Mueller Indicts 13 - page 4

U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al Those indicted supported many candidates except Hillary Clinton - including Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Jill Stein. However, even though they opposed... Read More

  1. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from heron
    Perhaps i should have specified public proof ... you have no more idea than I have what evidence Mueller actually has. So...only the first senence is actually true. So far, the investigation has produced multiple indictments, so I wouldn't exactly call it fruitless.

    Meanwhile, we now have pretty compelling proof that the fake news of Russian involvment in the 2016 election isn't fake, after all.

    As for the silly game, claiming that both statements mean the same thing, as Trump has done, is what's silly.

    This is far from over ...
    You didn't ask what statement was true, you asked if the sentences were the same or different. I didn't state what sentence was true or false, as that wasn't the question. As you have pointed out, very little is publicly known about the investigation, if anything is actually even known by the FBI, in regards to Trump colluding with Russia, since that's what your sentences were based on.

    I also didn't claim they mean the same thing, I said they say different things but as of right now, what the public knows, the outcome is the same. Even more, the longer the investigation continues, the more likely it is that there is "proof of no collusion" if you want to word it that way, I guess... If there was proof of collusion, your sentences would read:

    There is proof of collusion by Trump.
    There is proof of collusion by Trump.

    So, we are kind of missing the "proof of collusion" part in the real world...

    The compelling proof of Russian involvement are ads bought by 13 people from Russia, in favor of many candidates, mostly Trump, and opposing Clinton. The fake news is that Trump has anything to do with Russian interference. There is no evidence that the election was swayed, by all accounts.

    Maybe try to bring it down a notch on the fantasy-fiction. You sound weird.
  2. by   heron
    Didn't say you said they were the same thing - I said Trump did. And, no, i didn't initally ask which was true ... so what? I am allowed to note that one is true and the other is not.

    What's wierd is that you are making categorical statements of fact before all the evidence is in. Not to mention throwing in a blatant straw man.

    Try again ...
  3. by   elkpark
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Oh really? Please, tell me when it started.

    Because it seems you have inconsistencies within your own circle, as MuroRN believes it was always about the "campaign staff as whole", the purpose of the investigation.
    I suppose it's a question of what, specifically, people mean when they refer to "the investigation." There are several different investigations going on, that have started at different times, with different foci. When I say "the original investigation," I'm referring to the investigation started by the FBI into the DNC hacking and Russian interference in the election. The FBI started that investigation in July of 2016. Lots has happened and that investigation and the subsequent related investigations have gone in some interesting directions since then.

    Politico has a nice timeline: The definitive Trump-Russia timeline of events - POLITICO
  4. by   elkpark
    Quote from itsybitsy
    All of these things need to be voted on by Congress. These are things Trump WANTS and what a large majority of his base WANTS.
    Yes, and "a large majority of his base" is a small percentage of the actual adult population of the US. I realize it's hard for the Kool-aid drinkers to remember that fact (or accept it).
  5. by   elkpark
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Which is why, in previous threads, I have asked how long an investigation should go on despite not finding anything to indict on. There is no good answer for that, as that is just what our investigatory arms will have to decide, but some suggested 3 years, as the investigation on Bill Clinton took about that same amount of time.
    The Bill Clinton investigation lasted five years, from the opening of the Whitewater investigation in January 1994 until the beginning of his impeachment trial in January of 1999. I'm comfortable with that as a reasonable amount of time to spend on investigating the Trump administration. Since the Republicans were willing to keep funding the Whitewater investigation indefinitely, for as long as it took to finally find something they could use against President Clinton, something that had absolutely nothing to do with the original purpose of the investigation, I'm sure they are also fine with that being the standard for the investigation of the Trump administration.

    Clinton impeachment timeline | US news | The Guardian
  6. by   Lil Nel
    Wow. These are the actions and words of an unhinged mind, or a desperate, guilty, little man, or maybe both. Either way, it is pathetic behavior.

    Well, bless your heart, DJT, you are indeed a tortured soul.
  7. by   toomuchbaloney
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Oh, has there been a public declaration of the belief that Trump colluded?
    You stated that the investigation has nothing on Trump. YOU MADE THE DECLARATION. I'm inviting you to back that statement up with facts.

    Feel free to admit that you were bloviating.
    Last edit by dianah on Mar 16 : Reason: Terms of Service
  8. by   herring_RN
    Since July 2016, the FBI has been investigating the Russian government's attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election, including whether President Donald Trump's campaign associates were involved in those efforts.

    "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election" between Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to the U.S. intelligence community.
    Russian intelligence services gained access to the computer network of Democratic Party officials and released the hacked material to WikiLeaks and others "to help President-elect Trump's election chances," the IC said in a report released earlier this year.

    At this point, no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign has been made public. It may or may not exist. However, there is an ongoing investigation...
    Timeline of Russia Investigation -
  9. by   Lil Nel
    Thank goodness for a free, and open press. The Washington Post has fact-checked the Bum's latest round of LIES and misinformation.

    Fact checking Trump's error-filled tweetstorm about the Russia investigation
  10. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    ... There is no evidence that the election was swayed, by all accounts...
    You're overstating that at least a little bit. The FBI indictments did not find evidence that Russia directly altered the results, however they also found no evidence that the interference didn't sway how people voted, they've said that's something we'll probably never know since that would require a quantitative statistical analysis of how people decided to vote, which isn't something the FBI does. The FBI indictment didn't determine the sky is blue, but that doesn't mean it's accurate to say the FBI determined the sky isn't blue.

    We do know that many of the topics pushed by this interference were also issues that people claimed were at least in part the basis for voting for Trump. I doubt they switched any significant number of people from being Clinton voters to being Trump voters, but it's certainly possible that they energized Trump supporters enough to change them from non-voters to voters.

    Had Trump's margin of victory been larger, it would seem less likely they could have been a difference maker, but his margin of victory was extremely small, coming down to just 3 states. The margins of victories in those three states combined was only 77,000 votes, or about 0.5% of the vote in those three states.
  11. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    I'm pointing out how it's largely reported as. I think it SHOULD be about individuals, and drag Trump into it if they find incriminating information on him, specifically. I don't think it should have been the Trump campaign, because it is very misleading to many people, and some use it to their advantage to act as if Trump is at all involved, when that's not evident.
    I don't think it's any less accurate to suggest Trump's staff has nothing to with Trump. Choosing staff is one of the main functions of a President, and Trump in particular touted his ability to pick "the best people", so it's pretty clearly not accurate that his staff doesn't reflect on him or his judgement and abilities.
    Quote from itsybitsy
    I think it's about interpretation. I feel like Trump said that because it was another headline of, "Look, more evidence Trump colluded!" which is what I think trump was referring to. He feels as though that's something for someone to point to him that he did something, when he didn't - hence a hoax. I think this because the second bit about Hillary, is that other people, the MSM, had MUCH MORE propaganda for Clinton, opposing Trump, and no one bats an eye. It's the same thing on both sides, but no one accuses Clinton of attempting to meddle in elections by having the MSM interfere, with their propaganda. Obviously that's not colluding, because it's American's (that we know of), but the constant slander in untrue stories and "breaking news" about not-so-much breaking news. He isn't accusing Clinton of something illegal, but showing the hypocrisy, that for him, Russian interference means collusion, but for Clinton, MSM constant slander, just means favorability.
    What "MSM propaganda" are you referring to?

    Trump's skepticism of Russian interference despite evidence to the contrary has been generally consistent over a long period of time, it's not limited to one statement. When cornered, he will occasionally concede some potential the claims are true, but each time has then quickly reversed that position or at least downplayed the importance of a tainted election, and in the end, words speak louder than words, and Trump has refused to impose broadly supported sanctions against Russia.
    Some of his statements, not a comprehensive list: "I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are - she doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia is because they think they're trying to tarnish me with Russia."

    In response to a report that Russians had specifically intended to help Trump, which we now know is true: ""I think it's ridiculous. I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it. I don't know why, and I think it's just - you know, they talked about all sorts of things. Every week, it's another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the electoral college. I guess the final numbers are now at 306. She's down to a very low number. No, I don't believe that at all." ("Fox News Sunday")

    "I think it's probably unlikely. I think maybe the Democrats are putting that out. Who knows? But I think that it's pretty unlikely. But, you know, who knows?" If Russia were involved, Trump said he hopes "somebody's going to be able to find out so they can end it because it would not be appropriate at all."

    Quote from itsybitsy
    Sure, don't ignore it. Investigate that until it's nothing. My issue is reporting and regurgitating that Trump is involved. No one knows that, and has no reasons to besides what members of his campaign have done - again, not what Trump has. And what his campaign members have done, none of them have been indicted for doing anything having to do with Russia, their charges are lying or money laundering. So really, again nothing that would show that the campaign members even colluded. Not saying you believe this, but this is the argument. That Trump WILL be guilty of colluding with Russia because his campaign members lied to the FBI and there were 13 Russians who bought ads, some in favor of Trump. It really is exhausting explaining this.
    Prior to the indictments, I had been skeptical that the Russian intent was to specifically support Trump, but rather they intended to push unreliable, conspiracy type stories, which then indirectly help Trump since that's a main pillar of his candidacy, but the indictments confirmed that starting in September the intention of the Russian interference was specifically to support Trump.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    Also, who openly pursued cooperation with the Russian government?
    Carter Page and Don Jr are the two who have effectively admitted to pursing cooperation with the Russian government, who are you referring to?
  12. by   Lil Nel
    Yes, there are at least three options for why Trump demonstrates no leadership on "the Russia thing." All of them are a threat to our democracy, and he must go!

    Whatever Trump Is Hiding Is Hurting All of Us Now - The New York Times
  13. by   toomuchbaloney
    I follow my elected officials on FB. All of them.

    Now all of my comments on Trump's FB are marked as spam, immediately.

    Snowflake in chief cannot bear to be reminded that he did not, in fact, honor Obama. He questioned the legitimacy of Obama's presidency for years and leveled false allegations against him in the past year.

    Facism smells so bitter.