5 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

So his bad traits in your opinion are enough to justify attempting a "silent coup" to eliminate a fairly-elected US President by people who have sworn to uphold the rule of law and the US Constitution?

 

I'm not a rabid Trump supporter, but no fairly-elected President deserves to be hounded by irrational purveyors of an off-the-wall conspiracy hypothesis for over two years straight (which, of course, includes a Trump-hating and unprofessional US media that has the audacity to call themselves "journalists").

 

BTW, racism and bigotry are not illegal in the US (yet). Trump may be a liar, but have proof that he is a crook and sic law enforcement on him, ok? I recommend your having your Post Trump Election Derangement Syndrome checked by a professional psychologist.

"silent coup"?  "no fairly-elected President deserves to be hounded by irrational purveyors of an off-the-wall conspiracy hypothesis"?

 

How would you classify the birther movement, led by Trump for many years, which denied President Obama was a legitimate citizen and was based on no credible evidence? 

 

I'll answer that:  The Mueller investigations was legitimate.  The birther movement, led by Donald Trump, was BS bordering on treason.

8 hours ago, tlandtday said:

Lol so the CIA budget gets reviewed I would hardly call that policing it. 

 

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

You also would not come up with any justification for calling the CIA a deep state institution.  In fact, you won't even define what you mean by deep state. 

 

You come across as someone who parrots words he heard elsewhere, and can't handle it when the logic of your parroted words are challenged.

 

5 hours ago, tlandtday said:

No need to get angry and personal.  You sound like you have a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.  It is getting around lol.  Please take your meds.

This all started when you defended the right-wing conspiracy theory of a deep state in the US government.  When your BS was called you choose to play the victim.  Like all good Trumpies, you can't handle reality.

 

Go back to nurturing your conspiracy theories.  Just be aware that not everyone will allow you to spout nonsense without challenging you.

1 hour ago, Guitarzan said:

 

Inadvertently Yes he did. He also thought Hillary was a shoe in, and he'd never have to be held accountable for any of his miserable mistakes. That's how stupid Comey is. Behind the scenes Comey was leading the coup d'etat, threatening Trump with a fake dossier, and fake FISA documents. 

He went beyond the call of duty when he did Loretta Lynch's job for her, announcing despite the fact Hillary broke the law he wouldn't press charges... perhaps his biggest blunder, although he's had many of them, it's kinda hard to rate them. 

Now on to the last point Trump Derangement Syndromers make is obstruction of justice.  How can you obstruct justice if no crime was committed?  How was there obstruction of justice when Rat Rossinstien wrote the letter recommending the firing of Comey?  

Wow, recycling a lot on nonsense here.

 

The dossier is real.  Parts have been substantiated, parts not, but it is real.  As is the FISA warrant. 

 

Some classified information was inadvertently included in the emails on Hillary Clinton's server.  This was inadvertant; some of the classified was mislabeled, some of the information was classified after it had already been made public (yes, that does happen).  This happens when you work with a lot of classified (have you?).  No one has ever been prosecuted for the unintentional release of classified information.  Obviously Trump and company wanted Clinton to be the first, but that would have been a blatantly political act that Comey chose not to take.

 

Obstruction of justice can occur even if no evidence of the original crime is found. 

 

" "You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X." "   https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

 

Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the election, possible links to the Trump campaign, and any other crimes that were identified in the process.  From Trump's behavior, something about the scope of the investigation had him scared.

15 minutes ago, Opl said:

NIce summary.

 

There are still grand juries and court cases opened by Mueller that are still going through evidence.  I hoped Mueller would investigate any evidence of financial crimes related to Russia he encountered, but it appears he delegated these to other courts and jurisdictions.  The Mueller investigation is over, other investigations are just getting started.

Glenn Greenwald -
"... this was the runaway Gold Medal winner for Trump/Russia conspiracy lunacy...since 2016:

"Donald Trump married one American (his second wife) and two women from what used to be Soviet Yugoslavia: Ivana-Slovakia, Melania-Slovenia."

 - Joy-Ann Reid [MSNBC puppet head]

 

 

So there, doubters!

If that's not conclusive, nothing is.

 

[Beyond everything else, she confuses Tito's non-Soviet Union country Yugoslavia with Czechoslovakia].
 

Edited March 27, 20197 yr by JimmyJ

On 3/27/2019 at 1:29 AM, heybruce said:

You have no way of knowing that.  Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and managed an electoral college victory that could have easily gone the other way.  There is no way of proving how the election would have turned out if there had been no Russian interference, just as there is no way to determine how the election would have turned out if Comey had not violated FBI policy and verified the Hillary Clinton investigation then announced a re-opening of the investigation a week before the election.  Funny that Trumpies think the FBI and Comey are against them.

 

Ironic that Republicans, who have repeatedly investigated Hillary Clinton with no results, are now calling for another investigation of her without giving any reason why.

Complete nonsense. 

It is amazing how you can keep trying justify your opinion in the face of the obvious. 

 

She lost despite her obvious advantages of the media and her allies in the government. 

 

Get over it. 

 

Or not, obviously 

You weren't born until after Obama?

 

Yes, exactly.

 

I was not yet gracing this earth when Jimmy Carter was President so that means I had to be born after Obama.

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Wow, recycling a lot on nonsense here.

 

The dossier is real.  Parts have been substantiated, parts not, but it is real.  As is the FISA warrant. 

 

Some classified information was inadvertently included in the emails on Hillary Clinton's server.  This was inadvertant; some of the classified was mislabeled, some of the information was classified after it had already been made public (yes, that does happen).  This happens when you work with a lot of classified (have you?).  No one has ever been prosecuted for the unintentional release of classified information.  Obviously Trump and company wanted Clinton to be the first, but that would have been a blatantly political act that Comey chose not to take.

 

Obstruction of justice can occur even if no evidence of the original crime is found. 

 

" "You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X." "   https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

 

Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the election, possible links to the Trump campaign, and any other crimes that were identified in the process.  From Trump's behavior, something about the scope of the investigation had him scared.

What parts of the dossier are proven to be true? 

 

I haven't seen any real verifiable evidence of anything that would have justified the investigation in the dossier 

3 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

What parts of the dossier are proven to be true? 

 

I haven't seen any real verifiable evidence of anything that would have justified the investigation in the dossier 

You have’t seen any verifiable evidence of what’s in the Mueller report.

 

 

6 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Complete nonsense. 

It is amazing how you can keep trying justify your opinion in the face of the obvious. 

 

She lost despite her obvious advantages of the media and her allies in the government. 

 

Get over it. 

 

Or not, obviously 

Logic isn't your thing, is it.  You can not prove a counterfactual.  There is no way to rerun the 2016 election so no way to know how it would have turned out if there had been no Russian interference. 

 

However the narrow, unexpected victory Trump had in a handful of states the gave him the electoral vote count shows it is distinctly possible that Russian interference gave him the victory.

 

You replied to an edited version of xylophone's post, specifically:

 

xylophone said:

That oath requires putting the national interests above his personal interests.

 

with:

 

 

9 hours ago, ShortTimed said:

 

The last President to do that was before I was born.

 

Jimmy Carter...

To which I replied:

 

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

You weren't born until after Obama?

 

13 minutes ago, ShortTimed said:

 

Yes, exactly.

 

I was not yet gracing this earth when Jimmy Carter was President so that means I had to be born after Obama.

 

I was attempting humor.   I'm sorry if I confused you.  I didn't realize your attention span was not long enough to remember what you had posted and why.

 

This is odd:

 

Federal Prosecuters yesterday stated Mueller’s Grand Juries are continuing Robustly.

 

The only reason for a Grand Jury is to consider if evidence of crimes warrants indictment.

 

So now we have a clash between what Barr says ( no more Indictments) and what Federal Prosecutors have revealed.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/mueller-grand-jury-1238861

 

Illiberals please do not ever claim I did not caution you.

 

Barr’s letter is not the Mueller report.

16 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

What parts of the dossier are proven to be true? 

 

I haven't seen any real verifiable evidence of anything that would have justified the investigation in the dossier 

It is so tedious dealing with the willfully ignorant.

 

" The BBC has learned that US officials "verified" a key claim in a report about Kremlin involvement in Donald Trump's election - that a Russian diplomat in Washington was in fact a spy. "https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786

 

"Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in November, the House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of Page’s congressional testimony revealing he had in fact met with other Rosneft officials, including Sechin's subordinate Andrey Baranov, during a trip to Moscow in 2016.

According to the dossier, Rosneft officials used their meeting with Page to push for the U.S. to lift sanctions on Russia for its support of armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine."   https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116

 

" Overall, some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated,^[26] others remain unverified and, according to a December 2018 Lawfare retrospective, "none of [the dossier], to our knowledge, has been disproven."^[27] Some parts of the dossier may require access to classified information for verification.^[28][29] "   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

  You replied to an edited version of xylophone's post, specifically:

 

That oath requires putting the national interests above his personal interests.  

with:

 

  I was attempting humor.   I'm sorry if I confused you.  I didn't realize your attention span was not long enough to remember what you had posted and why.

 

 

 

I am a big supporter of humor on this forum even when I am the target.

 

I will laugh with the rest.

 

But I still don’t understand this one so I will take your word for it.

 

Anyway, humor always welcome with this me.

Jimmy Dore has an excellent daily (probably Monday to Friday) news show on Youtube.

 

"Jimmy Dore Wins Russiagate - Compilation"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpssL-_e0gw&feature=youtu.be

43 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It is so tedious dealing with the willfully ignorant.

 

" The BBC has learned that US officials "verified" a key claim in a report about Kremlin involvement in Donald Trump's election - that a Russian diplomat in Washington was in fact a spy. " https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786

 

"Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in November, the House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of Page’s congressional testimony revealing he had in fact met with other Rosneft officials, including Sechin's subordinate Andrey Baranov, during a trip to Moscow in 2016.

According to the dossier, Rosneft officials used their meeting with Page to push for the U.S. to lift sanctions on Russia for its support of armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine."   https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116

 

" Overall, some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated,^[26] others remain unverified and, according to a December 2018 Lawfare retrospective, "none of [the dossier], to our knowledge, has been disproven."^[27] Some parts of the dossier may require access to classified information for verification.^[28][29] "   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

Well, thank you for the insults and the references. 

 

What you constantly fail to deal with is ifthere was real credible evidence we would would have it. We don't 

 

Carter page? This is the rabbit hole you reference? 

 

Then a Wikipedia reference that "Some" Of the allegations have been corroborated" Withnreference to a CNN reporter that proves nothing. 

 

A really lame effort there. 

 

This is going to be a long year for you and the tvf cabal of liberals. 

 

Buckle up. 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Mueller’s report absolutely does matter.

 

Which is why Barr and McConnell are fighting to keep it secret.

 

Barr’s letter was not and is not the Mueller report.

 

You will come to understand that.

There has never been any credible evidence for collusion. Ever. 

 

Will you ever get past it? 

 

Will you come to understand that? 

9 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Well, thank you for the insults and the references. 

 

What you constantly fail to deal with is ifthere was real credible evidence we would would have it. We don't 

 

Carter page? This is the rabbit hole you reference? 

 

Then a Wikipedia reference that "Some" Of the allegations have been corroborated" Withnreference to a CNN reporter that proves nothing. 

 

A really lame effort there. 

 

This is going to be a long year for you and the tvf cabal of liberals. 

 

Buckle up. 

If you want more conclusive proof you will have to get the appropriate security clearances and demonstrate a need to know.  The intelligence and law enforcement agencies considered it sufficiently credible to act on it.  It doesn't matter if you are in denial about it.

7 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

There has never been any credible evidence for collusion. Ever. 

 

Will you ever get past it? 

 

Will you come to understand that? 

Show us the report.

 

If there is no evidence in the report there is no reason to keep the report secret.

 

Without sight of the report your assertions are baseless.

19 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Well, thank you for the insults and the references. 

 

What you constantly fail to deal with is ifthere was real credible evidence we would would have it. We don't 

 

Carter page? This is the rabbit hole you reference? 

 

Then a Wikipedia reference that "Some" Of the allegations have been corroborated" Withnreference to a CNN reporter that proves nothing. 

 

A really lame effort there. 

 

This is going to be a long year for you and the tvf cabal of liberals. 

 

Buckle up. 

This guy is funney

20 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

There has never been any credible evidence for collusion. Ever. 

 

Will you ever get past it? 

 

Will you come to understand that? 

Obviously you don't understand the difference between collusion and conspiracy.  Collusion is not a crime, collusion is.  The Trump Tower meeting is an example of collusion but the outcome is that Mueeler found that there was not enough evidence to charge the attendees with conspiracy to defraud the federal government.  The bar is much lower for congress and the entire Mueller report should be released and Barr could get permission from the courts to release the grand jury testament is he wants total transparency, but he doesn't!

Obviously you don't understand the difference between collusion and conspiracy.  Collusion is not a crime, collusion is.  The Trump Tower meeting is an example of collusion but the outcome is that Mueeler found that there was not enough evidence to charge the attendees with conspiracy to defraud the federal government.  The bar is much lower for congress and the entire Mueller report should be released and Barr could get permission from the courts to release the grand jury testament is he wants total transparency, but he doesn't!

I think you need an edit before time runs out.

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Show us the report.

 

If there is no evidence in the report there is no reason to keep the report secret.

 

Without sight of the report your assertions are baseless.

Without the report, assertions of guilt are also baseless.

 

But I will make you a deal. Release the full Mueller report and the secretive FISA court documents that started the whole thing at exactly the same time and place. Is that OK?

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

What parts of the dossier are proven to be true? 

 

I haven't seen any real verifiable evidence of anything that would have justified the investigation in the dossier 

Choose your pick!

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-later/index.html

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

https://www.businessinsider.com/steele-dossier-allegations-trump-russia-mueller-investigation-2019-1

 

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Logic isn't your thing, is it.  You can not prove a counterfactual.  There is no way to rerun the 2016 election so no way to know how it would have turned out if there had been no Russian interference. 

 

However the narrow, unexpected victory Trump had in a handful of states the gave him the electoral vote count shows it is distinctly possible that Russian interference gave him the victory.

You question my logic after believing in a phony narrative for 3 years. 

 

That is astounding, but expected. 

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

If you want more conclusive proof you will have to get the appropriate security clearances and demonstrate a need to know.  The intelligence and law enforcement agencies considered it sufficiently credible to act on it.  It doesn't matter if you are in denial about it.

And yet you know for a fact these credible reasons for the investigation do exist. 

 

How do you have access to this information? 

 

Or are you willing to believe it to feed your preferred narrative? 

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

You question my logic after believing in a phony narrative for 3 years. 

 

That is astounding, but expected. 

You have proven my point again.  Show me any place where I said that Trump colluded with Russia.  I've indicated it was a possibility, but never stated it as a fact.

 

You clearly won't let logic penetrate your beliefs and the stereotypes you apply to others.

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

And yet you know for a fact these credible reasons for the investigation do exist. 

 

How do you have access to this information? 

 

Or are you willing to believe it to feed your preferred narrative? 

I have faith in US intelligence services.  They aren't perfect, but they are right more often than they are wrong. 

 

I don't have a lot of faith in your intelligence.  From your reply it appears you think I was referring to the Mueller investigation, when my post was in regard to the Steele dossier. https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1091389-mueller-report-finds-no-evidence-that-trump-campaign-colluded-with-russia-us-justice-department/?do=findComment&comment=13985183

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier 

 

 

Edited March 28, 20197 yr by heybruce

" Without Manafort unwilling to tell the truth, Mueller hit a dead end. After it became known that Manafort lied to the special counsel, reports started to trickle out that the probe would be wrapping up soon. And this month, it finally ended, unable to “establish” the existence of a criminal conspiracy. But not for lack of trying."

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/crucial-point-russia-probe-may-moment-muellers-conspiracy-case-thwarted/