Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cabbage said:
Considering that an Invitation to Collusion was the intent of the email, we have pretty damn good evidence, you know.
Click to expand...

Collusion isn't a crime, though?

As far as I can tell, the email would be describing a crime only if
- something was offered to the campaign as a gift; and
- the campaign accepted the gift.

Possibly also if the thing on offer was obtained illegally, and the campaign knew it had been obtained illegally, and was because of that knowledge an accomplice to the illegal act of obtaining the thing.

Since the email doesn't provide the necessary details about the arrangement, and since there's no evidence any arrangement was even made, and there's no evidence the Russians actually had anything in hand to offer anyway, I don't see how the email by itself can be "pretty damn good evidence" of a crime.

I keep saying, "if you aren't careful, this is going to turn into Conspiracy of the Gaps."

You keep replying, "hold my cosmo and watch this."
 
theprestige said:
Collusion isn't a crime, though?

As far as I can tell, the email would be describing a crime only if
- something was offered to the campaign as a gift; and
- the campaign accepted the gift.

Possibly also if the thing on offer was obtained illegally, and the campaign knew it had been obtained illegally, and was because of that knowledge an accomplice to the illegal act of obtaining the thing.

Since the email doesn't provide the necessary details about the arrangement, and since there's no evidence any arrangement was even made, and there's no evidence the Russians actually had anything in hand to offer anyway, I don't see how the email by itself can be "pretty damn good evidence" of a crime.

I keep saying, "if you aren't careful, this is going to turn into Conspiracy of the Gaps."

You keep replying, "hold my cosmo and watch this."
Click to expand...

The email is absolutely evidence of that at least one member of the Trump campaign was willing to cooperate with the Russians to further the Trump campaign.

The Russians did, in fact, assist the Trump campaign.

It is not proven that anyone in the Trump campaign actually cooperated with the Russians (aside from Manafort, who was campaign manager at the time), but I hope you can understand why it looks suspicious.
 
It's sad that some people refuse to see the forest for the trees. Why was it OK to even consider accepting help in the presidential election from a foreign government in an American presidential election? Especially a foreign government like the one in Russia that does not share Western values or ideals. A government with a well-deserved reputation for massive corruption, murderous brutality and a total disregard for human rights. What business does Russia have trying to influence the outcome of the American presidential election? It seems that for partisan reasons some people are willing to say that it's okay for a foreign government, no matter who they are, to interfere in an American election and even break American laws in the process. So long as they like the outcome, that's fine.

The reality is, this is exactly the kind of division Putin was and is trying to create in western societies. People are playing right into his hands and they won't let themselves see it.
 
theprestige said:
Collusion isn't a crime, though?

As far as I can tell, the email would be describing a crime only if
- something was offered to the campaign as a gift; and
- the campaign accepted the gift.

Possibly also if the thing on offer was obtained illegally, and the campaign knew it had been obtained illegally, and was because of that knowledge an accomplice to the illegal act of obtaining the thing.

Since the email doesn't provide the necessary details about the arrangement, and since there's no evidence any arrangement was even made, and there's no evidence the Russians actually had anything in hand to offer anyway, I don't see how the email by itself can be "pretty damn good evidence" of a crime.

I keep saying, "if you aren't careful, this is going to turn into Conspiracy of the Gaps."

You keep replying, "hold my cosmo and watch this."
Click to expand...

So the email was only to arrange a meeting where they meet each other to wish them good luck? The null hypothesis, as you mentioned earlier, is that when parties go to the trouble to arrange a meeting such as this, things of value will also be exchanged as well. Otherwise, why have the meeting?

And do you ever watch Chris Hanson on Dateline NBC? Those predators had criminal intent just by arranging the meeting. This is no different.

Look, sometimes you act as if the case for "actual gifts exchanged collusion" simply has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I can accept that opinion. But lack of 100% concrete evidence does not make being extremely suspicious based on the evidence we DO have a "nonsense" position, as you seem to claim at other times. That's head-up-your-a$$ absurd.
 
dasmiller said:
The email is absolutely evidence of that at least one member of the Trump campaign was willing to cooperate with the Russians to further the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But not all cooperation is illegal, and in any case there's no evidence that any cooperation actually arose from this meeting. Since the email doesn't actually describe anything illegal, and the meeting it refers to did not itself produce evidence of anything illegal, it's hard to see how the email is "pretty damn good evidence" of a crime.

The Russians did, in fact, assist the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...
So did Hillary Clinton, James Comey, the DNC, 20 years of GOP smear campaign, Barack Obama, the nation's intelligence community, etc.

It is not proven that anyone in the Trump campaign actually cooperated with the Russians (aside from Manafort, who was campaign manager at the time), but I hope you can understand why it looks suspicious.
Click to expand...
I totally understand why it looks suspicious.

But "looks suspicious" is not the same as "pretty damn good evidence", which is not the same as "evidence that actually supports an indictment".

If it was illegal for Manafort to share polling data with the Russians, and that can be proven, then Manafort should be arrested, tried, and sentenced for the crime. If it can be proven that others in the campaign knew about it, then they should suffer the same fate.
 
Cabbage said:
Nor is it the same as "nonsense" (as you just claimed it to be).
Click to expand...

I said people would continue to believe nonsense about the Trump Tower meeting. To me, believing that the email is evidence that would support a criminal indictment is nonsense.

The belief that it looks suspicious is not nonsense. Feel free to PM me when y'all reach a consensus that the email looks suspicious, but isn't actually good evidence.
 
It was written, "The Russians did, in fact, assist the Trump campaign." The reply was so did Hillary Clinton, James Comey, the DNC, 20 years of GOP smear campaign, Barack Obama, the nation's intelligence community, etc. The obvious difference is -- Hillary Clinton, James Comey, the DNC, 20 years of GOP smear campaign, Barack Obama, the nation's intelligence community -- are all Americans.

No matter what else it did, the Mueller investigation established:
The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons associated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for the purposes of influencing the election. Barr summary
Click to expand...

Why is it okay for the Russian Government to have a role in deciding who the next president of the United States is?
 
theprestige said:
Or a troll. Either way, it doesn't seem that Trump's birtherism has had much practical effect.

But I'm still pondering this equivalence between "Russian collusion" and "birtherism". Is this really the argument you want to be making?
Click to expand...

Did anyone make such an argument? I think I'm the one that brought the birthers up, but that was only as a counter-example of your claim that Republicans would take the higher road with respect to controversies and suspicions such as the Tower meeting. The point being: Republicans reacted worse to even less evidence.

What argument did you think was being made?
 
theprestige said:
I totally understand why it looks suspicious.

But "looks suspicious" is not the same as "pretty damn good evidence", which is not the same as "evidence that actually supports an indictment".
Click to expand...

However, when something looks suspicious, and another thing related to it looks suspicious, and another thing, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another..... and all the suspicions are pointing to the same conclusions.... this gets beyond coincidence and becomes circumstantial evidence!

Additionally, when most of the high and medium level people in Trump's campaign as well as many surrounding the President (Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, Stone & Cohen) have been indicted, five of whom have weither been found or have pleaded guilty, it adds to the suspicion.

On top of that, several FBI and State prosecutors are investigating Trump's businesses, finances, taxes, insurances and charities, as well as his inauguration, its very hard to see him as "Mr Clean".

To paraphrase Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong .... if it looks like ****, feels like ****, smells like **** and tastes like ****... you'd better not step in it!
 
theprestige said:
I said people would continue to believe nonsense about the Trump Tower meeting. To me, believing that the email is evidence that would support a criminal indictment is nonsense.

The belief that it looks suspicious is not nonsense. Feel free to PM me when y'all reach a consensus that the email looks suspicious, but isn't actually good evidence.
Click to expand...

To be clear, when I said it was "damn good evidence" I didn't mean to imply I thought it was sufficient by itself for a criminal case. I meant it is more than sufficient to justify strong suspicion and worthy of investigation.

And I think that's worth saying, repeatedly, because so many Republicans want to consistently deny that fact.
 
Last edited:
Cabbage said:
Did anyone make such an argument? I think I'm the one that brought the birthers up, but that was only as a counter-example of your claim that Republicans would take the higher road with respect to controversies and suspicions such as the Tower meeting. The point being: Republicans reacted worse to even less evidence.



What argument did you think was being made?
Click to expand...
I didn't claim that the Republicans would take a higher road. I apologize if I caused any confusion on that point.

My claim is that Republicans would take the jackass road, that nothing much would come of it, and that it would blow over sooner or later.

Originally I had suggested sooner rather than later. But after being given cromulent case studies (Benghazi, birtherism), I'm happy to have concede it would probably be later.

Again, I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused on this.
 
theprestige said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

Fringe reset.

This is no different than a discussion with a conspiracy theorist, except that the roles are reversed. Every time the ******* Trump tower meeting is brought up, every conservative on this forum wipes their memory of past conversations about it clean, so that everyone has to start the presentation of the evidence over.

No, I'm not playing that game with you anymore. If you're not honest enough to acknowledge what's already been presented, I can't help you. You just go on cheering for your team, right or wrong. Whatever makes you sleep at night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom