3 ms·

> It was talked about for a long time. People went to prison or got in trouble. Have you read the Mueller report? It explicitly says that they did not find evi

> It was talked about for a long time. People went to prison or got in trouble. Have you read the Mueller report? It explicitly says that they did not find evidence that Trump or his associates colluded (conspired) with Russia. There were people who who weren't Trump who went to jail for things that did not include colluding with Russia or attempting to cheat in the election. I can't see how that possibly "settles" the matter about Trump, what happened to Trump being a Russian agent? What happened to him colluding with Putin to hack the election? > People don’t talk about Trump that much any more either. Well they do strangely enough, but I'm talking about after the investigation _while Trump was still president_! Not just today. They certainly kept talking about Trump, it's just they memory holed the Russia thing and moved on. > Why is no one talking about whatever it was with Hunter Biden any more? Good question I guess, lots of unanswered things or weirdness happens, I'm not saying this is the only thing strange that has ever happened in politics. I'm talking about what I think is a much bigger and stranger recent issue. > Or Hillary’s emails? Well that was litigated. The FBI found evidence of violations of classified information handling statutes but decided not to pursue it. That's basically what was alleged by Hillary opponents, wasn't it? Do you not see the difference? They had some evidence of wrongdoing possibly a crime and certainly incompetence. It might have been politicized and exaggerated to some degree, but it wasn't like it came out of thin air. Imagine exact same Hillary email scandal playing out the same way with the only difference being being no emails ever leaked or stored on private servers and nobody seeing any suggestion of that happening. But they all insisted they had seen them. Wouldn't that be weird? > What about those caravans that were all supposed to be coming countless different times. None of this stuff is discussed any more. I'm not sure about caravans and stuff. > I’m not sure if you’re pulling an elaborate troll job here. The way you worded portions of this post is exactly how certain politicians also speak. The feigned surprise of it being all the rage then dropping out of existence. The questioning of why no one is doing something, etc. Ad hominem. And I'm not saying one or the other or both "sides" don't do it, or there has been no other examples ever of malfeasance or lying in government or news media. If you don't accept this was a massive thing for the country far far bigger and graver than Hillary's mishandling of classified information then fine, but you really can't accept that someone else might think that? It seems you have no curiosity about where Adam Schiff of the house IC committee has hidden all that ample evidence he said he knew about. If he covered it up, if he was lying from the start, doesn't really matter to you. Anybody who asks about it must be a trolle who "sounds exactly like certain politicians"?! That's just fine for you either way you don't want to know what the deal was and you get upset by other people asking about it. Strange attitude.

wolverine876 5y ago
> Have you read the Mueller report? It explicitly says that they did not find evidence that Trump or his associates colluded (conspired) with Russia. That's not what the report says. I encourage anyone interested to read it or a summary from a credible source. The rest of the parent rehashes tired old Trump propaganda. Let's move on.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > That's not what the report says. I encourage anyone interested to read it or a summary from a credible source. Yes it is. Is this a credible enough source for you? https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download Verbatim, p. 181 For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question ofjoint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term“collusion.” The Officeconsidered in particular whethercontacts between Trump Campaign officials andRussia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crimeof conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establishthat the contacts describedin VolumeI, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commitany substantive violation of federal criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371’s offenses clause. The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371’s defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924); see also United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 347 F. Supp. 3d 38, 46 (D.D.C. 2018). The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials—or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals—to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of agovernment agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in VolumeI, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence thatanyCampaignofficial or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge anyCampaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based onthe Russia-related contacts described in SectionIV above. p. 183 he investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated withthe TrumpCampaign acted as an agentofa foreign principal within themeaning of FARA or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the governmentof Russia, or any official thereof. In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government—or atits direction,control, or request—during the relevant time period. -- end copy Can you quote and reference the exact part of the document where they claim to have found evidence that Trump or campaign associates conspired with Russia? > The rest of the parent rehashes tired old Trump propaganda. Let's move on. No it doesn't, and no I won't. If you can't cope with discussing it or people asking questions, you can just move on. It's not propaganda to ask why Adam Schiff did not provide Mueller with any of that ample evidence he allegedly saw as an intelligence committee member. Nobody has asked that. Nobody has asked why Schiff either covered it up or lied about it. Was Schiff himself mislead by intelligence agencies? That's such a huge newsworthy story, it's not old or tired. Asking questions is not propaganda, you are the one engaging in propaganda slinging around your unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks.

wolverine876 5y ago

> Have you read the Mueller report? It explicitly says that they did not find evidence that Trump or his associates colluded (conspired) with Russia. That's not what the report says. I encourage anyone interested to read it or a summary from a credible source. The rest of the parent rehashes tired old Trump propaganda. Let's move on.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> That's not what the report says. I encourage anyone interested to read it or a summary from a credible source. Yes it is. Is this a credible enough source for you? https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download Verbatim, p. 181 For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question ofjoint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term“collusion.” The Officeconsidered in particular whethercontacts between Trump Campaign officials andRussia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crimeof conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establishthat the contacts describedin VolumeI, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commitany substantive violation of federal criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371’s offenses clause. The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371’s defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924); see also United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 347 F. Supp. 3d 38, 46 (D.D.C. 2018). The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials—or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals—to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of agovernment agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in VolumeI, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence thatanyCampaignofficial or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge anyCampaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based onthe Russia-related contacts described in SectionIV above. p. 183 he investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated withthe TrumpCampaign acted as an agentofa foreign principal within themeaning of FARA or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the governmentof Russia, or any official thereof. In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government—or atits direction,control, or request—during the relevant time period. -- end copy Can you quote and reference the exact part of the document where they claim to have found evidence that Trump or campaign associates conspired with Russia? > The rest of the parent rehashes tired old Trump propaganda. Let's move on. No it doesn't, and no I won't. If you can't cope with discussing it or people asking questions, you can just move on. It's not propaganda to ask why Adam Schiff did not provide Mueller with any of that ample evidence he allegedly saw as an intelligence committee member. Nobody has asked that. Nobody has asked why Schiff either covered it up or lied about it. Was Schiff himself mislead by intelligence agencies? That's such a huge newsworthy story, it's not old or tired. Asking questions is not propaganda, you are the one engaging in propaganda slinging around your unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks.