Mueller Report Incoming

[WhiskeyDebates]

I have a question by the way Free, if the Hillary actress was not at the rally in New York that the campaign provided signs for that would negate your collusion charge correct?

[Old Man Marsh]

Do we still have a boxing ring?

[Dom]

Do we still have a boxing ring?

Yes, we do.

[Dānu]

"Two shall enter! None shall leave!"

[Free]

Have been busy. Our discussion here has turned up something very interesting in my research. I have found a Russian website where every tweet from the Russian controlled "March For Trump" account has been published. The website is Russian. I have been trying to see if any news agencies know about this.

You can see the info here, and it shows communication between a number of interesting Americans.

https://russiatweets.com/author/MARCH_FOR_TRUMP

[WhiskeyDebates]

Have been busy. Our discussion here has turned up something very interesting in my research. I have found a Russian website where every tweet from the Russian controlled "March For Trump" account has been published. The website is Russian. I have been trying to see if any news agencies know about this.

You can see the info here, and it shows communication between a number of interesting Americans.

https://russiatweets.com/author/MARCH_FOR_TRUMP

Cool cool, got an answer to that question I asked?

[Free]

Have been busy. Our discussion here has turned up something very interesting in my research. I have found a Russian website where every tweet from the Russian controlled "March For Trump" account has been published. The website is Russian. I have been trying to see if any news agencies know about this.

You can see the info here, and it shows communication between a number of interesting Americans.

https://russiatweets.com/author/MARCH_FOR_TRUMP

Cool cool, got an answer to that question I asked?

It would make no difference. Admittedly we do not know if the signs were presented for the June rally or the one in the Fall, or for both. It doesn't specify.

[WhiskeyDebates]

So even though it's a requirement that the actress be there it doesn't matter is she is there? Lol

[Free]

So even though it's a requirement that the actress be there it doesn't matter is she is there? Lol

It's not even a requirement that the actress to be there.

[WhiskeyDebates]

It's not even a requirement that the actress to be there.

Oh?

The Trump campaign agreed to cooperate with the Russians on a rally in New York. That type of cooperation requires obvious communication and coordination. The rally included the signs and the actress to falsely portray Clinton as a criminal.

Collusion 101.

It's simple. The Trump campaign supported and endorsed the Russian rally in New York, and that means they are equally responsible for all that happens there, including the actress. They were actively involved with the rally, therefore they also share responsibility for it. 

The agreement was to support the rally. The rally had an actress to portray a false image of Hillary Clinton as a criminal. They even provided signs for the rally. They were all in.

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.

I dunno man......seems pretty fucking important to me considering hiring an actress to falsely portray Clinton as a criminal is the only example you keep pointing to of the deception required for collusion lol So you can completely remove your own example of deceptive action from collusion and it's still collusion, that's a neat magic trick. 

So if it's "Collusion 101" because the campaign was involved in "cooperating"(lol) with the Russian rally where an actress was hired to falsely portray Hillary as a criminal in an attempt to deceive the public. But it's still collusion if there was NO actress hired to falsely portray Hillary as a criminal in an attempt to deceive the public. Mind explaining how that works lol? 

Admittedly we do not know if the signs were presented for the June rally or the one in the Fall, or for both. It doesn't specify.

That's just flat out wrong, I'll get to that in a sec, but first I wanna point something out. In your opinion, we can't know if the signs were for the rally in June or the rally in the fall which means you have been deliberately assuming it was for whichever one you needed it to be for your argument to make sense. I've been accusing you of this for a while but it's nice to hear that your argument is based on a massive unverifiable assumption from your own mouth.

But let's look at some dates, The Russians request signs on June 5th for a rally held on June 25th. The Russians hire the actor to portray Clinton on August 5th in Florida. So there is no physical way for the campaign to have been involved or even have known there was to be an actor at the rally cause the Russians had not hired an actor until 2 MONTHS after contact with the campaign. It's not just a lack of collusion it's physically impossible for them to have colluded.


Now, as for "it doesn't specify", that's a load of bullshit. From the Indictment report page 21-22: 

54. In or around June and July 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the Facebook group “Being Patriotic,” the Twitter account @March_for_Trump, and other ORGANIZATION accounts to organize two political rallies in New York. The first rally was called “March for Trump” and held on June 25, 2016. The second rally was called “Down with Hillary” and held on July 23, 2016. 

• c. 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.
  

We know EXACTLY what rally they were for, and it's one that happened nearly 4 months before the actor was paid to travel to New York. It literally names the rally.

