxas]

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 Thefirst 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'e 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 tha 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.

 

How are his connections during the 2016 election, as a part of the Trump campaign, during which he and Jared Kushner met with Russian officials supposedly about getting dirt on Hillary, not at all connected to Trump?

 

I can agree that he's getting hit on things he did before meeting Trump. Your mistake is that you're assuming that the things he got hit for proves that nothing he did during 2016 connects to Trump. What's actually true is that Manafort was charged for things he did before the Trump campaign, and while he was not charged for his actions during the campaign, there is still compelling evidence that he committed those actions. My take on this is that they cannot make indictments that would directly connect Trump to Russia, and only in an overwhelming amount of circumstances. Given the lengths that the GOP has taken to defend Trump, including Devin Nunes burying evidence, I think it's more likely that such direct indictments would have been beyond the scope of the investigation.

 

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.

 

He was hit for denying a conversation with Russian officials. That's the common factor I keep wanting to stress to you. These crimes were committed either because of contacts with Russian officials, or attempting to surborn perjury from another witness. You're right that lying to Congress means nothing without those allegations backing them, and it's because his lies were done with the specific intent of obstructing justice regarding Russia. However, that just means the allegations do hold water. To put this another way, if there was no connection to Russia, what could Roger Stone have been charged with? What could he possibly have lied that cannot be tied in any way to Russia?

 

For the sake of expediting this debate, you might as well just assume that I can and will point out if someone's crimes were done in connection with Russia. I realize how much the question of Russia's influence often borders on conspiracy, but it's ridiculously easy to point out those connections in Manafort and Stone's cases.

 

and 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.

Seriously, the Trump Tower meeting about getting dirt to use against Clinton, or the negotiations about building a tower in Moscow don't count?

 

EU countries tried to use their power to push Hillary, and we have reason to beleive 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 connection between Clinton and Ukraine is a common deflection tactic as though it should somehow distract from Trump's connections with Russia. No, I'm not at all acting like countries favoring candidates is anything new, so you can refrain from making that accusation. This thread is specifically about the collusion between Trump and Russia. It does not presume that foreign powers have never used their powers to support candidates. If you want to talk about Clinton and Ukraine, make your own thread about that.

 

This thread is specifically about discussing the special counsel's investigation into whether Trump and his campaign conspired with Russian officials to defraud the United States. You don't need to repeat the "But what about Clinton?" deflection, or act as if Trump or Russia are being held to a standard that no one else will be held to. It's just what this topic is about, so I recommend that you stay on that topic.

 

The goal here is proof of collusion. Not seeing who flexed what cyber muscle. We still don't have that yet.

You say that as if those two points are somehow mutually exclusive, except the point is that the Internet Research Agency was part of the collusion. No, the feeling may not be mutual, but it's still important to discuss the IRA's role, as they were indicted by Mueller.

 

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.

Judge Ellis explicitly stated that the purpose of the trial was not about how it related to the Mueller probe. That's not a failure to connect them, that just means that establishing such a connection was outside of the trial's scope. I don't believe there was as much of a direct statement in Judge Jackson's case, but again, it was Manafort who was on trial, not Trump. I would not have expected the trials to implicate Trump, merely to punish him for the charges that were already filed against him.

 

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..

George's actions fit a pattern. I'm sorry, but it is absolutely ridiculous to me that this many people involved in the campaign had ties to Russia, and I'm supposed to believe it somehow has no ties whatsoever to Trump, especially when George's actions also involved meeting someone who supposedly had dirt on Clinton, and that his only meeting with Trump was specifically about talking with Trump and Sessions about potentially meeting with Putin. Whether or not it had any bearing on the election shouldn't mean anything, when he still committed those actions in the first place. You don't punish a criminal based on how his crimes affected an election. You punish a criminal because of the crimes he committed.

 

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 actually don't need ballot interference to have a case. The collusion would, again, be conspiracy to defraud the United States. In particular, the crimes would involve that Trump and his campaign officials, or even his own family, coordinated with Russia specifically to sabotage Clinton's campaign. You're right that at most, we could just have Russia favoring Trump as their candidate, though honestly, even if you don't believe Trump is guilty of collusion, does anyone seriously doubt that Russia favored Trump? However, what transforms this from Russia favoring Trump into full-on collusion was that Trump had every reason to desperately see Hillary lose - and not just because she was his opponent, he outright despises her in particular - so that would at least establish motive for why he would agree to work with Russia. It would have been a mutually beneficial arrangement.

 

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 my 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.

In those instances, I went silent because I saw no purpose in continuing the debate as it was at the moment. I felt that it was a dead-end, and simply not worth the time it would take to respond. I ignored the video about Maddow, just as much as you are ignoring my comment about the Steele dossier here, because I wasn't going to spend a half hour watching videos when I had already heard about people attacking Maddow for supposedly crying. You can claim that it's somehow responding to an argument instead of attacking their character, but that is nonsense. Attacking Maddow on a deeply personal level over whether or not she was crying is despicable, and is absolutely concentrated on making a personal attack instead of any constructive argument.

 

You're getting further removed from the substance of this part of the argument. My argument was that you have not been consistently proven right about whether Democrats oppose Trump simply because he's Trump. I stated that your attacks on the Democrats were inappropriate, and if you want me to quote when you've attacked someone's character instead of their argument, I've already done that with the quote I'm responding to right here. Nothing in this quote actually addresses my argument that you only keep repeating that you are right, regardless of whether or not you are proven right. Instead, you're criticizing me for completely unrelated actions, which include exchanges in previous threads.

 

To dial this portion of our exchanges back a bit, I was specifically responding to when you said "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 does not seem to be true to me, given that Democrats have indicated that they want to subpoena Mueller to obtain both his report and possibly his evidence as well. The House also voted unanimously to have the report released publicly, and the subpoena seems like a last resort if that demand is not met. They clearly still see value in getting as much information as they can, so your claim that they want to disregard the entirety of the probe does not hold up.

 

It may work for you with winter but i will win every time.

This right here very encapsulates why I ignored some of your previous posts. Why would I want to respond to those arguments when you've already assumed that you 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 availible 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.

The "According to all the info availible to us right now" caveat really does not leave this statement as open as you would like. The report has yet to be made public, and indictments have not been so completely ruled out that we can state that Trump is clean. You cannot say that they have nothing to substance to show for their investigation because they quite literally have not gotten around to showing it yet. The goal of this investigation has yet to be accomplished, which is far different from never being accomplished. It's neither a win nor a loss. It just means that the investigation is over, and it's up to William Barr to release the investigation's findings, and for Congress to potentially act, considering the fear that Barr may withhold some information.

[vla1ne]

We've been over this. as best we know right now, the actions taken by manafort and kushner are related to trump by virtue of them being on the same side, but they were neither commissioned, endorsed, or even known about, by trump. As far as this case is concerned, nothing happened in 2016 that he can be nailed on. He has yet to be nailed on it as best we know, so my point stands.

 

That very conversation, as i have said in the post you quoted, was exactly what exonerated him. He talked to them yes, but from everything we have, nothing that he talked to them about was able to be brought against him in court, even as a part of the perjury charges. That's effectively the same as them saying that he did nothing illegal with them in said discussion.

 

Trump had nothing to do with the tower meeting. Nothing came of the tower meeting that goes back to trump, and trump has built towers across the globe.Neither affects him, so neither is relevant as far as connecting them. 

 

 

It wasn't deflection, it was pointing out that other parties are far higher on the totem of possible collusion/involvement, than trump has been shown to be so far. talking fairness, when we're talking interference, you have to prove actual involvement in the election process, not just endorsement, say... tampering with ballot boxes, or skewing the results via actual hacking, like actually getting another candidate screwed over in the polls. like we've seen in Virginia, California ect. this isn't an investigation to see who talked over what, it's an investigation to see if people colluded to steal an election. What has been done that can be taken down in court, not what looks russian enough to attack people. So far, not much has been shown, and so far, not enough to hit anybody directly on the 2016 charges. We've got some perjury cases, some banking fraud, some prior to 2016 shenanigans, but nothing actually affecting the election itself. and that was what was being looked into.

 

Russia spent under 10k on ads on facebook ads. and revealed some information they had on a candidate they didn't endorse. That's the level of flexing we've seen on their part. While interesting, and effective, it is not enough to say they interfered in the election in any illegal capacity (aka colluding with a given candidate), and does not prove collusion any more than any other country that might be involved.

 

 

Manafort made his own bed, This line can be tossed out offhand as you yourself have agreed that the trial was not about the muller probe. and that's the current context that we're holding this discussion in.

 

 

They're politicians and related professions. They have ties across the globe as the nature of their job requires. unless you're going to tell me there's any politician who's been seated for more than two terms who doesn't end up having connections across the globe? Hitting them on things they did before the election is irrelevant.

 

We have no evidence of actual conspiracy. That's the point. We only have evidence that they favored a candidate, and took actions unprompted that backed said candidate. Same as any other country with influence did during the election. did they play dirty? yes, but that has yet tp be proven as collusion, only as playing dirty. If that's enough to prove collusion, then every world stage politician and government is guilty of collusion by virtue of having political connections.

 

 

Same end result. time and again you hae completely stopped your replies after particular responses. in fact, quite a few threads were ended in this manner (not always you, but the point remains that the arguments all remain standing because there was nobody who could actually address them). The steel dossier is an irrelevant document. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/18/steele-dossier-michael-isikoff/2347833002/ it'sbeen explained already how many areas in it are baseless, or don't corroborate with the facts. there's no need to actually debate the dossier anymore,the only relevancy it has is that it was allegedly used to kick off the muller probe, and so far, that's not really going too well.

 

Everything i said corroborates my point. I have laid out multiple points that demonstrate how the democrats are against trump, no matter the reason. You yourself hae stated this was not the case, i laid out why it was. that was the exact substance you denied. I provided it. so that's the end of that avenue. I have not attacked people, i have attacked, or backed ideas. like the idea that democrats are against trump no matter the reason. Point proven? Point proven. Onto the next one.

 

They want everything to be out in the open i agree, and i'm very happy with that. But we've already seen, as i have pointed out via an actual video on it, that there are also democrats who are unwilling to accept the results if they're anything less than incriminating for trump. my point stands. though you may have missed the "some of them want to disregard the entirety of the probe." No, it's not everybody, and the house democrats are doing well in actually wanting everything out in the open, but we've been here before. we've seen them ask for info on trump, or statements from trump, and then disregard them immediately after. like the time pelosi made an address to him, and got exactly what she asked for not an hour later. and still said no to him. i've seen this happen before. so while i definitely give credit for them desiring transparency, full marks are being withheld till i see their reaction to the results.

 

You have consistently implied that i attack character over argument, you have consistently implied that i was lying, disingenuous, or some other manner of dishonest. you have attempted to make it seem as if i were underhanded, or had some manner of temper that you have yet to prove, and have done so across the forum. your argument of ad hominem works against winter, een i call him on it, but there is ample evidence that i not only support civil discussion, but that i actiively work to prevent ad hominems from becoming the main form of argument, that i attack arguments primarily, and that every argument i ever levied towards character has been backed by actual evidence, and related to the discussion at hand. For examples, I have shown that the character of the democrats backs my claims against your arguments of them being fair, with my prior posts on them being all too eager to disparage trump, ignoring cancer treatment because trump said it, disregarding deals that they themselves said the wanted, and all manner of other points that i could pull up. i only bring in character when it backs my actual argument. for example, you conflate my arguments with winters, when they are arguably on two completely different levels no offense winter, but  they're undoubtedly different styles of argument. so when i bring up how you use this same tactic against winter, ( i could quote any of the three currently active threads as proof) i actually have something backing my point. my arguments are not the same, and i am rarely unfair to anybody i discuss a topic with. Your attempts to insinuate differently are provably false.

 

 

that caveat means that if evidence comes out later, then it cannot be applied to the argument at the time of making it. and it also reminds me that there is a chance of me being incorrect, so long as not all the information is known. again, he highest seats in the land, as far as this investigation goes, have looked into it for two years. It is perfectly reasonable to doubt that a lower investigative office will bring forth anything that the highest office in the land has not already looked into. The investigation has concluded, we have nothing that actually proves trump is involved in russian collusion from what we know, and while i'll gladly give you a full apology if i'm proven wrong, nothing about this case yet has made me think i will be even remotely incorrect. The full dossier might change that, i can't deny that, and i never have. So far though, there's no reason for me to change my stance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election.” - Barr letter on Mueller findings

 

Thanks for playing

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

 

Just devastating to the dems. Trump needs to make their life hell for this

[Nathanael D. Striker]

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election.” - Barr letter on Mueller findings

 

Thanks for playing

 

 

 

 

Just devastating to the dems. Trump needs to make their life hell for this

 

With the additional information, it is safe to conclude that Russian interference did happen and that Trump had no role in it. Okay then. That was a possibility, so be it.

 

And Winter, no. Trump should not give Democrats hell. He should be the better person and move on. Of course, his nature and the overall scheme of politics won't allow that, so yea.

[vla1ne]

Good to see this wrapping up then. We knew russia hacked servers and dropped info to places like wikileaks. We knew they favored trump, and we knew they paid for ads supporting him, to name a few things. What we now know as well, is that nobody has been busted on collusion allegations with russia over the 2016 elections. All's well that ends well.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

With the additional information, it is safe to conclude that Russian interference did happen and that Trump had no role in it. Okay then. That was a possibility, so be it.

 

And Winter, no. Trump should not give Democrats hell. He should be the better person and move on. Of course, his nature and the overall scheme of politics won't allow that, so yea.

Now that Mueller says there was no collusion, it is time to scrutinize the Obama Administration. They spied on a US campaign, wiretapped Americans, bit on the dossier and unmasked Flynn. What did Barack Obama know and what and when did he authorize it? Don't pretend it wouldn't happen if the shoe was on the other foot. 

 

 

God Bless This man

[Phantom Roxas]

Didn't Barr explicitly state that this doesn't exonerate Trump? Feels like we should still keep this going before we jump to more "But what about Obama?"

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Didn't Barr explicitly state that this doesn't exonerate Trump? Feels like we should still keep this going before we jump to more "But what about Obama?"

Barr Quoted Mueller on collusion

 

 Mueller's investigation concluded that Trump and his campaign did not collude with Russia

 

The special counsel defined their scope as "whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime.Collusion was defined" and whether there was "an agreement - tacit or express - between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government on election interference."

 

This means Mueller did not find evidence that Trump (or his campaign) participated in Russia's effort to interfere with the election.

 

(Edit No. 2): Just to put this to bed, here is the exact language from the AG's summary of the Mueller report:

 

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities

 

the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with [Russia] in its efforts

 

So no

 

You're thinking on Obstruction of Justice, ignoring the optics of stringing up an man innocent of the the crime you think he obstructed justice on:

 

Depart wouldn’t file obstruction charges against Trump. He pointed out that both men arrived at that decision apart from special “constitutional considerations” that would have been involved in trying to indict a sitting president.

 

Also Mueller both said he wouldn't indict on OOJ and wouldn't exonerate on it because he felt it was a difficult question and instead let the DOJ decide

[Nathanael D. Striker]

So I take it that the Obstruction of Justice debate is still going to continue?

[Phantom Roxas]

So I take it that the Obstruction of Justice debate is still going to continue?

 

Yes.

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/if-trump-obstructed-justice-he-cant-be-exonerated.html

 

Trump still has yet to be exonerated. I recommend that his debate should continue until he is actually cleared. Barr attacked the charges of obstruction of justice before he was in any official capacity to actually rule on it. I cannot trust Barr's judgment here, and as long as Congress still has the option to subpoena for Mueller's full report and evidence, the debate can still continue.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes.

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/if-trump-obstructed-justice-he-cant-be-exonerated.html

 

Trump still has yet to be exonerated. I recommend that his debate should continue until he is actually cleared. Barr attacked the charges of obstruction of justice before he was in any official capacity to actually rule on it. I cannot trust Barr's judgment here, and as long as Congress still has the option to subpoena for Mueller's full report and evidence, the debate can still continue.

I beg you, please do this.

 

Please continue to hound a man on Obstruction of Justice charges on a crime he did not commit. Please. Write to your congressman

[Phantom Roxas]

I beg you, please do this.

 

Please continue to hound a man on Obstruction of Justice charges on a crime he did not commit. Please. Write to your congressman

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm writing to my representative now, although they already have a vested in releasing the full report. I don't see what harm releasing the report could do. If he's innocent, then there should be no issue, right?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm writing to my representative now, although they already have a vested in releasing the full report. I don't see what harm releasing the report could do. If he's innocent, then there should be no issue, right?

I agree, the report should be released 

[vla1ne]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1110134444034265089

The best summary of this entire debacle.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18277089/fox-news-steele-dossier-lie-trump-witch-hunt

 

The claim that the dossier instigated this investigation is a complete and absolute lie peddled by Fox. It points out how George Papadopoulos bragging about the Russians claiming to have dirt on Clinton did far more to initiate the investigation. Out of all of this, I find it difficult that Fox is supposed to be the "exception" to the claim that most mainstream media is "Fake News" when here we have them literally spreading propaganda to prop up Trump's narrative.

 

Regardless of what happens next, Trump and Nunes have obsessed over the dossier as if invalidating that alone would undermine the entire investigation. Given how a lot of it has already been verified, and absolutely none of it has been debunked, I wouldn't be surprised if Nunes's attempts at obstruction of justice comes more from a place of fear that the remainder of the allegations do have merit to them.

[vla1ne]

Obstruction of justice based on a him just telling them they're wasting their time. moreover, trying to tget that charge to stick over a crime that has no evidence of occurring at all is arguably a pipe dream. The dossier is officially irrelevant, as the investigation, dossier related or not, is already over.

[Phantom Roxas]

Obstruction of justice based on a him just telling them they're wasting their time. moreover, trying to tget that charge to stick over a crime that has no evidence of occurring at all is arguably a pipe dream. The dossier is officially irrelevant, as the investigation, dossier related or not, is already over.

 

The obstruction of justice would be based on burying evidence and abusing his power on the House Intelligence Committee. Eric Swalwell ratted Nunes out for that. You can keep claiming that there is no evidence, except once again, your rejection of the evidence is provably false.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/william-barr-did-exactly-what-trump-hired-him-to-do.html

 

Barr was hand-picked by Trump specifically because he publicly condemned this investigation beforehand. Trump hasn't been exonerated because out of any actual innocence; Barr was hired for the express purpose of clearing Trump, regardless of whether or not he's guilty.

 

This makes it more suspicious why McConnell blocked the resolution to release the full report. Barr was hired for his clear bias, and I would not be surprised if they're afraid that the full report contradicts that bias.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-russia-obama-joe-biden-359531

 

By the way, lest we forget that Mitch McConnell, who had opposed Obama simply because he's Obama, blocked an effort to call out Russian officials interfering in our election. Now he's complaining about why Obama didn't do more, when McConnell himself is guilty of preventing Obama from doing more.

 

You can be angry about the Democrats' part in this. But don't pretend that the GOP hasn't been resorting to dirty tricks to try and bury this investigation out of their sycophancy to Trump.

 

EDIT:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democratic-chairmen-call-barr-submit-mueller-report-congress-april-2-n987241

 

House Committee Chairs demand that William Barr delivers the full Mueller report (And not Barr's misleading summary of it) no later than April 2.

[vla1ne]

Burying evidence? My dude, would you like me to pull up 20+ videos/articles of democrats praising muller and claiming the walls were closing in on trump over things that we already reminded people were nothing of actual significance? Video/articles of investigation report after investigation report? Countless stories of democrats foaming at the mouth for nothing less than a guilty verdict? I can go on. there has been nothing but absolute fervor against the man from day one, there has been nothing but investigation after investigation since day one. They tried to drag his SCOTUS nominee through the mud. People supporting him get attacked. Russian bot accusations have been thrown around since day one. You have refused to admit any part of this was nothing since day one. I told you well before this investigation ended (as did winter) that democrats wouldn't be satisfied unless this brought trump down. anything less and they would moan and complain. You yourself denied it, and continue to do so. I myself stated in no uncertain terms that i would gladly hold the L if it came out he was guilty. I was willing to accept either result, and I made my case clear as day for why he wouldn't be found guilty. There have been hundreds of interrogations, testimonies, evidence scavenging sessions, and other manners of digging into everything people could get their hands on. it wasn't just the FBI, even congressional investigations and lower factions of government scoured every possible thing they could get their hands on. This was the most extensive search into any sitting president ever, and they found nothing. neither on him, nor anybody around him. 

 

Be an adult. Just hold this L before it gets worse.

[Phantom Roxas]

The article discusses how exactly Nunes buried evidence. He ran a weak investigation and refused to release transcripts, showing a lack of any sincere effort into this. The GOP has consistently refused to offer up evidence, and despite the House unanimously agreeing that the report should be released, McConnell blocked it in the Senate. Why should I believe that Trump has been proven innocent when Barr was picked specifically to undermine the investigation, and we know for a fact that Nunes and McConnell have refused to concede anything?

 

The GOP never took this seriously and were actively sabotaging this investigation every step of the way. I have absolutely no reason to trust them, or accept defeat when the question of getting the full report and the evidence is still on the table.

[vla1ne]

You are first alleging that barr was handpicked to impede the investigation, and that implies he was capable of blocking every possible connection of a two year long investigation from multiple departments with hundreds, if not thousands of eyes watching everything that goes on. Second, you are alleging that mean words and harsh criticisms are capable of preventing an investigation by the FBI. People have gone through greater lengths than that to hide smaller things, and they have still failed. The investigation caught every little thing it could, They got every conversation transcript they could find pushed forth in court. What exactly did they miss that would be the golden sword against trump huh? The obstruction charge? They've been yelling that since the first tweet from trump. in the eyes of the media, a tweet is a case for obstruction. he said he wouldn't push for it, and left the facts lying in the report. According to the conclusions currently drawn from those who know those facts, there was no obstruction. so far we've got not collusion, and no obstruction. Do you really think a couple tweets are going to be enough for an actual investigation into obstruction? Not to mention the one thing they are not ambiguous on is that there was no collusion. How exactly do you obstruct justice on a crime that was determined to hot have happened in the first place? 

 

Of course the GOP never took this seriously. It's arguably been a joke from the start. There was nothing. and when the report comes out, i fully expect you to admit nothing at all, and then find the next political hole to hide your "russian collusion" in.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Gentlemen, pleaae calm down and conduct yourselves in a dignified manner. This is debates, not high school.

 

For the record, I don't see the probe as a waste of time. It answered a question that needed to be answered, otherwise it would have hovered over everything Trump did for all time. While I wish that some collusion was found and hope to have some time to read the report, or even a summary from a third party (sorry Mr. Barr), but the current standing is that collusion did not take place. Obstruction is a different story, and one that Muller let Barr decide, though to be honest, Congress is ultimately going to want to decide that one.

[vla1ne]

I apologize roxas. I stepped too far forward on that one.

 

But can we both agree that regardless, when the report releases, if there's nothing else to it,you will accept it, and if there's something new presented, i will accept it. 

[Phantom Roxas]

The full report and evidence - preferably from Mueller himself - are the last things I'm hedging my bets on. I will trust Congress to take action, and if it's handled fairly, without the usual suspects from the GOP like Nunes or McConnell blocking the process, like they did when they refused to release transcripts, then I will accept whatever the result may be.

 

EDIT:

I know people to love to dismiss complaints from Democrats by claiming that they "call everybody they don't like a Nazi", and yet here we have a Republican Congressman blatantly quoting Hitler, and explicitly compares Democrats and the mainstream media to the Nazis in retaliation for their part in the Russia investigation. He repeatedly stresses the word "socialist" to drive the equivalence with the Nazis home. However, the passage he quoted was the anti-Semitic rhetoric Hitler used to vilify the Jews and help turn Germany against them.

 

funk the GOP for enabling this.