Mueller Report Incoming

[RobbyPants]

Tweety said today that he hasn't read it yet, although he has every right to.

This is one of the few things he's said that I actually am inclined to just believe at face value. I'm sure he's had others read it for him, but still.

[Dom]

Tweety said today that he hasn't read it yet, although he has every right to.

This is one of the few things he's said that I actually am inclined to just believe at face value. I'm sure he's had others read it for him, but still.

I think there is a thing about the DOJ not releasing it to the White House for review before it is released to the public. Which is why he needs to assert that he has every right to.

And yeah, I doubt he'll read it. He'll turn on the TV and see what Fox says about it.

[WhiskeyDebates]

... by shit you make up in your own head.. 

Just keep proving me right mate.

It's not relevant but fuck it I'd like to point out to you that this is exactly why you always lost the banter and insult portions of our conversations, half your insults are just "I know you are but what am I?".

I've actually gone through the effort and done the work to show exactly what you are making up. You just assert that I'm making up stuff and make zero demonstration, and it would be a lot more impactful if I hadn't been accusing you of this already for ages. My position doesn't require me to assert or assume anything, not once. I'm letting the evidence point to a conclusion and you are making the evidence fit a conclusion and inventing stuff when it doesn't.

You can't demonstrate a single assumption you have made and you bloody well know it, which is why you have gone back to acting like a child and throwing a temper tantrum.

Excuses?

Seriously what part do you not understand? I don't care how you justify your bigotry to yourself, just shut up about it I don't fucking care. Move on kid.

You can't even tell the difference between being unwitting as to who they are dealing with, and wittingly agreeing to cooperate anyway!

Jesus Christ, how many godsdamn times do I need to say that has zero to do with my position? You keep asserting this point and I keep explaining exactly how this objection has nothing at all to do with what I am saying. Look I'm trying to be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt when I say you are not listening to one word I say and not accusing you of deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying but you are making it really hard to do so. Of fucking course, I can tell the difference between the two I've never made the damn argument that there isn't a difference. I am saying to you that you can't demonstrate ANY AGREEMENT AT ALL, let alone an intentionally deceptive one. 

This entire point hinges on your ability to demonstrate they made an agreement with the intent to deceive and you can't even demonstrate ANY agreement.

The agreement, the shared intent to deceive a third party, anything past communication, any involvement by the campaign in any aspect of the things you assert is collusion. You can't demonstrate any of it. You have invented the entire lot of it, you have invented an entire conspiracy theory to justify your baseless conclusions.

You are wrong you are demonstrably wrong and you can't demonstrate any of your assertions or assumptions. Your entire position is founded on things you invented, and you can't meet any of the conditions for collusion. You are just wrong dude, it's fine to be wrong but you have gone past failing to demonstrate your assertions as true you are now outright refusing to do so. I know you know what I'm talking about and I know you don't want to admit you are wrong, and you expect me to believe that it's a coincidence you are trying to nope the fuck out of the substance of this conversation and refuse to address what I am saying literally one post after I make a demonstration of all the things you have invented?

Come on dude, give the other one a tug lol. I let you drop the Trump Tower thing from the argument when I showed it didn't rise to the level of collusion without any kinda push back on my part, but at some point, you have to acknowledge you are wrong after repeated demonstrations of that fact. 

You can't prove any of your assertions.

Can't be bothered to respond to your lack of comprehension.

Well then, put your money where your mouth is and try to muster up some kind of barely adequate response at the very least.

You could at least let the damn page tick over before acting like a giant fucking hypocrite.

[Mad Hatter]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yeah, but you can't do it.

Even if I couldn't, which I can, the point of the saying is that you are deserving of the same treatment and it would be right of you to receive it.  If you're okay with that, then we're square.

It'll be really tough. But I'll try not to lose sleep over you ignoring me.

[Free]

nce of this conversation and refuse to address what I am saying literally one post after I make a demonstration of all the things you have invented?

Come on dude, give the other one a tug lol. I let you drop the Trump Tower thing from the argument when I showed it didn't rise to the level of collusion without any kinda push back on my part, but at some point, you have to acknowledge you are wrong after repeated demonstrations of that fact. 

You can't prove any of your assertions.

The only thing you have demonstrated here is an inability to understand what the word "unwittingly" means in the context. You keep insisting that they couldn't unwittingly (unknowingly) collude because they didn't know they were dealing with Russians, when the reality is the fact they were wittingly (knowingly) colluding with who they thought were Americans. The fact that they didn't know they were colluding with Russians doesn't change the fact that collusion occurred anyways.

If the Russians had turned out to be actual Americans, it would change absolutely nothing as per the collusion that occurred. You can collude with anyone, and it doesn't matter in the slightest who they are, whether you know anything about them personally, or whether they are involved legally or not.

The fact of the matter is several Americans and members of the Trump campaign coordinated their efforts with a group pf Russians posing as Americans in an effort to conspire to defame Hillary Clinton by portraying her in a dishonest way to deceive Americans into thinking she was unfit to be the American President.

The reason none of these Americans were charged was because they were "unwitting" in regards to their coordinating with Russians for the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election.

When you failed magnificently to understand this remarkably simple concept, I knew the end of our discussion was near. It goes straight over your head and is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend. It's either that, or you are doing it intentionally to troll the topic for kicks.

Therefore I suggest you go back and review where it is you went so horribly wrong in this conversation because it's very clear you did and it makes you look like someone with an inability to understand basic concepts. 

Or ... do you have too much pride to ever admit you were wrong?

[WhiskeyDebates]

The only thing you have demonstrated here is an inability to understand what the word "unwittingly" means in the context.

This is a lie and demonstrably false. I gave you a list of things you have assumed and not demonstrated and you have made no attempt to argue the evidence presented.

You keep insisting that they couldn't unwittingly (unknowingly) collude because they didn't know they were dealing with Russians

I have literally never made this argument or anything like it once. You are not reading what I am writing.

You can collude with anyone, and it doesn't matter in the slightest who they are, whether you know anything about them personally, or whether they are involved legally or not.

I've never argued against this, what the actual fuck are you talking about?

The fact of the matter is several Americans and members of the Trump campaign coordinated

You have not offered any evidence to support this. Show the agreement, name the people involved, prove intent to deceive. You have not done any of this.

When you failed magnificently to understand this remarkably simple concept, I knew the end of our discussion was near. It goes straight over your head and is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend. It's either that, or you are doing it intentionally to troll the topic for kicks.

Again you are propping up arguments I have never made. What the fuck are you talking about? I have never argued there can't be collusion because they did not know the people were Russians, this has never been a point I made. Are you fucking high boy?

it makes you look like someone with an inability to understand basic concepts.

Dude......you don't even know what arguments I am making. How many times do I have to repeat I'm not making the arguments you claim I am in this post. You keep repeating this and I keep explaining to you what my arguments actually are.

Or ... do you have too much pride to ever admit you were wrong?

No, I do it all the time. And if you actually make an argument against what I'm actually bloody saying maybe we can get there but only AFTER you find your stones and demonstrate what I have asked you to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey, guys, what's going on in this thread?

[Dom]

Two more folks who need to get a room.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Two more folks who need to get a room.

Pretty sure the one next to mine and Jerry's is open ... at least, I haven't heard a thing from it for a while.

[Dānu]

Yeah, but you can't do it.

Even if I couldn't, which I can, the point of the saying is that you are deserving of the same treatment and it would be right of you to receive it.  If you're okay with that, then we're square.

It'll be really tough. But I'll try not to lose sleep over you ignoring me.

I rather suspect you sleep very soundly, so I'm not at all inclined to doubt that you won't.

[Free]

The only thing you have demonstrated here is an inability to understand what the word "unwittingly" means in the context.

This is a lie and demonstrably false. I gave you a list of things you have assumed and not demonstrated and you have made no attempt to argue the evidence presented.

You keep insisting that they couldn't unwittingly (unknowingly) collude because they didn't know they were dealing with Russians

I have literally never made this argument or anything like it once. You are not reading what I am writing.

You can collude with anyone, and it doesn't matter in the slightest who they are, whether you know anything about them personally, or whether they are involved legally or not.

I've never argued against this, what the actual fuck are you talking about?

The fact of the matter is several Americans and members of the Trump campaign coordinated

You have not offered any evidence to support this. Show the agreement, name the people involved, prove intent to deceive. You have not done any of this.

When you failed magnificently to understand this remarkably simple concept, I knew the end of our discussion was near. It goes straight over your head and is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend. It's either that, or you are doing it intentionally to troll the topic for kicks.

Again you are propping up arguments I have never made. What the fuck are you talking about? I have never argued there can't be collusion because they did not know the people were Russians, this has never been a point I made. Are you fucking high boy?

it makes you look like someone with an inability to understand basic concepts.

Dude......you don't even know what arguments I am making. How many times do I have to repeat I'm not making the arguments you claim I am in this post. You keep repeating this and I keep explaining to you what my arguments actually are.

Or ... do you have too much pride to ever admit you were wrong?

No, I do it all the time. And if you actually make an argument against what I'm actually bloody saying maybe we can get there but only AFTER you find your stones and demonstrate what I have asked you to.

Videos and photos from the rallies in Coral Springs and Fort Lauderdale still remain on a Facebook page run by the local Trump campaign chair. Statements on that official Trump campaign Facebook page say this:

 “On August 20, we want to gather patriots on the streets of Floridian towns and cities and march to unite America and support Donald Trump! Our flash mob will occur in several places at the same time; more details about locations will be added later. Go Donald!” 

The event was promoted on a Facebook page called “Official Donald J. Trump for President Campaign Facebook Page for Broward County, Florida,” 

Here's what you don't get. The rally on August 20th was a coordinated effort between the Russians posing as Americans and the Trump campaign. They were working together on it.

That's what confirms the agreement part of it all. They agree to coordinate their efforts to produce that state-wide rally. You can tell by the flash mobs which was mentioned by the Mueller indictment on page 26th.

Now for the deception part of it.

The Trump campaign had been known to hire actresses to falsely portray Hillary Clinton as a criminal. They did this knowing full well that she had been cleared by James Comey. Their whole purpose was to launch a character assassination against Hillary Clinton in an effort to persuade people attending the rally to believe she was a criminal despite being cleared by James Comey.  This was a dishonest portrayal of Hillary Clinton, and whether they believed she was a criminal or not is irrelevant. She was cleared by Comey, and therefore was NOT a criminal. Even without Russian involvement, this is still a deception.

Since we already know with the evidence of the Facebook pages that the Trump campaign was promoting and coordinating these rallies with the Russians, and we know the Russians hired an actress to portray Clinton as a criminal to deceive voters into believing she was a criminal, then we can conclude that the Trump campaign willingly agreed that this actress could perform at these rallies. But there's more to this than just the actress the Russians hired.

1. The Trump campaign agreed to coordinate with who they thought were Americans, but were secretly Russians. No crime there because the Trump campaign was unaware they were Russians. However, the act of coordination still occurred.

2. Since the Trump campaign was actively involved with the coordination of the rallies, they are equally responsible for the performance of anyone hired or not hired by the Russians, and the Russians are equally responsible for the same. Both share the responsibility. For example, if both the Trump campaign and the Russians agreed to have actresses performing to assassinate the character of Hillary Clinton, it doesn't really matter who put that actress there. There were plenty of actresses impersonating Clinton at those rallies that were placed there by the Trump campaign without Russian involvement. But the point is, both are responsible for the deception portrayed by any Clinton impersonator since both coordinated the rallies.

Therefore, we have proven coordination by the Facebook page, and demonstrated that any actresses impersonating Clinton to deceive the public were the responsibility of both the Trump campaign and the Russians, and both willfully allowed that to happen.

No one in the Trump campaign is criminally responsible for anything in these rallies. Sure, the Trump campaign could be sued by Clinton for falsely claiming she was a criminal in an effort to persuade voters that she actually was a criminal, and to not vote for her based upon those beliefs,  but that is a civil matter. However, the act of coordinating with the Russians still occurred, and the act of deception still occurred.

Therefore, collusion still occurred.

[Dānu]

Free, the rubric of 'collusion' is broad and non-specific, and from what I understand doesn't specifically refer to anything that is a crime.  What specific criminal acts are you accusing the people in the Trump campaign of having committed?

None.

The argument here is about non-criminal collusion.

Just noting, if your point is about non-criminal collusion then it's not about the Mueller report as the Mueller report was investigating suspicions of criminal collusion, and so your arguments, regardless of their merit, are off-topic. Moreover, I'll state that I for one could care less if they are guilty of collusion under some non-criminal definition of collusion because that is not what the suspicions, charges, and complaints about collusion referred to. If you are referring to non-criminal collusion in an attempt to justify or defend charges of criminal collusion, then you are equivocating and we need go no farther in order to demonstrate that your arguments are invalid.

[Free]

Free, the rubric of 'collusion' is broad and non-specific, and from what I understand doesn't specifically refer to anything that is a crime.  What specific criminal acts are you accusing the people in the Trump campaign of having committed?

None.

The argument here is about non-criminal collusion.

 If you are referring to non-criminal collusion in an attempt to justify or defend charges of criminal collusion, then you are equivocating and we need go no farther in order to demonstrate that your arguments are invalid.

That is not, nor ever has been, my objective. My objective was only to demonstrate how collusion still occurred, albeit non criminal.

