Mueller report finds no evidence that Trump campaign colluded with Russia - U.S. Justice Department

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, ShortTimed said:

 

It was you that brought up Whitewater Scandal so it seems a poor excuse for you to now plead ignorance on the events and the players.

You seem so intent on arguing your point that you have a long habit of lumping all those who find fault with your logic as being Trump supporters, which also lacks any logic.

Please try and read my messages more thoroughly. I am not a Trump supporter. I do not like Trump as a person. I think he is of similar moral shortcomings as the Clintons (which you introduced in an earlier post to support your position). I think Trump is guilty of plenty of rotten things but I don’t think there was any need for him to collude with Putin. Putin had his own agenda to take down Hillary. He needed nothing from Trump and Trump needed nothing from Putin except to stand by and let the Putin machine do its thing.

Do I think Trump hoped to leverage his business interests in Russia? Ofcourse.

But my point all along has been that the Liberals placed such hope in this Mueller Investigation and even had their fantasies all come true, it was not going to be enough to take down Trump. And the downside risk was that Mueller would not find anything to nail Trump with and its what we have today—Liberals and MSM looking like they did after Trump beat Hillary in the election—disoriented & beaten.

 

But my point all along has been that the Liberals placed such hope in this Mueller Investigation and even had their fantasies all come true, it was not going to be enough to take down Trump. And the downside risk was that Mueller would not find anything to nail Trump with and its what we have today—Liberals and MSM looking like they did after Trump beat Hillary in the election—disoriented & beaten.

Oh so true

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Russia has been manipulating, through bots and fake news, the social media that idiots think gives them accurate news, and many of these idiots voted.  Move on.

 

Trump is a thin-skinned germophobe who dodged the draft and is a meek toady to Putin when appearing with him, so yes, I think snowflake is a reasonable name for him.  Also, no, I never reported anyone for using the term.

I was asked not to use the term "snowflake" back when Trump won the presidency. I suggest you do likewise.

I never expected the anti Trumpers to respect the report, and I've certainly been proven right on that score, with all sorts of deflections  being produced on these pages.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I was asked not to use the term "snowflake" back when Trump won the presidency. I suggest you do likewise.

I never expected the anti Trumpers to respect the report, and I've certainly been proven right on that score, with all sorts of deflections  being produced on these pages.

I’ll redpect tge report when I see it.

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, ShortTimed said:

 

It was you that brought up Whitewater Scandal so it seems a poor excuse for you to now plead ignorance on the events and the players.

 

You seem so intent on arguing your point that you have a long habit of lumping all those who find fault with your logic as being Trump supporters, which also lacks any logic.

 

Please try and read my messages more thoroughly. I am not a Trump supporter. I do not like Trump as a person. I think he is of similar moral shortcomings as the Clintons (which you introduced in an earlier post to support your position).

 

I think Trump is guilty of plenty of rotten things but I don’t think there was any need for him to collude with Putin. Putin had his own agenda to take down Hillary. He needed nothing from Trump and Trump needed nothing from Putin except to stand by and let the Putin machine do its thing.

 

Do I think Trump hoped to leverage his business interests in Russia? Ofcourse. Thats why people enter politics. Thats why the Clinton Foundation was formed and why it collapsed when she lost the White House.

 

But my point all along has been that the Liberals placed such hope in this Mueller Investigation and even had their fantasies all come true, it was not going to be enough to take down Trump. And the downside risk was that Mueller would not find anything to nail Trump with and its what we have today—Liberals and MSM looking like they did after Trump beat Hillary in the election—disoriented & beaten.

I remember the Whitewater investigation; it started as an investigation into a real estate company Hillary Clinton had some affiliation with, one of its officers got into some trouble, nothing was tied to Hillary, so a Republican Congress gave Kenneth Starr free reign to take as long as he wanted and spend as much as he needed to get anything on the Clinton's.    All they got was Bill lying about a BJ.

 

Please try and read my messages more thoroughly.  You are claiming there was major corruption associated with the Clintons without providing any examples or details.  Your guilt by association with unnamed people doesn't work against the Clintons unless you name these people.  It definitely works against Trump; his lawyer and "fixer" is going to jail, his campaign director is going to jail, his political adviser is going on trial, his National Security Advisor quit in disgrace and plead guilty to lying to the FBI...the list goes on and on.

[JimmyJ]

Glenn Greenwald on the hypocrisy of the US decrying alleged foreign interference in the US Presidential election (about 2 minutes):

 

 

29:50 - 31:59

 

 

 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was asked not to use the term "snowflake" back when Trump won the presidency. I suggest you do likewise.

I never expected the anti Trumpers to respect the report, and I've certainly been proven right on that score, with all sorts of deflections  being produced on these pages.

But Trump is so clearly a snowflake:  thin-skinned, afraid to offend Putin, afraid to offend white supremacists (or perhaps he agrees with them), won't call an obvious mass murder by a white supremacist terrorism, makes a lot of noise like a small dog when he's somewhere safe.

 

I'll let you know if I respect the Mueller report when I get to read it.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

But Trump is so clearly a snowflake:  thin-skinned, afraid to offend Putin, makes a lot of noise like a small dog when he's somewhere safe.

 

I'll let you know if I respect the Mueller report when I get to read it.

I have informed you that a moderator asked me not to use that term as it was offensive. I suggest you do not use it.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have informed you that a moderator asked me not to use that term as it was offensive. I suggest you do not use it.

The moderator asked you not to use it in reference to TV members.  Public figures are a different matter.

[Rimmer]

A post with an altered quote has been removed:

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[JimmyJ]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Now it is "Media Malpractice" instead of fake news.  Funny thing about both terms, when asked to come up with specific examples of intentional false reporting, the MSM bashers either dodge the question or go silent.

 

You can't convict someone of robbery based on the opinion that he stills lots of stuff, you must identify a specific act.  The same standards apply when condemning media companies for unspecified bad reporting.

"Now it is "Media Malpractice" instead of fake news."

 

And now it is "MSM bashers" rather than "Legitimate criticism of mainstream media which caused me cognitive dissonance".

 

 

" Funny thing about both terms, when asked to come up with specific examples of intentional false reporting, the MSM bashers either dodge the question or go silent."

 

“Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility”

Washington Post, December 31, 2016.

 

“After Florida School Shooting, Russian ‘Bot’ Army Pounced,

New York Times on Feb 18, 2018.

 

Maria Butina, Suspected Secret Agent, Used Sex in Covert Plan”

New York Times

 

Many more in this Matt Taibbi article including the resolution of the above false headlines:

 

"It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD"

 

"The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it"

 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

 

I've been reading specific examples for years - amazing that you've never seen one.

I suspect you haven't tried very hard to find conflicting views or have avoided such.

 

I can give you a list of sources you can follow who do actual journalism and are not merely US Gov stenographers if you are seriously interested.

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The moderator asked you not to use it in reference to TV members.  Public figures are a different matter.

Unless you were that moderator you do not know that. 

 

This correspondence is at an end. 

[ShortTimed]

 

I don't know who you think were conned out their savings by the "Clinton group", but the Trump bankruptcies left plenty of investors "conned" out of their money.   https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

 

 

OK. Lets sort this point of yours out.

 

You introduced the topic of the Whitewater Scandal Investigation. A big part of that scandal included a housing development that flopped and a bank that folded. These were an integral part of the investigation.

 

Now you talk about the Trump bankruptcies. Were these part of the Mueller Investigation? Not that I am aware of.

 

The discussion is the Mueller Investigation. You added the Whitewater Scandal so it became acceptable subject matter on this thread. Any effort on your part now needs to focus on comparisons of these two investigations and not some topic about bankruptcy unless you happen to think it was part of the Mueller Investigation?

 

Or is it just an effort to obfuscate the uncomfortable truth that you have nothing left for the debate that Liberals took on Trump...and lost.

 

Maybe next time the Liberal force will win but this time it was a big loss. Accept the loss, lick the wounds and better luck next time.

 

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"Now it is "Media Malpractice" instead of fake news."

 

And now it is "MSM bashers" rather than "Legitimate criticism of mainstream media which caused me cognitive dissonance".

