Trump and Russia

[TakeYouToTasker]

18 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

I'd tell you to ask yourself the same question.

We obviously disagree.

 

We'll see who is correct when history is written - then we can gloat about it on a message board created to talk about the Buffalo Bills.

And there's the rub:  I have asked myself the same question.

 

I began all of this as a very well documented "Never Trump" voter.

 

I shared all of your concerns over Russian collusion, and began to look at the evidence, which is what one should always do.  The problem was, that that there never was any evidence presented.  There were lots of fiat assertions, and lots of bluster; and then there were factual inaccuracies which weren't being explained, but rather papered over; and then there were narrative shifts and character attacks in absence of evidence when those factual inaccuracies were challenged; and then there was evidence leading away from Trump/Russia collusion, which was once again papered over; and the list goes on and on, and leads further away from President Trump.

 

I am where I am on this because I have been examining all of the evidence being presented.  I had to throw away my preconceptions because the evidence told me I was wrong.

 

There is no shame in being wrong as long as you can admit it when the truth reveals itself. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

And there's the rub:  I have asked myself the same question.

 

I began all of this as a very well documented "Never Trump" voter.

 

I shared all of your concerns over Russian collusion, and began to look at the evidence, which is what one should always do.  The problem was, that that there never was any evidence presented.  There were lots of fiat assertions, and lots of bluster; and then there were factual inaccuracies which weren't being explained, but rather papered over; and then there were narrative shifts and character attacks in absence of evidence when those factual inaccuracies were challenged; and then there was evidence leading away from Trump/Russia collusion, which was once again papered over; and the list goes on and on, and leads further away from President Trump.

 

I am where I am on this because I have been examining all of the evidence being presented.  I had to throw away my preconceptions because the evidence told me I was wrong.

 

There is no shame in being wrong as long as you can admit it when the truth reveals itself. 

 

 

If only more people practiced intellectual honesty with themselves. 

 

I'll add this. We ALL have been lied to by a complicit media on this issue for over a year. Every single one of us. The amount of disinformation on this topic is really unheard of. So there absolutely is no shame in being duped. 

 

There's only shame in not bothering to look deeper for yourself. 

 

I've said repeatedly I'm not here to preach or convert. Just share knowledge so you all can look and examine the evidence for yourselves. Be your own expert. Develop your own discernment. Don't mindlessly trust a corrupt system to keep you informed.

[row_33]

you form your hypotheses and metanarratives to get through life

 

and when you find them dead wrong you change them

 

when you had no kids you had 3 theories on how to raise children, after you raised 3 kids you had zero theories on how to raise children

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

A hero?  Good one.  What about not reporting his income from Russia and Turkey?  Got a convoluted half assed reason for that too?  Guess if he declared that the whole deep state might have just taken over then and there.  Another possibility is that he got corrupted after a long and honorable career and just wanted more money.  Not real heroic

 

To say there was no better way to expose corruption in the FISA warrant process than to lie to the FBI is not credible either.

 

Let me ask you, what in your mind would be evidence of collusion to you?  What are you looking to see?  Is it a video with Trump and Putin talking this over or is there something less that would convince you?

 

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Bob in Mich

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

A hero?  Good one  What about not reporting his income from Russia and Turkey.  Got a convoluted half assed reason for that too?  Guess if he declared that the whole deep state might have just taken over then and there.  Another possibility is that he got corrupted after a long and honorable career and just wanted more money.  Not real heroic

 

To say there was no better way to expose corruption in the FISA warrant process than to lie to the FBI is not credible either.

 

Let me ask you, what in your mind would be evidence of collusion to you?  What are you looking to see?  Is it a video with Trump and Putin talkig this over or is there something less that would convince you?

 

 

What would convince me?  Evidence that he colluded with Russia in order to influence the election would convince me.  That's the charge you're asking me to believe.  Present evidence.  Not talking points.  Not fiat declarations.  Not hearsay.  Evidence.

 

Why don't you have any evidence? 

[Warren Zevon]

32 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

If you cared a WHIT about anything that symbol stands for, you'd be on my side. 

 

But you're not because you're a mouth breathing asshat devoid of original ideas.

 

Thank you. You are a kind and humble Internet personality. 

[Deranged Rhino]

18 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

A hero?  Good one.  What about not reporting his income from Russia and Turkey?  Got a convoluted half assed reason for that too?  Guess if he declared that the whole deep state might have just taken over then and there.  Another possibility is that he got corrupted after a long and honorable career and just wanted more money.  Not real heroic

 

To say there was no better way to expose corruption in the FISA warrant process than to lie to the FBI is not credible either.

 

Let me ask you, what in your mind would be evidence of collusion to you?  What are you looking to see?  Is it a video with Trump and Putin talking this over or is there something less that would convince you?

 

 

 

What would convince me? It would be a start to show me one shred of evidence for the claim of collusion or money laundering. You can't do it. After a year and half you can't show me one piece of evidence that makes that case. 

 

Neither can Congress. 

