Mueller Investigation pt 7

[TahiniBinShawarma]

Alright, because this is getting boring, I'll quote what I just said.



You asking for the current evidence is not particularly relevant to what you quoted, though it's also true that very little has changed since then, on the direct front. Plenty more has come out that's relevant to being notably more untrusting towards any semblance of honor and honesty in the NRA, though.



And this is why I'm calling you a troll. That was not my response to that question. I'd go so far as to call that a brazen lie, no less.

Here, though, what I said in that post.



Highlighting added, because you seem to want to intentionally and bafflingly lie about what I said. Well, it'd be baffling if you aren't actually a troll, at least.

So in fact, there is no evidence for the claim that Russia funneled money through the NRA. Just a lot of huffing and puffing from one side of the FEC to do a fishing expedition, based on...............allegations and speculation. Thanks for finally admitting it.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

The specifics were not revealed to the public, as far as I know. Which leaves us in an annoying limbo.

So another allegation that can't be proven. I guess it's like the dossier was around here. "Well it hasn't been disproven." Try that in a real thread like say the JFK assassination, see how far you get.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

The standard that you're trying to set seems to be a case of your "common sense" being wrong, as "common sense" is so frequently - and, as the link goes into in more depth, the Republican FEC members have a history of not abiding by the rules to block investigations that have distinctly credible cause, which also is of distinct relevance to the point that I had made.

I'm not the one touting rank speculation and crying a river because no one will do anything about my conspiracy theory.

 

[Aridas]

Again, the CREW link means nothing in regard to the claim. There is no evidence for the claim. So the FEC has no valid reason to investigate. I could just as easily say the other side on the FEC want a fishing expedition with no probable cause for the allegation.

So in fact, there is no evidence for the claim that Russia funneled money through the NRA. Just a lot of huffing and puffing from one side of the FEC to do a fishing expedition, based on...............allegations and speculation. Thanks for finally admitting it.

So another allegation that can't be proven. I guess it's like the dossier was around here. "Well it hasn't been disproven." Try that in a real thread like say the JFK assassination, see how far you get.

I'm not the one touting rank speculation and crying a river because no one will do anything about my conspiracy theory.

You're admitting that you've got nothing and refuse to converse honestly even after being directly caught brazenly lying? Okay. As you wish. When your arguments seem to consistently rest on lying about what I said and how I was using things, you're just consistently proving yourself to be dishonest.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Which crime do you think Trump should have been charged with if not for the OLC memo?

1) As “Individual 1”, he was a participant in exactly the same scheme that landed Michael Cohen in jail. So, campaign finance crimes to start.

2) Have your read Part 2 of the Mueller Report? About a dozen cases were put forward where all 3 elements of Obstruction of Justice by the President were laid out. Where he committed an act that affected an ongoing investigation with corrupt intent. So, any of those gave the probable cause basis with which to charge. The report even stated the OLC memo as one reason he was not charged.

Nothing personal, but it seems like you’re not debating in good faith. As such, I may or may not wish to engage in a back-and-forth with you. Please don’t interpret such as acquiescence - I just don’t like to waste my time on lost causes.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The same Michael Cohen Trump wants in jail? I never thought I'd see the day Squeegee agreed with Trump, but here we are.

Never? Not since May 2020 when you first joined the site, you mean, right?

 

[thaiboxerken]

All the evidence shows that Trump broke many laws. But evidence only matters if you care about it. Trumpanzees would rather pretend that no laws were broken, that Trump's only crime is being a Republican.

The reality is that if Trump was a Democratic party president and did these same things, he would have been impeached and removed from office and possibly in prison. For a couple a reason. First, the Republicans would lead the charge to impeach him and imprison him. Second, Democrats would not break laws to protect him and would join the effort to hold him accountable.
This is the difference between the parties. One party cares about the rule of law, the other party is beholden to power.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Self over party, party over country.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

1) As “Individual 1”, he was a participant in exactly the same scheme that landed Michael Cohen in jail. So, campaign finance crimes to start.

2) Have your read Part 2 of the Mueller Report? About a dozen cases were put forward where all 3 elements of Obstruction of Justice by the President were laid out. Where he committed an act that affected an ongoing investigation with corrupt intent. So, any of those gave the probable cause basis with which to charge. The report even stated the OLC memo as one reason he was not charged.

Nothing personal, but it seems like you’re not debating in good faith. As such, I may or may not wish to engage in a back-and-forth with you. Please don’t interpret such as acquiescence - I just don’t like to waste my time on lost causes.

You are quite right, and those instances in the Mueller Report could be construed as obstruction, he could be charged. My original question was to a poster complaining about the NRA funneling Russian money, which there is zero evidence for. I was attempting to see what other alleged crime he would come up with. Although I don't think many of the instances of obstruction in the Mueller report would hold up. Such as asking Comey about letting go of the Flynn stuff, or firing Comey, or the attempts to fire Mueller.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

You're admitting that you've got nothing and refuse to converse honestly even after being directly caught brazenly lying? Okay. As you wish. When your arguments seem to consistently rest on lying about what I said and how I was using things, you're just consistently proving yourself to be dishonest.

I wasn't caught lying about anything. My original question was asking for evidence of NRA funneling Russian money to campaigns. You kept posting everything you could to insinuate there was evidence. You could have easily avoided any confusion by simply saying "No, there is no evidence that the Russians funneled money through the NRA." But in doing so you would have to explain why members the FEC are so horrible for not authorizing a fishing expedition for a "crime" that there is no evidence for.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

Never? Not since May 2020 when you first joined the site, you mean, right?

The idea that someone can start posting in a freely read forum in 2020, but not have been lurking for years is short sighted. Which is no surprise coming from a Seth Abramson accolite.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

All the evidence shows that Trump broke many laws. But evidence only matters if you care about it. Trumpanzees would rather pretend that no laws were broken, that Trump's only crime is being a Republican.

The reality is that if Trump was a Democratic party president and did these same things, he would have been impeached and removed from office and possibly in prison. For a couple a reason. First, the Republicans would lead the charge to impeach him and imprison him. Second, Democrats would not break laws to protect him and would join the effort to hold him accountable.
This is the difference between the parties. One party cares about the rule of law, the other party is beholden to power.

So we only need to look at the R or D next to anyone's name, got it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

So we only need to look at the R or D next to anyone's name, got it.

Sad, but true.

When Trump falls out of favor with conservatives, how will we know? Fox News will put his name on screen with a 'D' next to it.

 

[Aridas]

I wasn't caught lying about anything.

Yes, you were. You lied, repeatedly, about what I said and how I was using things. I directly called you out on it in post #458 with proof, though that was hardly the first case of you doing exactly what I called out.

There's no point discussing much further with you when you keep lying so brazenly and incompetently.

Still, I could also easily poke at, for example, #462 and #463, though, where your replies were so utterly inane and disconnected from the conversation prior to that that they deserve naught more than ridicule, if one needed any more reason to think that there's no reason to expect intelligent discussion with you.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

Yes, you were. You lied, repeatedly, about what I said and how I was using things. I directly called you out on it in post #458 with proof, though that was hardly the first case of you doing exactly what I called out.

There's no point discussing much further with you when you keep lying so brazenly and incompetently.

Still, I could also easily poke at, for example, #462 and #463, though, where your replies were so utterly inane and disconnected from the conversation prior to that that they deserve naught more than ridicule, if one needed any more reason to think that there's no reason to expect intelligent discussion with you.

Anyone can look at my original question and your lengthy answers and see that the last thing you wanted to say and in fact never said was "No, there is no evidence Russia funneled money through the NRA."

I can understand not wanting a discussion with someone who points out that there is no basis for the investigation you're crying about not happening.

 

[Aridas]

Anyone can look at my original question and your lengthy answers and see that the last thing you wanted to say and in fact never said was "No, there is no evidence Russia funneled money through the NRA."

I can understand not wanting a discussion with someone who points out that there is no basis for the investigation you're crying about not happening.

You directly and repeatedly lied about what I actually said and how I used a number of things. Yes, anyone can look at what was said and it's not hard to see who was not discussing in good faith.



Let's review the NRA situation, though, to sum things up a little.

1. Russia engaged in a "massive and unprecedented" effort to interfere with our elections in 2016.
2. Russia successfully compromised the NRA for an extended period of time.
3. NRA political spending skyrocketed by over $100 million in its efforts to influence our 2016 elections, with a very large portion of that being dark money.
4. The NRA has been having significant internal and financial issues, including a fair bit of notable corruption.

Putting those things together serves perfectly well as good and responsible reason for deeper investigation into potential illegal money funneling, despite your attempts to try to classify any investigation into them under such circumstances as a fishing trip and thinking that there was notably more appropriate action that the FEC should have taken under the circumstances to be conspiracy theory thinking.


"But, but, but Mueller and the FBI did investigate and would have found something by now if there was anything to find," you tried to argue simultaneously with your "fishing trip" and "conspiracy theory" inanity.

1. That attempted argument falls apart in the face of reality. Mueller pushed a number of investigations off to the FBI and Barr pretty much immediately ended a number of them. Furthermore, given Barr's words and behavior, past and present, it would be entirely expected for him to do his best to squelch investigation into NRA finances to protect Trump and the Republican party if there was any chance that they were involved in money funneling, to the point where it would actually be more surprising if he didn't.

Naturally, this doesn't mean that Barr necessarily did shut down investigation into the NRA, which would require more evidence to be able to assert, just that your attempted argument fails.

2. All this is still irrelevant to the original point that I was making when I brought up the NRA. That was about how the FEC's then effective and currently literal inability to do anything about any potential Trump/Trump campaign campaign finance violations and felonies serves as one part of the context for why Trump and campaign have been let off the hook on that front.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The idea that someone can start posting in a freely read forum in 2020, but not have been lurking for years is short sighted. Which is no surprise coming from a Seth Abramson accolite.

Hoo-boy!

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

You directly and repeatedly lied about what I actually said and how I used a number of things. Yes, anyone can look at what was said and it's not hard to see who was not discussing in good faith.



Let's review the NRA situation, though, to sum things up a little.

1. Russia engaged in a "massive and unprecedented" effort to interfere with our elections in 2016.
2. Russia successfully compromised the NRA for an extended period of time.
3. NRA political spending skyrocketed by over $100 million in its efforts to influence our 2016 elections, with a very large portion of that being dark money.
4. The NRA has been having significant internal and financial issues, including a fair bit of notable corruption.

Putting those things together serves perfectly well as good and responsible reason for deeper investigation into potential illegal money funneling, despite your attempts to try to classify any investigation into them under such circumstances as a fishing trip and thinking that there was notably more appropriate action that the FEC should have taken under the circumstances to be conspiracy theory thinking.


"But, but, but Mueller and the FBI did investigate and would have found something by now if there was anything to find," you tried to argue simultaneously with your "fishing trip" and "conspiracy theory" inanity.

1. That attempted argument falls apart in the face of reality. Mueller pushed a number of investigations off to the FBI and Barr pretty much immediately ended a number of them. Furthermore, given Barr's words and behavior, past and present, it would be entirely expected for him to do his best to squelch investigation into NRA finances to protect Trump and the Republican party if there was any chance that they were involved in money funneling, to the point where it would actually be more surprising if he didn't.

Naturally, this doesn't mean that Barr necessarily did shut down investigation into the NRA, which would require more evidence to be able to assert, just that your attempted argument fails.

2. All this is still irrelevant to the original point that I was making when I brought up the NRA. That was about how the FEC's then effective and currently literal inability to do anything about any potential Trump/Trump campaign campaign finance violations and felonies serves as one part of the context for why Trump and campaign have been let off the hook on that front.

Yeah, I get it now, you want Trump investigated again for non specific "potential" felonies, but it's not a fishing expedition or conspiracy theory like "Russian Collusion."

 

[Aridas]

Yeah, I get it now, you want Trump investigated again for non specific "potential" felonies, but it's not a fishing expedition or conspiracy theory like "Russian Collusion."

I get it. You're too busy trying to defend your preconceptions reflexively that you don't care what's actually being communicated and whether you make a fool of yourself as you try to do so.

Maybe someday you'll be ready to read for comprehension of what's actually being said, challenging as it might be to your preconceptions, rather than actively trying to put words into others' mouths.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

"But, but, but Mueller and the FBI did investigate and would have found something by now if there was anything to find," you tried to argue simultaneously with your "fishing trip" and "conspiracy theory" inanity.

1. That attempted argument falls apart in the face of reality. Mueller pushed a number of investigations off to the FBI and Barr pretty much immediately ended a number of them.

So TahiniBinShawarma is technically correct. there is no evidence Russia funneled money through the NRA, because they didn't look for it!
But is that true? Is there any evidence that they did look for it, but couldn't find any?