 

 

" Funny thing about both terms, when asked to come up with specific examples of intentional false reporting, the MSM bashers either dodge the question or go silent."

 

“Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility”

Washington Post, December 31, 2016.

 

“After Florida School Shooting, Russian ‘Bot’ Army Pounced,

New York Times on Feb 18, 2018.

 

Maria Butina, Suspected Secret Agent, Used Sex in Covert Plan”

New York Times

 

Many more in this Matt Taibbi article including the resolution of the above false headlines:

 

"It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD"

 

"The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it"

 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

 

I've been reading specific examples for years - amazing that you've never seen one.

I suspect you haven't tried very hard to find conflicting views or have avoided such.

 

I can give you a list of sources you can follow who do actual journalism and are not merely US Gov stenographers if you are seriously interested.

You can't just present news stories and say they are fake, you have to present evidence that they are fake.

 

Also, I don't know what taibbi.sustack.com is, but have no reason to consider it a legitimate news source, or even a safe link to click on.

 

Try again.

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You can't just present news stories and say they are fake, you have to present evidence that they are fake.

 

Also, I don't know what taibbi.sustack.com is, but have no reason to consider it a legitimate news source, or even a safe link to click on.

 

Try again.

 

Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone writer. 

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

There are a lot of paranoid Trump fans calling for punishment of those that offended their snowflake President.  Please keep a few things in mind:

 

The Whitewater investigation went on twice as long, cost much more, ranged far more widely, and was based on far less than the Mueller investigation. 

 

If Trump hadn't wanted to subject himself to scrutiny, he shouldn't have run for President.

 

Russia made an unprecedented effort to interfere in the 2016 election.  Trump had past business dealings with Russia, was pursuing a major real estate deal while campaigning, his son-in-law suggested an illegal back channel for communicating with Russia to Russian embassy officials, Trump fired James Comey because of "that Russia thing", etc.  Of course Trump was investigated for possible collusion.

 

The Muller investigation has revealed some of the tactics Russia used, and will use again, to interfere with the 2016 investigation.  It also identified some of the tax cheats and treasonous opportunists Trump associates with.  It was definitely worthwhile for these reasons alone.

 

But cheer up; Trump is now in the clear.  Except for ongoing investigations for financial fraud, tax evasion, campaign finance violations, violations of the emoluments clause, and maybe a few other things.

 

 

27 minutes ago, ShortTimed said:

 

OK. Lets sort this point of yours out.

 

You introduced the topic of the Whitewater Scandal Investigation. A big part of that scandal included a housing development that flopped and a bank that folded. These were an integral part of the investigation.

 

Now you talk about the Trump bankruptcies. Were these part of the Mueller Investigation? Not that I am aware of.

 

The discussion is the Mueller Investigation. You added the Whitewater Scandal so it became acceptable subject matter on this thread. Any effort on your part now needs to focus on comparisons of these two investigations and not some topic about bankruptcy unless you happen to think it was part of the Mueller Investigation?

 

Or is it just an effort to obfuscate the uncomfortable truth that you have nothing left for the debate that Liberals took on Trump...and lost.

 

Maybe next time the Liberal force will win but this time it was a big loss. Accept the loss, lick the wounds and better luck next time.

 

It's obvious you are trying to use a comparison between the Whitewater and Mueller investigations as an excuse to pull this topic in a Clinton direction.  My replies attempted to stay moderately on-topic by pointing out that all your vague, unverifiable accusations of Clinton corruption had been committed in a much bigger manner by Trump.

 

Ok, forget Whitewater.  It was a true political witch hunt, but that's past.  The Mueller investigation exposed many of Trump's "best people" to be criminals, exposed some of the techniques used by Russia to disrupt elections, and revealed suspicious financial dealings by the Trump organization.  People who want the crooked incompetent didn't get all they wanted from the Mueller investigation, but we still have lots of options.

[lannarebirth]

51 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"Now it is "Media Malpractice" instead of fake news."

 

And now it is "MSM bashers" rather than "Legitimate criticism of mainstream media which caused me cognitive dissonance".

 

 

" Funny thing about both terms, when asked to come up with specific examples of intentional false reporting, the MSM bashers either dodge the question or go silent."

 

“Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility”

Washington Post, December 31, 2016.

 

“After Florida School Shooting, Russian ‘Bot’ Army Pounced,

New York Times on Feb 18, 2018.

 

Maria Butina, Suspected Secret Agent, Used Sex in Covert Plan”

New York Times

 

Many more in this Matt Taibbi article including the resolution of the above false headlines:

 

"It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD"

 

"The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it"

 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for that link. I enjoy Matt Taibbi's writing. He strikes me as honest, which is a rare commodity these days.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Mueller investigation exposed many of Trump's "best people" to be criminals, exposed some of the techniques used by Russia to disrupt elections, and revealed suspicious financial dealings by the Trump organization.

6 is hardly "many" as Trump must employ dozens if not hundreds of people, or in his campaign. It's definitely "some" though, but were they worth the millions spent? Some of those were just for lying to the FBI, so not actual criminals though.

The techniques used by Russia were possibly stolen from America, as we all know America isn't shy when it comes to interfering in other country's elections.

Suspicious financial dealings don't amount to zip if they don't come with indictments. Anyone can accuse anyone of "suspicious" things when it comes down to it, but where's the proof?

[farcanell]

6 hours ago, Kelsall said:

 

SDNY takes their orders from Barr.  Barr determines SDNY priorities.  Here is one priority, just arrested.  Expect more of Trump's enemies to be brought to justice.

 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-arrest-michael-avenatti-engaging-scheme-extort-public-company

 

 

 

 

Whoa.... are you suggesting that avanatti was arrested because he was a trump enemy?

 

now that, friend kelsall, is a gross abuse of power. Someone should be advising Nadler and the judiciary committee about this, because if true, and he’s arrested for being a trump enemy, this dictator would be, of yours, just went into full on Stalin mode.

 

you might be right.... it might be payback.... but I think it’s just a case of the sdny responding to a complaint made by Nike (a huge and influential corporate entity) , and then doing their job, just like they (sdny) are simply doing their job by investigating trump family crimes

 

but who knows... almost half of y’all are crazy... right?

[heybruce]

35 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone writer. 

Wikipedia's description of him makes him seem like a somewhat unstable entertainer.  I found an

 

The only link I found for the article that opened and was trustworthy was this:  https://www.axios.com/russiagate-indictments-rolling-stone-matt-taibi-c5be6a1d-60f6-49d8-882c-70ebda2bd890.html

It looks like an opinion piece to me.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Wikipedia's description of him makes him seem like a somewhat unstable entertainer.  I found an

 

The only link I found for the article that opened and was trustworthy was this:  https://www.axios.com/russiagate-indictments-rolling-stone-matt-taibi-c5be6a1d-60f6-49d8-882c-70ebda2bd890.html

It looks like an opinion piece to me.

 

It read like an insider's view of the media establishment to me. He's very credible IMO.

[JimmyJ]

51 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You can't just present news stories and say they are fake, you have to present evidence that they are fake.

 

Also, I don't know what taibbi.sustack.com is, but have no reason to consider it a legitimate news source, or even a safe link to click on.

 

Try again.

I almost posted earlier that if you haven't read direct evidence of false news stories that it is willful ignorance, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Doubt removed.

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

6 is hardly "many" as Trump must employ dozens if not hundreds of people, or in his campaign. It's definitely "some" though, but were they worth the millions spent? Some of those were just for lying to the FBI, so not actual criminals though.

The techniques used by Russia were possibly stolen from America, as we all know America isn't shy when it comes to interfering in other country's elections.

Suspicious financial dealings don't amount to zip if they don't come with indictments. Anyone can accuse anyone of "suspicious" things when it comes down to it, but where's the proof?

The people charged who plead guilty or were convicted were in important positions in the campaign and administration.   Pretending otherwise is pathetic.  So is pretending that lying to the FBI is no big deal. 

 

The US hasn't been accused of interfering in other countries elections since well before the end of the cold war.  I seriously doubt Russia learned its internet based election interference from then.

 

Financial crimes haven't been proven, but there are many investigations still continuing. 

 

I agree that charges shouldn't be filed without proof.  Tell that to Trump and his "lock her up" supporters.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It read like an insider's view of the media establishment to me. He's very credible IMO.

But did it cite specific instances of news organizations deliberately presenting false information?

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

I almost posted earlier that if you haven't read direct evidence of false news stories that it is willful ignorance, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Doubt removed.

Do share that direct evidence will all of us.  A link to an opinion piece by a sometimes journalist/entertainer doesn't cut it.

[JimmyJ]

32 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Wikipedia's description of him makes him seem like a somewhat unstable entertainer.  I found an

 

The only link I found for the article that opened and was trustworthy was this:  https://www.axios.com/russiagate-indictments-rolling-stone-matt-taibi-c5be6a1d-60f6-49d8-882c-70ebda2bd890.htm

It looks like an opinion piece to me.

"It looks like an opinion piece to me."

 

Good that you don't read it then.

 

You ask for false stories, links are provided, you say that's not enough to just post links, need explanation. Then you refuse to read the explanation, giving several excuses.

 

90% of US media is owned by 6 companies - corporate media.

If you control these - you can virtually control "democracy".

And the opinions of people like yourself.

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2BxjR3WkAAVWUy.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

I almost posted earlier that if you haven't read direct evidence of false news stories that it is willful ignorance, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Doubt removed.

 

I blame the algorithms. If you can get'em to bite once, you're going to get more of the same. It's a strategy employed across the political spectrum. Hate Inc. indeed.

[Thomas J]

You will notice that despite two years of drum beating on "collusion" with the Russians to rig the election for Trump, at no time did any news agency report specifically what the Russians supposedly did?  The only thing ever mildly reported was some posts on social media and those were both anti-Trump and pro-Trump.  Big Deal.  The average person in the USA never questions the media.  They merely hear COLLUSION and never ask who did what when. 

[wayned]

I watched the interview of Rep. Joe Kennedy on the Van Jones show a few weeks ago and when he asked him how2 he wanted the Mueller investigation to end he said that he wished that Trump was cleared of all charges so that the Congress and Senate could get back to normal rule and pass the legislation that the country needed.  Well, he got part of his wish, Trump says that he was cleared of all charges and we are now back to normal rule, the Dems attacking the GOP and the GOP attacking the Dems with Trump fueling the fire!

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The people charged who plead guilty or were convicted were in important positions in the campaign and administration.   Pretending otherwise is pathetic.  So is pretending that lying to the FBI is no big deal. 

 

The US hasn't been accused of interfering in other countries elections since well before the end of the cold war.  I seriously doubt Russia learned its internet based election interference from then.

 

Financial crimes haven't been proven, but there are many investigations still continuing. 

 

I agree that charges shouldn't be filed without proof.  Tell that to Trump and his "lock her up" supporters.

The US hasn't been accused of interfering in other countries elections since well before the end of the cold war. 

Seriously? Not accused because every country that can does it, so it's "normal".

[farcanell]

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

6 is hardly "many" as Trump must employ dozens if not hundreds of people, or in his campaign. It's definitely "some" though, but were they worth the millions spent? Some of those were just for lying to the FBI, so not actual criminals though.

The techniques used by Russia were possibly stolen from America, as we all know America isn't shy when it comes to interfering in other country's elections.

Suspicious financial dealings don't amount to zip if they don't come with indictments. Anyone can accuse anyone of "suspicious" things when it comes down to it, but where's the proof?

Sounds like money much better spent than was seen in the Clinton witch hunt, that cost more, took longer and resulted in nothing.

 

muellers probing of Donald has already produced results, (including fines coving the cost of the investigation, so cost is a nil issue, unlike the monies the people’s paid in the Clinton witch hunt) and it will probably continue to produce results, as it is scrutinized by all and sundry, including potential amendments to existing laws, or at the least, tighter monitoring and control of the existing laws... and a message to the elite, which plebes should appreaciate

 

so... were they worth the millions spent, you ask.... it seems the people’s got a whole lot for nothing ( maybe even a monetary windfall, eh.?).... so yes, money well spent