 

THAT'S A PROBLEM to anyone who likes to think for themselves.

 

So my suspicions remain high. And, unlike you, I back my claim up with evidence. I've spoken with now dozens of men who served under Flynn. Every single one of them to the last man would lay down their life for the man. 

 

He'll get a medal before he spends one moment in jail. 

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What would convince me?  Evidence that he colluded with Russia in order to influence the election would convince me.  That's the charge you're asking me to believe.  Present evidence.  Not talking points.  Not fiat declarations.  Not hearsay.  Evidence.

 

Why don't you have any evidence? 

 

Well, I need to know how you are defining evidence.  I would like to see you declare what would be convincing evidence so I can point back to the post in another couple of months when you try to say that new evidence uncovered wasn't sufficient to prove any collusion. 

 

I don't have any further evidence than you do.  The Mueller investigation has not released its findings.  That is where I think you will eventually see evidence presented. 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Well, I need to know how you are defining evidence. 

 

Something that doesn't rely upon unknown sources citing unnamed methods would be a good start. 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Well, I need to know how you are defining evidence.  I would like to see you declare what would be convincing evidence so I can point back to the post in another couple of months when you try to say that new evidence uncovered wasn't sufficient to prove any collusion. 

 

I don't have any further evidence than you do.  The Mueller investigation has not released its findings.  That is where I think you will eventually see evidence presented. 

ev·i·dence

ˈevədəns/  

noun

noun: evidence

1. 1.

   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

   synonyms:

   proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation "they found evidence of his plotting"

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I don't have any further evidence than you do.  The Mueller investigation has not released its findings.  That is where I think you will eventually see evidence presented. 

 

So you've decided to blindly believe the very same people who lied us into 17 years of uninterrupted war when they tell you, "trust us, we have the evidence you just can't see it."

 

It's not the same agencies telling this to you, it's the same people. 

 

That's dunderheaded.

[Bob in Mich]

The Trump Jr - Russian meeting is fact, right?  Also factual is that the administration and Trump have repeatedly lied regarding the purpose and participants in that meeting.  Why all the deception if there was nothing to conceal?  Perhaps they were trying to conceal the fact that they were willing to work with Russians to help Trump win.  Recall Trump Jr's email chain?  Now, if the Russians actually helped and got something in return for this help, that would be a conspiracy, would it not?

 

Trump Jr had contacts with Wikileaks about utilizing the hacked emails, right or not?  Flynn's talk with the Russians was about removing Obama placed sanctions, right or not?  Why are these facts not evidence of any possible collusion to you?  I realize that not everything has yet to be made public but to me there seems to be lots of evidence of collusion.

 

Why are all the lies around Russia - Flynn, Trump Jr, Sessions, Papa, etc, etc?  If the lies are accidents or coincidences, shouldn't there be sort a distribution among all countries?  That has to raise questions to the most willfully blind.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

The Trump Jr - Russian meeting is fact, right?  Also factual is that the administration and Trump have repeatedly lied regarding the purpose and participants in that meeting.  Why all the deception if there was nothing to conceal?  Perhaps they were trying to conceal the fact that they were willing to work with Russians to help Trump win.  Recall Trump Jr's email chain?  Now, if the Russians actually helped and got something in return for this help, that would be a conspiracy, would it not?

 

Trump Jr had contacts with Wikileaks about utilizing the hacked emails, right or not?  Flynn's talk with the Russians was about removing Obama placed sanctions, right or not?  Why are these facts not evidence of any possible collusion to you?  I realize that not everything has yet to be made public but to me there seems to be lots of evidence of collusion.

 

Why are all the lies around Russia - Flynn, Trump Jr, Sessions, Papa, etc, etc?  If the lies are accidents or coincidences, shouldn't there be sort a distribution among all countries?  That has to raise questions to the most willfully blind.

 

 

Take them one at a time: 

 

Trump Tower Meeting: Nothing illegal happened at that meeting. There's 23 hours of congressional testimony on this 20 minute meeting which you can read if you don't believe me. Trump Jr has not been charged with perjury because he didn't lie during his testimony about that meeting. Even congressional Democrats agree nothing illegal happened at the meeting. And, if you actually place the meeting in the timeline we now know was happening inside the DOJ/FBI/DNC at that time you come away with a completely different perspective. The meeting was up by Fusion GPS (who the lawyer was working for) and 44's State Department (who cleared her visa at the last moment despite being rejected originally) and used HRC's favorite translator. We also know at this time Fusion, the FBI, and DOJ, and State Department were trying to cover their own asses because Admiral Rogers had shut off their ability to access raw 702 SIGINT. So the meeting was a trap, and a poor one at that. It's not evidence of collusion (there was no colluding in the meeting). 

 

WikiLeaks and Trump Jr: That has been completely debunked. The DM exchange was initiated by WL AFTER they released the emails publicly. They didn't discuss anything illegal. And WikiLeaks has NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA. The only people who say Wikileaks is a Russian organization are those pushing an agenda. They're lying to you.  

 

Flynn's talk with Russian Ambassador: This was completely legal. The FBI and DOJ cleared Flynn of anything illegal in this call. It wasn't collusion. It was diplomacy. The day before 44 had imposed sanctions and expelled 30+ diplomats (because he was trying to stoke the Russian narrative, refer to my timeline on the FISA warrant in other threads). Flynn asked Russia not to escalate the tension. This is LEGAL, and completely in his purview during the transition. 

 

Why aren't these "facts" not evidence of "possible" collusion?

 

BECAUSE THEY AREN'T FACTS.

 

They're spin which if you look under the surface are easy to spot as BS.

 

Also "possible collusion" is a nonsense term. You can make anything "possible" collusion. That's not a legal standard.

[GG]

37 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

ev·i·dence

ˈevədəns/  

noun

noun: evidence

1. 1.

   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

   synonyms:

   proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation "they found evidence of his plotting"

 

 

Can you define is?

[Bob in Mich]

Lest I be accused of ducking our conversation, I am hopping out to fix and eat dinner.  I will think about this and respond later

[DC Tom]

For all the talk of "defining evidence," you all forgot that you first have to define COLLUSION.

 

So far, the typical definition of "collusion with Russia" that I've seen is "talked to some Russians."

 

You're never going to find evidence of collusion if you don't know what the !@#$ it is.

Edited February 6, 2018 by DC Tom

[4merper4mer]

LOL

[Bob in Mich]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Take them one at a time: 

 

Trump Tower Meeting: Nothing illegal happened at that meeting. There's 23 hours of congressional testimony on this 20 minute meeting which you can read if you don't believe me. Trump Jr has not been charged with perjury because he didn't lie during his testimony about that meeting. Even congressional Democrats agree nothing illegal happened at the meeting. And, if you actually place the meeting in the timeline we now know was happening inside the DOJ/FBI/DNC at that time you come away with a completely different perspective. The meeting was up by Fusion GPS (who the lawyer was working for) and 44's State Department (who cleared her visa at the last moment despite being rejected originally) and used HRC's favorite translator. We also know at this time Fusion, the FBI, and DOJ, and State Department were trying to cover their own asses because Admiral Rogers had shut off their ability to access raw 702 SIGINT. So the meeting was a trap, and a poor one at that. It's not evidence of collusion (there was no colluding in the meeting). 

You don't know what happened in that meeting any more than I do.  To say there was no colluding taking place is ridiculous.  To say that we all should take Trump Jr's word for things is unsound advice given his record to misrepresent the truth.  I thought Trump's Ms Universe buddy, Rob Goldstone, set up the Trump tower meeting, at least according to the released emails.  You are saying that the dems and deep state actors coerced or tricked him into doing this to trap Trump?  Doesn't sound as plausible as the explanation that Trump Jr wanted dirt on Hillary from the Russians.

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

WikiLeaks and Trump Jr: That has been completely debunked. The DM exchange was initiated by WL AFTER they released the emails publicly. They didn't discuss anything illegal. And WikiLeaks has NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA. The only people who say Wikileaks is a Russian organization are those pushing an agenda. They're lying to you. 

How do you know there is no connection between Russian intelligence and Wikileaks?  I would offer that you don't.  It would give the Russian hackers cover to put Wikileaks in the middle.  Is that what happened?  I don't know, but neither do you.  It is certainly plausible.

 

Flynn's talk with Russian Ambassador: This was completely legal. The FBI and DOJ cleared Flynn of anything illegal in this call. It wasn't collusion. It was diplomacy. The day before 44 had imposed sanctions and expelled 30+ diplomats (because he was trying to stoke the Russian narrative, refer to my timeline on the FISA warrant in other threads). Flynn asked Russia not to escalate the tension. This is LEGAL, and completely in his purview during the transition. 

Taken alone, there would be nothing suspicious perhaps.  Taken together with the rest of the story, it could be seen as payment to Russia for it's help.

 

Why aren't these "facts" not evidence of "possible" collusion?

 

 

BECAUSE THEY AREN'T FACTS.

 

They're spin which if you look under the surface are easy to spot as BS.

 

Also "possible collusion" is a nonsense term. You can make anything "possible" collusion. That's not a legal standard.

 

Also, I would like you to answer my questions from the post you quoted.  You didn't really answer any of them.  Chiefly, why all the lies and backpedaling and why do they all seem to relate to Russians?

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Let me ask you, what in your mind would be evidence of collusion to you?  What are you looking to see?  Is it a video with Trump and Putin talking this over or is there something less that would convince you?

 

 

 

Maybe the 2 of them being caught on camera and Trump whispering that he'll have more flexibility after the election?

 

Maybe Trump agreeing to allow a Russian company to acquire a significant source of Uranium mined in the U.S.?

 

Maybe a large payment to Trump for a speech?

 

Maybe Russian sources providing dirt (mostly not factual) on the Clinton's just before the election and being paid to do so?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by keepthefaith

[Cinga]

Just curious.... Can anyone site me the federal statute against collusion?