[WhiskeyDebates]

Videos and photos from the rallies in Coral Springs and Fort Lauderdale still remain on a Facebook page run by the local Trump campaign chair. Statements on that official Trump campaign Facebook page this:

 “On August 20, we want to gather patriots on the streets of Floridian towns and cities and march to unite America and support Donald Trump! Our flash mob will occur in several places at the same time; more details about locations will be added later. Go Donald!” 
The event was promoted on a Facebook page called “Official Donald J. Trump for President Campaign Facebook Page for Broward County, Florida,”

Which had no official involvement with the campaign. Already debunked this in the post you tried pretending you didn't have to address. The Facebook page, despite its name, has no official connection to the Campaign nor was it set up by them according to the Campaign Manager for Florida. 

Here's what you don't get. The rally on August 20th was a coordinated effort between the Russians posing as Americans and the Trump campaign. They were working together on it.

Prove it. You have communication between the Russians and a Facebook page not affiliated with the campaign. How come in the indictment where it lists all the attempts at communication with the various pages actually set up by the campaign Mueller conveniently forgets to list this?

For fuck sake, the page advertising for the flash-mob doesn't prove that they helped plan it.

That's what confirms the agreement part of it all.

lol no it doesn't, that's not how collusion works. To deceive IS the agreement in collusion. You can't just show any agreement you like and any act you have labelled "deceptive" and call that collision. You have to show that they made an agreement/deal with the intent to deceive. You haven't and not only that but..... 

They agree to coordinate their efforts to produce that state-wide rally. You can tell by the flash mobs which was mentioned by the Mueller indictment on page 26th.

You are using the communication with a Trump fan page as evidence of communication with the Trump Campaign then turning around and pointing to communication with a different group as support. Which group did they supposedly collude with again lol? Also no I already debunked this as well, in that post you ignored. You are actually conflating 3 different groups and treating them like they are interchangeable throughout this exchange.
Group #1 is “Official Donald J. Trump for President Campaign Facebook Page for Broward County, Florida,” which advertised a rally (the oen with Hillary was a different rally) and has the pictures yet was not set up by the campaign and has no connection to it.
Group #2 consists of a single person and it's the person they got in contact with and discussed logistics and where they, the Russians, could hold other rallies. 
Group #3 is the group "Florida for Trump", the people they messaged on page 26 you listed above who don't even respond until August 18th and only to tell them to contact someone else, who they don't hear from until the 19th who tells them to talk to someone else which they don't hear from until the 20th.

There is no demonstration that anyone involved with the campaign coordinated or were directly involved with the August 20th rally. You are mixing and matching people, dates, different events, different organizations, and different acts of communication as your argument requires. Which group above did they plan the Hillary-in-a-cage thing with? The group that's not a part of the campaign advertising a rally in a different part of the state (lol), the group that didn't even message them back until days after everything was finalized and just told them talk to someone else, or the second group they talked logistics with after they had already planned everything?

What exactly was the campaigns imagined contribution to this rally? The Russians already had the date set, the location set, had already hired an actress, had advertised it and has done other rallies in the past unaided all of which was before they got in contact with anyone in the campaign.

The Trump campaign had been known to hire actresses to falsely portray Hillary Clinton as a criminal.

So have people not at all affiliated with the campaign. What's your point? You haven't even proved that the campaign had any involvement with the rally (no matter how many times you keep asserting it) that they had any prior knowledge of Hillary-in-a-cage "plan", let alone that they made an agreement with the Russians to do this, let along that they did it with intent to deceive.

They did this knowing full well that she had been cleared by James Comey. Their whole purpose was to launch a character assassination against Hillary Clinton in an effort to persuade people attending the rally to believe she was a criminal despite being cleared by James Comey.

I've already offered repeated explanations why this largely doesn't matter, there are plenty of criminals that have not been convicted.

This was a dishonest portrayal of Hillary Clinton, and whether they believed she was a criminal or not is irrelevant.

The fact that it is relevant is the argument I was actually making when you were busy accusing me of not knowing the "difference between being unwitting as to who they are dealing with, and wittingly agreeing to cooperate anyway". It is relevant and I've explained why several times and all I have gotten back from you are assertions, because you never understood the argument I was making in the first place.

Even without Russian involvement, this is still a deception.

Gods below you are still ignoring parts of the definition of collusion. You can't just find ANY "agreement" and ANY "deception" and call that collusion.

Since we already know with the evidence of the Facebook pages that the Trump campaign was promoting and coordinating these rallies with the Russians

Nope, that Facebook page has no affiliation with the campaign something you would know if you actually took the time to read the sources I provided. And again advertising =/= coordinating.

and we know the Russians hired an actress to portray Clinton as a criminal to deceive voters into believing she was a criminal, then we can conclude that the Trump campaign willingly agreed that this actress could perform at these rallies.