[Dānu]

So, then...  they colluded to provide the Russians with signs?  

[WhiskeyDebates]

So, then...  they colluded to provide the Russians with signs?  

Unless the Russians are capable of sending actors back in time lol

[Free]

It's not even a requirement that the actress to be there.

Oh?

The Trump campaign agreed to cooperate with the Russians on a rally in New York. That type of cooperation requires obvious communication and coordination. The rally included the signs and the actress to falsely portray Clinton as a criminal.

Collusion 101.

It's simple. The Trump campaign supported and endorsed the Russian rally in New York, and that means they are equally responsible for all that happens there, including the actress. They were actively involved with the rally, therefore they also share responsibility for it. 

The agreement was to support the rally. The rally had an actress to portray a false image of Hillary Clinton as a criminal. They even provided signs for the rally. They were all in.

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.

I dunno man......seems pretty fucking important to me considering hiring an actress to falsely portray Clinton as a criminal is the only example you keep pointing to of the deception required for collusion lol So you can completely remove your own example of deceptive action from collusion and it's still collusion, that's a neat magic trick. 

So if it's "Collusion 101" because the campaign was involved in "cooperating"(lol) with the Russian rally where an actress was hired to falsely portray Hillary as a criminal in an attempt to deceive the public. But it's still collusion if there was NO actress hired to falsely portray Hillary as a criminal in an attempt to deceive the public. Mind explaining how that works lol? 

Admittedly we do not know if the signs were presented for the June rally or the one in the Fall, or for both. It doesn't specify.

That's just flat out wrong, I'll get to that in a sec, but first I wanna point something out. In your opinion, we can't know if the signs were for the rally in June or the rally in the fall which means you have been deliberately assuming it was for whichever one you needed it to be for your argument to make sense. I've been accusing you of this for a while but it's nice to hear that your argument is based on a massive unverifiable assumption from your own mouth.

But let's look at some dates, The Russians request signs on June 5th for a rally held on June 25th. The Russians hire the actor to portray Clinton on August 5th in Florida. So there is no physical way for the campaign to have been involved or even have known there was to be an actor at the rally cause the Russians had not hired an actor until 2 MONTHS after contact with the campaign. It's not just a lack of collusion it's physically impossible for them to have colluded.


Now, as for "it doesn't specify", that's a load of bullshit. From the Indictment report page 21-22: 

54. In or around June and July 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the Facebook group “Being Patriotic,” the Twitter account @March_for_Trump, and other ORGANIZATION accounts to organize two political rallies in New York. The first rally was called “March for Trump” and held on June 25, 2016. The second rally was called “Down with Hillary” and held on July 23, 2016. 

• c. 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.
  

We know EXACTLY what rally they were for, and it's one that happened nearly 4 months before the actor was paid to travel to New York. It literally names the rally.

Well done. 

I concede. I cannot prove there was any collusion, despite having reason to suspect. There's something you missed though.

They never actually got any signs from the Trump campaign. The Trump Campaign agreed to give them signs, but there's no evidence any signs were either picked up or delivered. There are no images online with people holding any signs belonging to the Trump campaign for those two rally dates.

Another thing is also true. None of the Trump campaign officials in Florida were interviewed by Mueller. This was reported by the New York Times, but I can't link it to you because I have used up my free reading time with them and can't get back there unless I pay them.

The reason I still suspect there may have been some degree of collusion is because the Trump campaign did support numerous grassroots organizations with signs and other propaganda for numerous rallies, and the Russians did in fact present themselves to the campaign in Florida as a grassroot organization as evidenced by the indictment. The Trump people in Florida claim to have no memory because of the sheer volume of support. 

The indictment simply doesn't give enough information. Mueller may have decided that there was no need to include all the info in his indictment, which is understandable consider how much info he would have gathered. Also, either the NYT or Washington Post have screen grabs of the conversations the Russians had with the Trump officials in Florida, with their actual names. 

But, since I can't prove collusion, it's only fair that I retract my original claim and congratulate you on researching against me to convince me that the evidence wasn't crystal clear at all, if any existed at all.

Very well done, Whiskey.

[WhiskeyDebates]

Well done. 

I concede. I cannot prove there was any collusion, despite having reason to suspect. There's something you missed though.

They never actually got any signs from the Trump campaign. The Trump Campaign agreed to give them signs, but there's no evidence any signs were either picked up or delivered. There are no images online with people holding any signs belonging to the Trump campaign for those two rally dates.

Another thing is also true. None of the Trump campaign officials in Florida were interviewed by Mueller. This was reported by the New York Times, but I can't link it to you because I have used up my free reading time with them and can't get back there unless I pay them.

The reason I still suspect there may have been some degree of collusion is because the Trump campaign did support numerous grassroots organizations with signs and other propaganda for numerous rallies, and the Russians did in fact present themselves to the campaign in Florida as a grassroot organization as evidenced by the indictment. The Trump people in Florida claim to have no memory because of the sheer volume of support. 

The indictment simply doesn't give enough information. Mueller may have decided that there was no need to include all the info in his indictment, which is understandable consider how much info he would have gathered. Also, either the NYT or Washington Post have screen grabs of the conversations the Russians had with the Trump officials in Florida, with their actual names. 

But, since I can't prove collusion, it's only fair that I retract my original claim and congratulate you on researching against me to convince me that the evidence wasn't crystal clear at all, if any existed at all.

Very well done, Whiskey.

For this post alone you will carry a positive reputation from me going forward. I'm glad we got here and I'm sure we still disagree about a great deal but it takes a good bit of courage to admit when one is wrong. So you have my respect, and while I might not always show it I appreciate you fighting tooth and nail for what you believe, I'd rather that than a person who lacks the passion to fight for his convictions.

Well done to you as well sir.

[Free]

The Paul Manafort Saga

WASHINGTON — As a top official in President Trump’s campaign, Paul Manafort shared political polling data with a business associate tied to Russian intelligence, according to a court filing unsealed on Tuesday. The document provided the clearest evidence to date that the Trump campaign may have tried to coordinate with Russians during the 2016 presidential race ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/po...imnik.html

Discuss ...

[Dānu]

[RobbyPants]

Barr plans to release a redacted version of the Mueller report to Congress and the public. The four categories of redacted info are:

• secret grand jury details
  
• classified national security and intelligence details
  
• anything covered in ongoing investigations
  
• passages that could defame “peripheral” third-party figures caught up in Mueller’s probe
  

The House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena Barr to turn over an unredacted copy of the report and underlying investigative files. Barr said he would make himself available to testify to the Judiciary Committee. Doug Collins, the committee's top Republican asked that Mueller be invited to testify as well.

[Dom]

My guess is that Mueller spawned a lot of ongoing investigations and brought his investigation to an end when he figured the rest would be accomplished by the ongoing investigations.

[jerry mcmasters]

So when's it going to drop? I can't wait!

[Dom]

So when's it going to drop?  I can't wait!

The Mueller report? Probably never. 

We will get a Barr synopsis later this week, or so they say.

[RobbyPants]

So when's it going to drop?  I can't wait!

The Mueller report? Probably never. 

We will get a Barr synopsis later this week, or so they say.

Barr is supposed to release a redacted version on Thursday. He is making himself available to be interviewed by the House Judiciary Committee, and they also want to interview Mueller. No word yet on if that will actually happen.

Regarding the four bullet points I listed in my prior post, I totally understand the reasons for the first three. I'm not sure what the fourth means or how I feel about it. It seems entirely subjective, which is going to lead to speculation that something is "being hidden". Of course, if people don't like the version they see, they're still going to say that we don't know what was in the redacted sections.

I'd be comfortable with the redacted version so long as a select bipartisan committee (the House Judiciary Committee?) gets to see the whole thing and/or Mueller testifies that he feels the redacted version is accurate and doesn't give false impressions.

[Dom]

I'd be comfortable with the redacted version so long as a select bipartisan committee (the House Judiciary Committee?) gets to see the whole thing

Until the members of congress that have security clearance have seen the entire Mueller report, I don't believe anything that is published. We have a congress for a reason.

[Dānu]

The fact that Barr won't release an unredacted copy to even the house judiciary committee is incredibly suspicious. To my eyes, this is yet another example of a Trump appointed official flouting the law.

[Free]

The fact that Barr won't release an unredacted copy to even the house judiciary committee is incredibly suspicious.  To my eyes, this is yet another example of a Trump appointed official flouting the law.

Exactly, if there's nothing to hide, why then are things either being hidden or why is there so much obstruction to getting the information?

[RobbyPants]

Exactly, if there's nothing to hide, why then are things either being hidden or why is there so much obstruction to getting the information?

In all fairness, national security and ongoing investigations are a pretty big deal. That stuff shouldn't be made public. Still, a bipartisan group from Congress with the appropriate clearance should have gotten a full version weeks ago.