DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[DC Tom]

32 minutes ago, Nanker said:

The disappointment on the Left at the DOJ’s announcement today is palpable... and laughable. 

 

What disappointment?  They're living in an entirely alternate reality.  They think they're vindicated.

[TakeYouToTasker]

9 minutes ago, Logic said:

 

So we're just going to pretend that Mueller's investigation has Trump's full support, and that the GOP hasn't spent weeks and weeks trying to discredit the FBI and pretend its some sort of Obama-and-Hillary-run Deep State conspiracy, while Trump himself refuses to impose any sanctions, against the wishes of his own congress?Cool. And I'M the one not rooted in reality. Right.

No, what "we" are apparently going to pretend is that there is not voluminous evidence piling up that the prior administration engaged in treasonous activities in order to influence a federal election, and that they have attempted a soft coup in the aftermath.

 

The evidence is such that you can no longer ignore it.

[Logic]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

What disappointment?  They're living in an entirely alternate reality.  They think they're vindicated.

One thing I find consistently interesting is that each side -- the left and the right -- feels that the other is living in an entirely alternate reality. The right feels that the left is just part of a baseless witch hunt and is blind to the great and wonderful things being done under Commandant Trump, who is "Making America Great Again!!!", while the left feels that the right have their fingers in their ears over Russia and are backing a vile, disgusting, criminal thug. Cognitive dissonance, echo chamber social media, and 24-hours news channels with agendas sure are making for an interesting debate amongst a fiercely divided populace.

[GG]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The evidence is such that you can no longer ignore it.

 

Want to take that bet?

 

You're dealing with a person who presents indictments for actions that are at least a half decade old and had more ties to Clintons, as definitive proof of Trump's guilt.

 

 

[Logic]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, what "we" are apparently going to pretend is that there is not voluminous evidence piling up that the prior administration engaged in treasonous activities in order to influence a federal election, and that they have attempted a soft coup in the aftermath.

 

The evidence is such that you can no longer ignore it.

Wow. Just wow.

The evidence pointing to Trump team collusion (things like, ya know, statements by the FBI and actual indictments in a counter-intelligence probe) is FAR AND AWAY more voluminous and compelling than whatever unfounded Infowars conspiracy theory Alex Jones is peddling this week. But sure Tasker, whatever you say.

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, Logic said:

It is positively AWE-INSPIRING how far righties are willing to go to defend the man who refuses to defend his country. 

 

It's positively AWE-INSPIRING how much nonsense someone will make up in order to make themselves feel better about jumping to conclusions.

 

Show me evidence Trump "refuses to defend his country" please. Because some would say efforting to protect each and every citizen's right to have a say in the republic IS defending the country. 

 

17 minutes ago, Logic said:

Whether or not you believe in collusion -- and at this point, the evidence and indictments indicating collusion are beginning to stack pretty high -- the fact is that there absolutely WAS Russian interference in our election. 

 

There has been ZERO evidence of collusion offered so far.

 

None. Zip. Nada.

 

How do indictments, which do not mention Russian/Trump collusion at all, become "evidence indicating collusion"? 

 

That's a nonsense argument, devoid of (gasp) logic. 

 

18 minutes ago, Logic said:

To deny that at this point is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la I can't hear you!"...so the fact that so many people have absolutely no problem with the fact that our president won't lift a finger to protect us from future interference or punish those who DID interfere is beyond ludicrous. 

 

More mindless hysteria devoid of fact.

 

Show us where Trump is refusing to "lift a finger to protect us from future interference"... Or better yet, show us your outrage over the fact that the previous administration actively aided the interference by approving VISAs for two of the Russians indicted today and concealing vital information from both Congress and POTUS elect regarding the investigation into meddling. 

 

Where's your outrage for those acts? Or does your outrage stop at partisanship? 

 

20 minutes ago, Logic said:

And if there's no collusion, why won't Trump do anything about Russian interference? For a bunch of people so adamant about his innocence, he sure doesn't ACT the way an innocent person would in this situation.

 

More speculation without fact. 

 

I could point to sanctions imposed by Trump on Russia (12/21/17) which are more powerful and impactful than the previous bout of sanctions. 

 

I could point to multiple bombing of Russian forces in Syria to make the case that you're wrong. 

 

You can point to... what exactly? 

 

Nothing... you've got nothing. 

 

21 minutes ago, Logic said:

You Trump defenders KNOW that if Hillary was president and was refusing to punish Russian interference or act to prevent it in the future, you'd be losing your mind and chanting "lock her up!" at rallies, foaming at the mouth. It'd be a non-stop Fox News scream orgy of the highest order. 

 

And you know that if you discovered Trump was illegally colluding with the FBI and DOJ to spy on democrats running in the midterms and using that information to launch a disinformation campaign with the complicit media to swing those elections you would throw a fit. 

 

Rightfully so. 

 

Because that's what this is about. This isn't about Trump. It's not about left or right. It's not about conservatives or liberals. It's about the very fabric of this republic. I care enough to set my partisanship down to defend it. Do you? 

 

Because so far when the left breaks the law to tilt the election in their favor... you say nothing. 

 

Why is that?

 

22 minutes ago, Logic said:

And yet, Trump sits there, totally okay with the fact that our country continues to be vulnerable to these security threats -- all while running a "wall and deportations!" dog-and-pony show and claiming to care about our security -- and you all have no problem at all with it. Hypocrisy of the highest order. No other way to put it.
 

 

This is more emotional blathering devoid of substance. 

 

Your name shouldn't be logic. It should be Overly Emotional. 

 

23 minutes ago, Logic said:

History will remember and record all of this. If you're still backing Trump, you're on the wrong side of history. Laugh now and call us lib-tards and snowflakes and whatever else you want and make clever little "nothingburger" comments.Continue to turn a blind eye to the treasonous and dangerous actions of the disgusting, vile thug in office. But again I say: history will remember. 

 

 

You're goddamn right history is going to remember this. This is war. We're in it right this very moment. 

 

And the fact-less argument's you're deploying here are the very ones used by the enemies of this country. You can say those who are backing trump are "on the wrong side of history", but that's just blather. The reality is no one is defending Trump. People are defending the rule of law. 

 

The very ones who decided they were above the law, the very ones who decided your right to privacy, due process, and your right to have a say in the elections do not matter are who you are defending. That doesn't make you righteous. That doesn't put you on the "right side of history" - it makes you an enemy of this country and everything it stands for.  

 

You're actively aiding the enemy by outsourcing your "logic" to emotional tantrums devoid of fact. 

 

Be better. Be smarter.

 

This has been over a year now of you in this thread getting pummeled. You have no new evidence of collusion. No new evidence of malfeasance. You only have emotions and empty words. That's why you and your side will ultimately lose - hopefully without a shot being fired. But maybe not.  

 

Hopefully you'll figure this out before the bottom falls out completely. 

6 minutes ago, Logic said:

One thing I find consistently interesting is that each side -- the left and the right -- feels that the other is living in an entirely alternate reality. The right feels that the left is just part of a baseless witch hunt and is blind to the great and wonderful things being done under Commandant Trump, who is "Making America Great Again!!!", while the left feels that the right have their fingers in their ears over Russia and are backing a vile, disgusting, criminal thug. Cognitive dissonance, echo chamber social media, and 24-hours news channels with agendas sure are making for an interesting debate amongst a fiercely divided populace.

 

The difference is, those who are arguing against collusion delusion can point to REAL evidence and REAL firings/demotions/suspensions within the DOJ and FBI to make their case. 

 

Those on the "left" have no evidence. Just emotions. 

 

That's why you lose.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Logic said:

Wow. Just wow.

The evidence pointing to Trump team collusion (things like, ya know, statements by the FBI and actual indictments in a counter-intelligence probe) is FAR AND AWAY more voluminous and compelling than whatever unfounded Infowars conspiracy theory Alex Jones is peddling this week. But sure Tasker, whatever you say.

As I said, I went into this as a well documented "Never Trump" libertarian who felt his election would destroy the Republican Party, and American conservatism forever.  That's well documented here.

 

I got involved with the evidence of Russian collusion because, much like you, I thought it to be credible.

 

However, as I followed the evidence, I realized something:  there was no evidence being presented of President Trump colluding with Russia; but there was tons of evidence that something else entirely was afoot.

 

So, I followed the evidence where it led, and it led far away for the Trump campaign.

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, Logic said:

Wow. Just wow.

The evidence pointing to Trump team collusion (things like, ya know, statements by the FBI and actual indictments in a counter-intelligence probe) is FAR AND AWAY more voluminous and compelling than whatever unfounded Infowars conspiracy theory Alex Jones is peddling this week. But sure Tasker, whatever you say.

 

False. Show me one line in any indictment so far that talks of collusion. Just ONE LINE. 

 

 

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, Logic said:

Wow. Just wow.

The evidence pointing to Trump team collusion (things like, ya know, statements by the FBI and actual indictments in a counter-intelligence probe) is FAR AND AWAY more voluminous and compelling than whatever unfounded Infowars conspiracy theory Alex Jones is peddling this week. But sure Tasker, whatever you say.

 

Funny that the indictment by the DOJ released today specifically stated there was no evidence of collusion in the indictment.  Not to mention that the other indictments you reference were never for anything resembling collusion either.

 

You are not your strong suit.

[Azalin]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

As I said, I went into this as a well documented "Never Trump" libertarian who felt his election would destroy the Republican Party, and American conservatism forever.  That's well documented here.

 

This is 100% accurate. You were never a pro-Trump guy. Almost nobody around here was, in fact.

 

When Logic learns that DR is neither a pro-Trumper, a Republican, or a conservative, he's going to become apoplectic.

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

False. Show me one line in any indictment so far that talks of collusion. Just ONE LINE. 

 

 

I don't know if it's technically collusion if only one side knows they're Russian (it's probably not if we're being fair), but the last sentence of page 4 section 6 of the most recent indictment reads '...some defendants, posing as US persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and with other political activists to coordinate political activities...'  

 

And it's probably due to the DC courts being hard up for staff (as opposed to anything nefarious...maybe) but the language is VERY vague. Deliberately so IMHO. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

I don't know if it's technically collusion if only one side knows they're Russian (it's probably not if we're being fair), but the last sentence of page 4 section 6 of the most recent indictment reads '...some defendants, posing as US persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and with other political activists to coordinate political activities...'  

 

And it's probably due to the DC courts being hard up for staff (as opposed to anything nefarious...maybe) but the language is VERY vague. Deliberately so IMHO. 

 

"Unwitting" is used very deliberately in that passage and carries legal definitions with it. 

 

I'd argue that section is going out of its way to state there was nothing criminal or conspiratorial happening with these 13 Russians (and their organization) and the Trump campaign. If they wanted to be nebulous about it, they wouldn't have used "unwitting". 

 

 

*****************

Official WH statement: 

 

Earlier today, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced indictments against 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian entities for meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, which began in 2014 before the President declared his candidacy. President Donald J. Trump has been fully briefed on this matter and is glad to see the Special Counsel’s investigation further indicates—that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia and that the outcome of the election was not changed or affected.

 

President Trump says, “it is more important than ever before to come together as Americans. We cannot allow those seeking to sow confusion, discord, and rancor to be successful. It’s time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions. We must unite as Americans to protect the integrity of our democracy and our elections.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-russia-indictments/

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

This is 100% accurate. You were never a pro-Trump guy. Almost nobody around here was, in fact.

 

When Logic learns that DR is neither a pro-Trumper, a Republican, or a conservative, he's going to become apoplectic.

Exactly.  Not only was I never pro-Trump, I was vocally anti-Trump.

 

And Deranged Rhino is a left leaning, anti-war, former Democrat, with a mild libertarian bent.

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

"Unwitting" is used very deliberately in that passage and carries legal definitions with it. 

 

I'd argue that section is going out of its way to state there was nothing criminal or conspiratorial happening with these 13 Russians (and their organization) and the Trump campaign. If they wanted to be nebulous about it, they wouldn't have used "unwitting". 

 

 

*****************

Official WH statement: 

 

Earlier today, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced indictments against 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian entities for meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, which began in 2014 before the President declared his candidacy. President Donald J. Trump has been fully briefed on this matter and is glad to see the Special Counsel’s investigation further indicates—that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia and that the outcome of the election was not changed or affected.

 

President Trump says, “it is more important than ever before to come together as Americans. We cannot allow those seeking to sow confusion, discord, and rancor to be successful. It’s time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions. We must unite as Americans to protect the integrity of our democracy and our elections.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-russia-indictments/

I tend to agree, but if one WAS to speculate...you could argue that an effort to build a case regarding collusion would necessitate foundational indictments unimpeachable from a legal point of view, and thus the adherence to very specific phrasing and deliberate opacity. THAT'S the long game.

[Taro T]

53 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I don't know if it's technically collusion if only one side knows they're Russian (it's probably not if we're being fair), but the last sentence of page 4 section 6 of the most recent indictment reads '...some defendants, posing as US persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and with other political activists to coordinate political activities...'  

 

And it's probably due to the DC courts being hard up for staff (as opposed to anything nefarious...maybe) but the language is VERY vague. Deliberately so IMHO. 

 

The indictment states that the indicted people were coordinating w/ people in the Trump campaign & others (read: Sanders campaign workers) without the Trump (& Sanders) people realizing they were Russians.

 

Pretty sure you can't be conspiring intentionally to benefit Russia when you don't realize the people you are dealing w/ are essentially Russian spies.

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

This is 100% accurate. You were never a pro-Trump guy. Almost nobody around here was, in fact.

 

When Logic learns that DR is neither a pro-Trumper, a Republican, or a conservative, he's going to become apoplectic.

 

Hell, I was so anti-Trump I was actually pro-Trump, figuring he'd do such a ****ty job that Congress and the Courts would be forced to step in as checks and balances.  Funny how I was...not entirely incorrect, really. 

 

But morons like "Logic" or Tibs or others here have their heads stuck so far up their asses they honestly believe that disagreeing with them means you support Trump.  News flash, morons: it is entirely possible to be against Trump AND disagree with you.  Likely, even, given that Trump and you morons share the same fundamental characteristic of being complete ****heads.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

I tend to agree, but if one WAS to speculate...you could argue that an effort to build a case regarding collusion would necessitate foundational indictments unimpeachable from a legal point of view, and thus the adherence to very specific phrasing and deliberate opacity. THAT'S the long game.

 

Absolutely possible.

 

And I'll repeat this again (not for you, for the audience at large) despite my strong opinions and research on this issue, I remain open to any and all new evidence that presents itself. Even if - especially if - it cuts against my own position. So while I'll defend my position and debate opposition - it's coming from a place of trying to share information, not win an argument or be "right" down the line.

 

I'm interested in truth as best I can discern it, and sharing as much of it as I can on this issue with as many people as are willing to listen, because I believe fully we are at a historic crossroads as a nation. We were a breath away from losing the republic completely, the danger remains but I do believe the tide has turned for the better. The power that was taken from the people is being given back, but the vast scale of corruption (which extends beyond just the last 8 years) took years to build - it'll take years to tear down peacefully. We are just entering year 2 of this process... 

[Nanker]

You’ve done a great job of researching behind-the-scenes and bringing salient information to light. I think you speak for most of us that aren’t afflicted with terminal TDS that whichever way the sword and scale of justice swings, were most interested in bring the truth to light of day. And there is a lot of merde that’s about to hit the ventilateur. 

[Deranged Rhino]

[4merper4mer]

So some Russians got a Facebook account?  Did Marco Rubio collude with Nigerians to fund his campaign from their princely trust?  Did someone from Microsoft with an Indian accent fix Rand Paul's PC?

 

These revered people like Mueller are useless.