 Ha! No, you fucking cannot conclude that as it's entirely possible for them to hold a joint rally (again they didn't there is no demonstrable evidence the Trump campaign was involved with the rally at all let alone planing it) and the campaign can be entirely unaware the Russians were bringing in an actress. 

You actually have to show that they knew. Not only can you not show that they knew you still can't demonstrate campaign involvement. Conspiracy think, disparate facts to weave a narrative.

The Trump campaign agreed to coordinate with who they thought were Americans, but were secretly Russians.

No, they communicated, you still have not established coordination on these rallies. The indictment does not list any actions taken by the Campaign in regards to these rallies and the best, the absolute best, you have been able to do is point to an ad on an unaffiliated Facebook page.

Coordination is an invention made up 100% by you. Which is why Mueller never says it.

Since the Trump campaign was actively involved with the coordination of the rallies

Demonstrate it. Show me communications between the two proving the campaign's involvement in the planning of these rallies.

they are equally responsible for the performance of anyone hired or not hired by the Russians, and the Russians are equally responsible for the same. Both share the responsibility.

Nope, and you have already agreed this is not the case with the punch bowl example. Collusion requires an agreement with the intent to deceive, you are saying the example of the actress is the deception, but if the Americans are not aware of her they can't have made an agreement to use her to deceive a third party. You have to show that they had a hand in this plan, and we KNOW the plan predates any communication.

You keep making these arguments despite the fact you still haven't established Campaign involvement, which literally step one.

For example, if both the Trump campaign and the Russians agreed to have actresses performing..

And you have yet to show any involvement by the Trump campaign in the rally or the decision to use the actress.

 it doesn't really matter who put that actress there.

It does matter if all the parts of the plan are in place BEFORE any communication happened because it shows that the second party had no involvement in the plan, which means you can't assume that they did after the fact. Show me the communication between the two about this plan.

DEMONSTRATE YOUR SHIT.

since both coordinated the rallies.

No, wrong. The best you have is an ad on facebook by a page not affiliated with the campaign.

Therefore, we have proven coordination by the Facebook page,

The page not connected to the campaign.

demonstrated that any actresses impersonating Clinton to deceive the public were the responsibility of both the Trump campaign and the Russians, and both willfully allowed that to happen.

Noooooo you have fucking asserted it, you can't even show communication about the event let alone involvement, let alone involvement with a shared deceptive intent.

No one in the Trump campaign is criminally responsible for anything in these rallies.

Kinda the side effect of not being involved at all. 

However, the act of coordinating with the Russians still occurred

Nope. You have a Facebook ad and that's it, from a page that is not a part of the campaign.

Therefore, collusion still occurred.

Wrong, you haven't even established communication between the Russians and the Campaign about that rally forget cooperation.

Again I ask why does the indictment list no actions taken by the campaign involving the planning of the rallies?

[Mad Hatter]

Even if I couldn't, which I can, the point of the saying is that you are deserving of the same treatment and it would be right of you to receive it.  If you're okay with that, then we're square.

It'll be really tough. But I'll try not to lose sleep over you ignoring me.

I rather suspect you sleep very soundly, so I'm not at all inclined to doubt that you won't.

[Free]

Again I ask why does the indictment list no actions taken by the campaign involving the planning of the rallies?

But it does. The Trump campaign got involved and agreed to cooperate with the Russians posing as Americans according to the indictment as shown below. The following conclusively shows the Trump campaign supporting the rally the Russians had in New York.

On or about June 5, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, while posing as a U.S. grassroots activist, used the account @March_for_Trump to contact a volunteer for the Trump Campaign in New York. The volunteer agreed to provide signs for the “March for Trump” rally.

The indictment also shows the following for that New York rally:

On or about September 9, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through a false U.S. persona, contacted the real U.S. person who had impersonated Clinton at the West Palm Beach rally. Defendants and their co-conspirators sent that U.S. person money via interstate wire as an inducement to travel from Florida to New York and to dress in costume at another rally they organized.

[WhiskeyDebates]

But it does. The Trump campaign got involved and agreed to cooperate with the Russians posing as Americans according to the indictment as shown below. The following conclusively shows the Trump campaign supporting the rally the Russians had in New York.

Now you are mixing and matching events in different cities. Which...fine whatever it allows me to make the point anyway. If the Mueller indictment was willing to list actions as insignificant as providing signs in New York.....why doesn't it list any actions in Florida having to do with the campaign's involvement?

[Free]

But it does. The Trump campaign got involved and agreed to cooperate with the Russians posing as Americans according to the indictment as shown below. The following conclusively shows the Trump campaign supporting the rally the Russians had in New York.

Now you are mixing and matching events in different cities. Which...fine whatever it allows me to make the point anyway. If the Mueller indictment was willing to list actions as insignificant as providing signs in New York.....why doesn't it list any actions in Florida having to do with the campaign's involvement?

Well, it does. To the extent we do not know:

76. "On or about August 18, 2016, the real “Florida for Trump” Facebook account responded to the false U.S. persona “Matt Skiber” account with instructions to contact a member of the Trump Campaign (“Campaign Official 1”) involved in the campaign’s Florida operations and provided Campaign Official 1’s email address at the campaign domain donaldtrump.com. On approximately the same day, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the email address of a false U.S. persona, joshmilton024@gmail.com, to send an email to Campaign Official 1 at that donaldtrump.com email account  ..."

The Florida For Trump Facebook page is the official Facebook page for the Florida arm of the Trump campaign. And of course the Trump campaign people from Florida will not have much if any recollection of dealing with the Russians who were posing as Americans:

"Susie Wiles, one of Trump’s top Florida advisers, said staff and volunteers did their due diligence when planning events and coordinating with grass-roots supporters — but detecting Russian impostors wasn't on anyone's radar. "We looked out for things when people came to rallies," Wiles said in a phone interview. "We weren't looking for fake Americans that were really Russians. The world seems different now."

What we do know though is that the actress showed up and performed at a Trump rally in West Palm Beach two days after the Russians got in contact with the Trump campaign official.

[Free]

Double post.

[WhiskeyDebates]

Well, it does.

No, it does not, we know the Russians reached out and were told they needed to contact someone else which they did and didn't receive contact from that person, CO3, until the day of the rally. Again you are jumping from one group to the other as I shot these targets down. 

the real “Florida for Trump” Facebook account responded to the false U.S. persona “Matt Skiber” account with instructions to contact a member of the Trump Campaign 

Yes a communication telling them to get in communication with someone else, and we know when they sent that person the email and when that person replied and it leaves no time for the campaign to be involved with the planning especially when we know all the decisions were made prior to this and the event details were advertised publicly 2 days before the campaign even responded here. And what was the response from CO1? Talk to CO3 and that's all the indictment reports. No talk of a rally no talk of an actress, just go talk to CO3.

There is utterly nothing to do with the rally that requires the aid of the campaign, everything was clearly finalized by this point, so you can't just assume because they exchanged two fucking introductory emails the campaign was involved in the rally. You need actual evidence, not just of involvement but an agreement with the intent to deceive. We know what was in the communications and there is no discussion of the rally at all let alone intent to deceive.

The Florida For Trump Facebook page is the official Facebook page for the Florida arm of the Trump campaign.

Correct and they did nothing but attempt to open up a line of communication, you have no evidence that they succeeded or that it amounted to anything. You have to demonstrate it.

And of course the Trump campaign people from Florida will not have much if any recollection of dealing with the Russians who were posing as Americans:

So? We don't have to rely on their recollections, Mueller has their communications and if they had taken any action beyond communication he would have listed it, as he did with the signs in New York. He didn't because as far as the evidence we have before us shows there was none.

What we do know though is that the actress showed up and performed at a Trump rally in West Palm Beach two days after the Russians got in contact with the Trump campaign official.

And she was hired to do that exact thing days and days before the the Russians got any communication from the campaign, communication I'll add that was just instructions to contact someone else. This proves nothing Free, not one goddamn thing, because for starters correlation is not causation, secondly because we know the Russians already planned to hold a rally and already planned to have the actress attend, there is no evidence to support the campaigns knowledge of her let alone their involvement and all the evidence points only at the Russians.

You have no evidence for collusion.

[Free]

Well, it does.

No, it does not, we know the Russians reached out and were told they needed to contact someone else which they did and didn't receive contact from that person, CO3, until the day of the rally. Again you are jumping from one group to the other as I shot these targets down. 

the real “Florida for Trump” Facebook account responded to the false U.S. persona “Matt Skiber” account with instructions to contact a member of the Trump Campaign 

Yes a communication telling them to get in communication with someone else, and we know when they sent that person the email and when that person replied and it leaves no time for the campaign to be involved with the planning especially when we know all the decisions were made prior to this and the event details were advertised publicly 2 days before the campaign even responded here. And what was the response from CO1? Talk to CO3 and that's all the indictment reports. No talk of a rally no talk of an actress, just go talk to CO3.

There is utterly nothing to do with the rally that requires the aid of the campaign, everything was clearly finalized by this point, so you can't just assume because they exchanged two fucking introductory emails the campaign was involved in the rally. You need actual evidence, not just of involvement but an agreement with the intent to deceive. We know what was in the communications and there is no discussion of the rally at all let alone intent to deceive.

The Florida For Trump Facebook page is the official Facebook page for the Florida arm of the Trump campaign.

Correct and they did nothing but attempt to open up a line of communication, you have no evidence that they succeeded or that it amounted to anything. You have to demonstrate it.

And of course the Trump campaign people from Florida will not have much if any recollection of dealing with the Russians who were posing as Americans:

So? We don't have to rely on their recollections, Mueller has their communications and if they had taken any action beyond communication he would have listed it, as he did with the signs in New York. He didn't because as far as the evidence we have before us shows there was none.

What we do know though is that the actress showed up and performed at a Trump rally in West Palm Beach two days after the Russians got in contact with the Trump campaign official.

And she was hired to do that exact thing days and days before the the Russians got any communication from the campaign, communication I'll add that was just instructions to contact someone else. This proves nothing Free, not one goddamn thing, because for starters correlation is not causation, secondly because we know the Russians already planned to hold a rally and already planned to have the actress attend, there is no evidence to support the campaigns knowledge of her let alone their involvement and all the evidence points only at the Russians.

The fact that they hired an actress to perform at the Trump rally in Florida indicates the Russians already knew she was permitted to be there. The fact that Mueller could not confirm the extent of communication between the Russians and The Trump campaign in Florida does not negate coordination because we know Mueller did not talk to anyone from the Trump campaign in Florida, demonstrating an incomplete investigation.

It should be noted that the official Trump Facebook page for Florida has removed all activities listed before Sept 6, 2016, removing all records of coordinating activities for the previous August during the time the Russians were communicating with them.

What we do know is that the Russians did have communication with the Trump campaign two days previous to the actress showing up at the rally. This actress was admitted and permitted to perform. Therefore the Russians sent them the actress, and they accepted it.

You have no evidence for collusion.

I believe it's in plain sight, and I noticed you won't touch the New York situation.

[WhiskeyDebates]

The fact that they hired an actress to perform at the Trump rally in Florida indicates the Russians already knew she was permitted to be there.

The flash-mob rally was set up by the Russians, of course she was allowed there it was their rally and it was in a public space. What the hell are you babbling about?

Mueller could not confirm the extent of communication between the Russians and The Trump campaign in Florida

Prove it.

does not negate coordination

It's not up to Mueller to prove a negative YOU as the person asserting coordination between the two has to demonstrate it via evidence, not your wild and fanciful imaginings.

because we know Mueller did not talk to anyone from the Trump campaign in Florida, demonstrating an incomplete investigation.

According to who exactly? You? Lol why should I care what the opinion of one wildly biassed bad faith actor is? Jesus Christ this conspiracy nonsense is just tedious, you have no evidence they coordinated but because you personally feel he didn't do a good enough investigation (the guy with over 40 FBI special agents) you can just make up whatever communication you want?

This, THIS, is exactly what I was talking about, you are working backwards from a conclusion. You have no evidence of missing communications, you are not arguing from the evidence we have you are arguing from the evidence you wish you had. Disparate facts woven into a narrative to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

It should be noted that the official Trump Facebook page for Florida has removed all activities listed before Sept 6, 2016, removing all records of coordinating activities for the previous August during the time the Russians were communicating with them.

Prove that there was coordinating activities that got deleted. You can't show there were any coordinating activities in the first place, you are making shit up again.

"It should be noted that the TTA forum was removed late last year, removing all records of your confession to being a serial rapist."

This is not how it works and you damn well know it.

What we do know is that the Russians did have communication with the Trump campaign two days previous to the actress showing up at the rally.

And we know what the communication was. Correlation is not causation. I have already debunked this nonsense.

Therefore the Russians sent them the actress, and they accepted it.

The rally was organized, funded, and managed by the Russians, the campaign had no involvement or at least none you have been able to show. You are inventing their involvement from thin air and it's bloody tedious at this point because if you could show it you would have by now.

I believe it's in plain sight,

I'm aware of what conspiracy theory you ascribe to, I don't need reminding thank you. If it was in plain sight you wouldn't have to resort to making shit up, building arguments out of assumption and assertion, arguing over minute details like a single email, conflating terms again and again, and moving the goal posts from one group/city/person/time every single time I shoot down one of your arguments. 

You are wrong, have been from the start and you can't prove any of your wild assertions and accusations. You think that you can point to an email asking them to contact a person who tells them to contact another person that you can just leap from that to collusion without any demonstrations and you goddamn well can't. You have to do the leg work you have to show the evidence. 

All this time and the best you can do is an email about sending an email to someone else.

and I noticed you won't touch the New York situation.

First off Florida was the example of collusion you chose, that was the hill you decided to fuckin' die on, and events in New York have no bearing on collusion in Florida. I'm not an idiot Free I know a distraction when someone walks up and slaps me in the face with one. Stop shifting the goalposts. Secondly, I have talked about New York several times in this thread actually and the idea that you would wanna shift focus to a place with even less evidence for your position is baffling but fine here:

On or about September 9, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through a false U.S. persona, contacted the real U.S. person who had impersonated Clinton at the West Palm Beach rally. Defendants and their co-conspirators sent that U.S. person money via interstate wire as an inducement to travel from Florida to New York and to dress in costume at another rally they organized.

So the Russians paid this person to attend a rally the Russians organized.

And?

[Free]

On or about September 9, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through a false U.S. persona, contacted the real U.S. person who had impersonated Clinton at the West Palm Beach rally. Defendants and their co-conspirators sent that U.S. person money via interstate wire as an inducement to travel from Florida to New York and to dress in costume at another rally they organized.

So the Russians paid this person to attend a rally the Russians organized.

And?

And it was a rally endorsed and supported by the Trump campaign. 

Doesn't matter if the Trump campaign started the rally, or the Russians did it. Both were involved. Since we already know the Trump campaign supported the actions of actresses falsely portraying Hillary Clinton at rallies they themselves organized, they would have no objection to the one the Russians supplied. It's also standard procedure for campaigns to ask numerous questions about the rally before endorsing it and supporting it, therefore they have no excuses.

Therefore, the Trump campaign endorsed and supported a rally organized by the Russians that conspired to falsely portray Hillary Clinton as a criminal. 

Collusion 101.

Hence, my original assertion is demonstrated. Thank you for the entertainment.

 

[WhiskeyDebates]

And it was a rally endorsed and supported by the Trump campaign.

"Can we have some signs?"
"Sure, we can mail you some signs."
BAM!
"collusion!"

What the fuck is wrong with you? lol

Doesn't matter if the Trump campaign started the rally, or the Russians did it.

Yes it does, I'm sorry that it gets in the way of your biased conclusions but I really does because the campaign would have to have participated in the planning of the deceptive act for it to be collusion...what with collusion being a secretive plan with the intent to deceive.

Both were involved.

If the Russians hired a band is the band guilty of colluding with the Russians to deceive lol? What about the caterers?

Demonstrate any involvement by the campaign past sending them signs, an entirely common practice during an election cycle. Show that they helped plan and organize the event, that they knew about the actress, that they entered any kind of agreement with the intent to deceive. I have told you this a dozen times you actually have to show all the parts of collusion.

Since we already know the Trump campaign supported the actions of actresses falsely portraying Hillary Clinton at rallies they themselves organized,

Which ones? Actually wait I don't care, as it doesn't actually matter if you can't show they were involved in the planning of this rally and entered into an agreement to bring the actress in and that they did it with the intent to deceive.

they would have no objection to the one the Russians supplied.

The only thing the campaign did was have one guy send a handful of signs. You can't show any other involvement, any organizational work done by them, that they even knew anything about the event other than there was a plan to hold a rally by other people. How many times am I gonna have to chide you before you stop making shit up?

It's also standard procedure for campaigns to ask numerous questions

Hahah was one of them "hey guys wanna form a secret agreement to deceive people?" Stop making shit up you muppet.

Therefore, the Trump campaign endorsed and supported a rally organized by the Russians that conspired to falsely portray Hillary Clinton as a criminal. 

Collusion 101.

Hahaha, I love how your "Collusion 101" doesn't even remotely resemble the definition of collusion. Christ dude lol You have shifted the goals posts from "Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others." to "any action by any party involved with an event where something not true was said by someone." 

Hence, my original assertion is demonstrated.

Lol no, you have shown that the Russians reached out and requested signs and the campaign said sure. Every bit of connective tissue between that action and collusion is something you made up. I'll say it again you can't just point to any agreement or action you like between the two parties and yell "collusion". You demonstrated the campaign sent them signs and that's fucking all.

[Free]

Lol no, you have shown that the Russians reached out and requested signs and the campaign said sure. Every bit of connective tissue between that action and collusion is something you made up. I'll say it again you can't just point to any agreement or action you like between the two parties and yell "collusion". You demonstrated the campaign sent them signs and that's fucking all.

What has been demonstrated is that the Trump campaign contributed to, and endorsed a rally begun by the Russians. It wouldn't matter if it was just signs, or an ad on Facebook promoting it. They provided their support, thereby their endorsement of everything that rally represented, including the actress.

Both are responsible.

You can't possibly win this argument, no matter how hard you try. It's in the indictment, and it's factual.