Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
tanabear said:
So you're going with Joseph Mifsud being a Russian agent?



Members of the Trump campaign were setup by western intelligence assets.



Trump always looked and sounded completely innocent to me. He was aware that it was a coup attempt against his Presidency.



Okay, but you cannot name one false belief that Americans had due to this Russian disinformation campaign. The only "Russian disinformation" campaign that was widely believed by the American people was Trump-Russia collusion.



So is Joseph Mifsud a Russian agent or not? He taught a Link Campus where western intelligence agents are trained and the CIA has held symposiums there. He had a working relationship with Claire Smith, a major figure in the upper echelons of British intelligence. He is friends with Gianni Pittella, an Italian socialist, who campaigned for Hillary Clinton. There is a picture of him being chummy with Boris Johnson. As the Guardian noted,

"The foreign secretary is facing accusations of a potential security breach following the emergence of the photo of him with Mifsud, whose identity emerged as part of investigations into alleged links between Donald Trump’s election campaign and Russia."

So I wonder why the Mueller team just let Mifsud go if he really was a Russian agent?



The belief that the Russians attempted to influence the election through the Trump campaign is contingent upon Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor, being a Russian agent. So do you think he is a Russian agent too?



If it was something akin to the Zimmermann Telegram then, yes



Lindy
Click to expand...

You clearly have not read the report. Your claims about Mifsud are completely at odds with the report. Multiple lines of inquiry established the Russian interference into the election. The Trump campaign did collude with the Russians until Russia gave the hacked e-mails to WikiLeaks, negating the need to communicate directly. It is unambiguous that the Trump campaign colluded and likely conspired with Wikileaks to release e-mails stolen from Democrat accounts by the Russians. It is also clear that the Trump campaign knew it was Russia who stole the e-mails to begin with.
 
Craig4 said:
You clearly have not read the report. Your claims about Mifsud are completely at odds with the report. Multiple lines of inquiry established the Russian interference into the election. The Trump campaign did collude with the Russians until Russia gave the hacked e-mails to WikiLeaks, negating the need to communicate directly. It is unambiguous that the Trump campaign colluded and likely conspired with Wikileaks to release e-mails stolen from Democrat accounts by the Russians. It is also clear that the Trump campaign knew it was Russia who stole the e-mails to begin with.
Click to expand...

Perhaps thinks that to have the Mueller report within sighting distance first requires to have on hand such talismans as garlic and a cross... ;)

Such a damning document most decidedly will not pass under such a denier's gaze.
 
tanabear said:
My issue is with the term "US interests". Why does the US have interests getting involved in the Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia etc...? We don't. These are the interests of the Swamp and the military industrial complex. These are not the interests of most US most citizens.
Click to expand...

Mmm. It's more complex than that. "US interests" is a nebulous term that is used as a coverall for a bunch of concerns, strategic, financial, and otherwise. Many of those very much are in the best interests of every US citizen. Unfortunately, there's a history of certain groups subverting and attempting to subvert such for personal gain.

tanabear said:
Our provocations against Russia are far more treacherous than Russia "hacking" our computer systems, assuming that actually happened. Regardless, releasing information about the corrupt and internal workings of the DNC benefitted our democracy.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:



tanabear said:
We are specifically talking about Trump-Russia collusion.
Click to expand...

Of which, there was quite a bit documented in the Mueller Report.

Furthermore, Trump and those working with him lied about such, over and over and over, to the point where it materially interfered with investigating. In addition, the judgement that a case for criminal conspiracy and collaboration was unable to be brought due to lack of evidence is made distinctly less compelling by the fact that potential evidence was made inaccessible to investigators and obstruction of justice was being engaged in throughout. Going past that, we have cases of Trump campaign members actively and knowingly working to aid Russian efforts to illegally interfere.


tanabear said:
He always maintained that it was a witch-hunt(actually a coup attempt) and he was right.
Click to expand...

He was wrong. Pants on Fire wrong.

tanabear said:
It was a fake news story believed only by Trump haters and weak-minded fools.
Click to expand...

"Fake news" in the Trumpian sense, where no matter how true it might be objectively, even by his own tacit admission, if Trump doesn't like it, he calls it "fake news?"


tanabear said:
But what false belief did Americans have due to Russian disinformation besides Trump-Russia collusion? The fact that neither you nor anybody else can give one example is an indication that this is just a talking point repeated over and over again. That's how the modern Left works, sloganeering.
Click to expand...

You keep trying to push this, despite being laughed at for how obvious it makes it that you either fell hard for dishonest talking points or are one of the people who are behind them. You're trying to demand completely nonsensical ways to determine the effects of the Russian efforts and complaining that we're not indulging your nonsense.

Seriously, you were still trying to push the disinformation (that likely originated from Russia) that the Russian efforts were just "some Facebook ads" a couple posts ago and have had a bunch more instances of the disinformation that you're attempting to spread pointed out. At no point have you so much as even begun to show any actual knowledge of the nature of how the social media manipulation worked - knowledge that itself would show you how utterly wrong-headed your lines of argument are. But then, hey, that's how the modern Right works, brazenly lying in ways that make it look like "the Left" (frequently actually slight or moderate Right in reality) is saying absurdly different things than they actually are to the gullible and demanding that people fulfill nonsensical requirements before they'll admit error.


tanabear said:
So why did James Comey write in a Washington Post op-ed just two weeks ago,

"In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton."

The reference here is to George Papadopoulos's meeting with Joseph Mifsud. Now if there really isn't enough evidence to even indict Mifsud, don't you think that James Comey should have some qualifiers here instead of stating it as a fact?
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I'm not a fan of Comey. I also am not going to pretend to know what he knows, especially when it comes to counter-intelligence information. Further, that was an opinion piece by someone who is no longer a government employee. Why, praytell, are you demanding that I defend or condemn his word choice?


tanabear said:
This is what Trump hater Chris Cillizza tweeted:

"Say it with me: The Steele Dossier was NOT why the Russia probe began. The Russia probe began because George Papadopoulos was bragging to an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton."

So the official story is that the FBI Crossfire Hurricane counter-intelligence investigation started over the Papadopoulos-Mifsud meeting. So the true identity of Mifsud is critical.
Click to expand...

No, the "true identity" is not critical. What's critical is that there actually was valid basis to start an investigation. You look like you're betting on the remote possibility that it was a really, really moronically done FBI-run setup to try to illegitimatize... everything and sweep the pretty clear and overwhelming evidence that Trump is a brazen criminal under the rug.

tanabear said:
There is no interest on this forum for uncovering the truth because it is just a distraction from IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Lying brazenly and tossing about slander isn't going to work as well here as it would to a more ignorant population.
 
Last edited:
tanabear said:
My issue is with the term "US interests". Why does the US have interests getting involved in the Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia etc...? We don't. These are the interests of the Swamp and the military industrial complex. These are not the interests of most US most citizens. Our provocations against Russia are far more treacherous than Russia "hacking" our computer systems, assuming that actually happened. Regardless, releasing information about the corrupt and internal workings of the DNC benefitted our democracy.



We are specifically talking about Trump-Russia collusion. He always maintained that it was a witch-hunt(actually a coup attempt) and he was right. It was a fake news story believed only by Trump haters and weak-minded fools.




But what false belief did Americans have due to Russian disinformation besides Trump-Russia collusion? The fact that neither you nor anybody else can give one example is an indication that this is just a talking point repeated over and over again. That's how the modern Left works, sloganeering.




So why did James Comey write in a Washington Post op-ed just two weeks ago,

"In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton."

The reference here is to George Papadopoulos's meeting with Joseph Mifsud. Now if there really isn't enough evidence to even indict Mifsud, don't you think that James Comey should have some qualifiers here instead of stating it as a fact? This is what Trump hater Chris Cillizza tweeted:

"Say it with me: The Steele Dossier was NOT why the Russia probe began. The Russia probe began because George Papadopoulos was bragging to an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton."

So the official story is that the FBI Crossfire Hurricane counter-intelligence investigation started over the Papadopoulos-Mifsud meeting. So the true identity of Mifsud is critical. There is no interest on this forum for uncovering the truth because it is just a distraction from IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT!



What is Q-Anon?



Christopher Steele wanted info from his fake dossier to get out to the public so it could impact the election. And it was leaked to the press before the election! On 09/23/2016 Michael Isikoff published a Yahoo News article about Carter Page's trip to Moscow in July of 2016 based off information in the dossier. New York Magazine published on November 1st, 2016 an article entitled,

Final ‘October Surprises’ Reveal FBI Is Probing Trump’s Alleged Russia Ties

Seriously, people on these forums really need to stop imbibing fake news all the time.



This tells me that your view of Trump is distorted by all the fake news you consume. Stop ingesting fake news and return to reality.
Click to expand...


So, you are unable to answer my questions, huh?

Thought so.

LMFAO!!
 
Trump Tweets

For two years all the Democrats talked about was the Mueller Report, because they knew that it was loaded up with 13 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, later increased to 18. But despite the bias, when the Report came out, the findings were No Collusion and facts that led to........

....No Obstruction. The Dems were devastated - after all this time and money spent ($40,000,000), the Mueller Report was a disaster for them. But they want a Redo, or Do Over. They are even bringing in @CNN sleazebag attorney John Dean. Sorry, no Do Overs - Go back to work!
 
tanabear said:
This tells me that your view of Trump is distorted by all the fake news you consume. Stop ingesting fake news and return to reality.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being ridiculous. Are you telling me that Trump's behaviour is fake news? Are the various recordings of him saying what he says and doing what he does some sort of CGI deep fake?

What specific bit of fake news are you refering to? Do you deny that he admitted to firing Comey because of the Russia investigation? That's the behaviour of a guilty man. And that's one of hundreds of examples.

Where's the fake news, there? Your reflexive defense of Trump is ridiculous. Get off the cult train. You're the one who needs to get back to reality.

There is no interest on this forum for uncovering the truth because it is just a distraction from IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT!
Click to expand...

Many of us are not convinced that impeachment is a viable or preferable solution. You're talking out of your ass.
 
Belz... said:
Many of us are not convinced that impeachment is a viable or preferable solution. You're talking out of your ass.
Click to expand...

As for those of us who are in favor of such, myself included, things like Papadopoulos' actions aren't even on the list when it comes to why. With that said, that Trump outright gave notable blackmail on himself to a hostile foreign government and has repeatedly acted as if they're his boss is the kind of thing that would make me favorable to impeachment, regardless of all else. That he committed outright crimes in relation to that just makes it worse. That's before getting to the rest of the long, long list of reasons to impeach.
 
Last edited:
tanabear, Aridas answered your last comment to me about as well as I could have.
 
Pundits have suggested -- and I agree -- Trump missed a chance to be presidential in the wake of the Mueller Investigation. He's been blathering on and on about the investigation being a political hit job, based on allegations the investigators knew to be false even before the investigation began. Most Americans don't believe that. Instead, most Americans believe our current president is a liar. That's not good for America.

Polling has shown a majority of Americans believe Russia did try and influence the 2016 election. Close to half of all Americans when polled think "President Trump or someone from his campaign worked with Russia to influence the 2016 election." Over half of all Americans when polled believe "Some members of the Republican Party and the White House are working to delegitimize the FBI and Department of Justice in the investigation of Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election." Link to Reuters news article and poll

Here's the way some politicians, journalists and American citizens think Trump should have acted after the Mueller Investigation was concluded. Trump should have requested air time to address the nation in the wake of the Mueller and spoken frankly and respectfully. He should have spelled out for Americans:

  • If Trump accepts that members of his campaign staff met with Russians concerning the 2016 election what are his feelings about that? Does he think it was appropriate? Why? Does he see any danger to our democracy? Does he plan to do things differently in 2020?
  • If Trump believes no one from his campaign met with Russians, he should say so and tell the American people how he knows that.
  • If he thinks the FBI and the DoJ shouldn't have investigated the campaign-Russian connection, he should explain why.

Some people would argue, and I'm one of them, that was the minimum Trump should have done. Speak candidly to all Americans, including Americans who don't trust him. But he didn't and doesn't. He only speaks to his hard core supporters. In my opinion that makes him a terrible president, the worst one we have ever had, at least in the 20th-21st centuries.
 
newyorkguy said:
Here's the way some politicians, journalists and American citizens think Trump should have acted after the Mueller Investigation was concluded. Trump should have requested air time to address the nation in the wake of the Mueller and spoken frankly and respectfully. He should have spelled out for Americans:

  • If Trump accepts that members of his campaign staff met with Russians concerning the 2016 election what are his feelings about that? Does he think it was appropriate? Why? Does he see any danger to our democracy? Does he plan to do things differently in 2020?
  • If Trump believes no one from his campaign met with Russians, he should say so and tell the American people how he knows that.
  • If he thinks the FBI and the DoJ shouldn't have investigated the campaign-Russian connection, he should explain why.
Click to expand...
Is the sky a beautiful color in that world?
 
newyorkguy said:
...

  • If Trump accepts that members of his campaign staff met with Russians concerning the 2016 election what are his feelings about that? Does he think it was appropriate? Why? Does he see any danger to our democracy? Does he plan to do things differently in 2020?
  • If Trump believes no one from his campaign met with Russians, he should say so and tell the American people how he knows that.
  • If he thinks the FBI and the DoJ shouldn't have investigated the campaign-Russian connection, he should explain why.

Some people would argue, and I'm one of them, that was the minimum Trump should have done. Speak candidly to all Americans, including Americans who don't trust him. But he didn't and doesn't. He only speaks to his hard core supporters. In my opinion that makes him a terrible president, the worst one we have ever had, at least in the 20th-21st centuries.
Click to expand...
Two things:

1) He's not capable of such a speech because of his pathological narcissism.

2) We don't know how discussions went between Barr, Trump, and Pompeo or which ever responsible adults were in the room. Barr has to be fully aware that the Mueller report revealed clear-cut obstruction of justice. The point of giving his little summary ahead of letting anyone else see the report was calculated to mislead anyone gullible, and everyone who had not read the report. I even heard Rachel Maddow (IIRC) repeat what Barr said about no obstruction in the first days after the report was released. No doubt she should have read the report sooner rather than later.

So Trump could hardly have given such a presidential statement.

Which I suspect you know.
 
Belz... said:
Well, there's your problem: your hypothetical requires a completely different person to be in office.
Click to expand...

Yes, it shows just how far from the norm Trump is. The fact he didn't want to take steps to reassure the American people that he is innocent of any wrong doing -- even if he was lying -- but at least go through the motions.

Instead, by insisting it was a hoax perpetrated by a dishonest media and a partisan FBI, Trump has managed to make it even worse. Trump has managed to divide the American people even further. You see this on messages boards, including this one, where Trump supporters refuse to discuss the facts of the investigation in any rational way. How can they when Trump continues to insist it was all a big hoax? His hardcore supporters have to say the same thing. And they do. They won't go beyond that. There's really no way for a Trump supporter to say anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom