Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

[Childlike Empress]

Given how this Part 3 of the thread developed so far, I think it would be uncool to not link to Alexander Mercouris' just published two cents on the Harding interview.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You can now return to calling me a moron

See how you completely made that up, Ambrosia? I did not call you a moron or anything close, I wasn't even unfriendly, just direct. I gave you counter-advise to your advise. I take it that you write in good faith, but that thing you just posted is full of kind of obvious "truisms", and like your previous post shows that you aren't paying close attention to this topic.

It might surprise you, but I almost never directly consume anything on RT (or Sputnik). I am subscribed to just one author of RT Deutsch who occasionally posts thoughtful pieces from the perspective of a German homosexual who went to Russia to find out what is going on there. He actually published another one last evening.

 

[Ambrosia]

So you shouldn't trust any of it at face value.

Given how this Part 3 of the thread developed so far, I think it would be uncool to not link to Alexander Mercouris' just published two cents on the Harding interview.

oooh seeing as it's Christmas lets indulge you.

Hmm theDuran, never heard of this site lets google it...

[from here] Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda

Notes: The Duran is an online news and opinion source with a strong right wing bias. There is evidence they have posted misleading information and they have perpetuated some conspiracies.

Well alarm bells are ringing!

So the article is basically gushing over the content of an interview between Harding and someone who looks like a genuine journalist about Hardings new book. An interview in which Harding reportedly does rather poorly.

To which we must ask the four important questions!

1. yeah?
2. and?
3. so?
4. what?

How accurate Hardings book is has little to do with whether or not Trump colluded with Russia.

Harding obviously enthusiastically thinks so, others like the writer of the article enthusiastically think not. His article is a click bait fest, replete with interspersed adverts and it's regurgitating useful copy that someone else produced in a thinly veiled attempt to drive advertising revenue by having a controversial point of view.

Sites like these make a ton of cash for someone, and that's why they exist. It's not for any newsworthy reason. It's just about milking web advertising dollars and if they sometimes have useful items on them it's for the same reason that blind squirrels find nuts sometimes.

 

[Childlike Empress]

^ Ambrosia you are wrong here. It was an inside joke to post that article, and the interview he talks about is the one we are bitching about for a couple of pages now and that was just cruelly reposted by me in #249.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Also, The Duran is "extreme right-wing"? That's total bollocks. What kind of "fact-checking" site is this? And it doesn't even mention Russia.

I voted in the poll expressing the opinion that it is a credible source. Who would have thought, that's the leading poll option now with over 1500 total voters in the poll.

LOL.

The stupidity.

 

[phiwum]

Ever wondered why I and my "Russian propaganda sites" make these predictions if we know that there is something to cover up and had to fear your magnificent checks and balances would finally uncover it and wash away our puppet president?

Didn't think so.

I don't think anyone has accused you of knowing anything about these matters.

To be sure, I know nothing either. I'm content to wait and see what comes of it.

 

[Darat]

It is almost 2018, Squeegee. You have been waiting faithfully all the time, and I told you all the time it is in vain. Saint Mueller isn't coming. You've been fooled. To the extent that everybody who hasn't is a "Russian agent" in your mind. That's embarrassing.

But arrests and charges have already been made.

 

[Childlike Empress]

But arrests and charges have already been made.

Two charges over totally unrelated money-laundering issues, two over "lying to the FBI" about things that aren't even crimes. None even close to anything implied by the "Russia meddled in US election" CT which is commonly known as RussiaGate.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

With the holidays, I've fallen behind in my lurking.

I take it there are folks who don't believe that the Trump campaign was working with the Russians, but are any still denying that there was contact between the two? Is anyone denying that the Russians were actively helping the Trump campaign and the GOP in general?

Trump is still denying it. It hurts his ego to admit it.

BTW, the evidence of Russian interference is really piling up. They have been interfering for years and that includes interfering in down ballot races. In addition they have been stoking both right and left sides battling with the other.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The FBI side is pretty clear, the DoJ side is under increasing open source investigation at the moment.

<snip>

"Open source investigation"? Is that your new euphemism for "making stuff up out of whole cloth"?

The Conservative Treehouse? Really? That's the best you could do?

That tree is truly full of nuts.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The FBI is under attack by Trump and how supporters but only to serve Trump's interests. It's strange how they want to paint the FBI as liberal conspirators even though there is zero evidence that they are.

 

[Monza]

This article has a decent summation of the so-called "collusion" charge and other potential charges. It purports that legally, whatever the Mueller investigation finds, a charge of "collusion" will not be filed.

 

[CapelDodger]

This article has a decent summation of the so-called "collusion" charge and other potential charges. It purports that legally, whatever the Mueller investigation finds, a charge of "collusion" will not be filed.

Indeed. However, collusion might well be demonstrated in the process of prosecuting other offenses. Not that that would make any difference to Trump and his supporters, who will claim vindication because there's no charge of collusion.


https://www.thefreedictionary.com/collusion
"An often secret action taken by two or more parties to achieve an illegal or improper purpose".

 

[Ambrosia]

the interview he talks about is the one we are bitching about for a couple of pages now

Yes. And?

Just because an author is a terrible interview subject it doesn't automatically mean that their work is worthless. I'd be a bit less quick to jump on the bandwagon myself.

Trump is the single worst US president in living memory and W set *such* a low bar.

If Trump didn't collude with Russia, then why has he got himself into this mess?

It should be an easy answer. "No I didn't collude with Russia, I have nothing to hide, here are all our files"

Instead he fired the guy that was investigating him, and senior members of the Trump team are under serious investigation and/or are already indicted.

 

[phiwum]

This article has a decent summation of the so-called "collusion" charge and other potential charges. It purports that legally, whatever the Mueller investigation finds, a charge of "collusion" will not be filed.

Er, isn't that obvious? Since there literally is no charge of "collusion"?

This is an informal term regarding whether or not there were certain coordinations between Trump and the Russians involving interference in the campaign. Such coordinations would necessarily lead to other charges, if any are appropriate.

There's no such legal term as "collusion", far as I know.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Er, isn't that obvious? Since there literally is no charge of "collusion"?

This is an informal term regarding whether or not there were certain coordinations between Trump and the Russians involving interference in the campaign. Such coordinations would necessarily lead to other charges, if any are appropriate.

There's no such legal term as "collusion", far as I know.

I read somewhere that there is, but only in some narrow anti-trust laws (e.g. price-fixing). The formal charge, if any, will be "conspiracy to commit" some crime such as espionage or illegal campaign contributions, but it means the same thing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think the charge will be conspiracy to commit treason.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think the charge will be conspiracy to commit treason.

Would you take a signature or Avatar bet on that?

 

[jimbob]

Would you take a signature or Avatar bet on that?

I wouldn't.

Due to the narrow definition of Treason in US law.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

This article has a decent summation of the so-called "collusion" charge and other potential charges. It purports that legally, whatever the Mueller investigation finds, a charge of "collusion" will not be filed.

Do you read Seth Abramson's twit feed? I find it less... dumbed down.
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson

Briefly: since we know there were criminal acts on the part of foreign actors, and more importantly since Trump knew there were criminal acts on the part of foreign actors, any collusion with those actors immediately becomes a criminal conspiracy to aid and abet their crimes. So evidence of collusion still matters very much. The pertinent question is not "did Trump collude with Russia," but "what did he know, and when did he know it?"