Mueller Investigation pt5

[WilliamSeger]

Start with the fact that Putin probably expected Hillary to win. Almost everyone did, and with good reason. Why collude with the future loser? Plenty of risk and little upside with that strategy. Then note that Russia's involvement seems to have been directed mostly at stirring the ****, as they say, rather than trying to achieve any specific wins. Which makes sense, because that advances their aims regardless of the outcome, and the outcome didn't look like it would be a Trump win.

Abject ********. We know that Putin did try to help Trump win, whether or not he "probably expected" Hillary to win. How exactly does that supposition lead to the conclusion that there was no collusion? Do you imagine that trumpers would turn down overtures because they knew that Putin didn't really think Trump could win? Junior, Kushner, and Manafort disprove your entire theory with the Trump Tower meeting.

Finally, note that even after years of investigation, there's still no apparent there there.

I'm pretty sure you aren't really that ignorant.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Start with the fact that Putin probably expected Hillary to win. Almost everyone did, and with good reason. Why collude with the future loser? Plenty of risk and little upside with that strategy. Then note that Russia's involvement seems to have been directed mostly at stirring the ****, as they say, rather than trying to achieve any specific wins. Which makes sense, because that advances their aims regardless of the outcome, and the outcome didn't look like it would be a Trump win. Finally, note that even after years of investigation, there's still no apparent there there.

We know that the Russian government contacted the Trump campaign expressing support and offering them help. That's documented and been made public: “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

As for how long it's taken, it's only been 2 years. Come on.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm saying that Mueller wasn't Hatfill's "opponent". He was running an investigation in which Hatfell was a person of interest. Regardless of whether or not that investigation went too far, or whether or not the focus on Hatfill was justified, the purpose of the investigation was to find the truth. The evidence exonerated Hatfill.

You seem to be playing semantic games. Regardless of the purpose of the investigation, it did harm to Hatfill. Mueller's choices in that investigation hurt him. His innocence did not protect him from that harm. Do you not understand that?

If Trump is innocent, then the same will be true in this investigation.

Eventual exoneration after harm is done? Gee, I wonder why Trump might not be completely satisfied with such an outcome.

Oh, and if you think the FBI doesn't get innocent people convicted, you don't know anything about the FBI's history, let alone Mueller's personal role in such cases.

This is the point - it wasn't a personal vendetta against Hatfill.

That's not only not the point, that's completely irrelevant.

 

[jimbob]

Really? That's the best you got? That's just sad.

No, that's the first thing that came to mind.

There is so much evidence - it gets swamped - however the highlighted is highly suspicious on its own, without everything else. Remember also that Trump and Don Jr have changed their story multiple times on this meeting, and who was present.

Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3 | Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June 7 21:13 | Trump Sr promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Unusual activity noticed between Russian bank and Trump server
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
2017 - May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya
July-08| Don Jr issues statement* saying the meeting was about orphanages
July-09 | NYT prepares to release story about the meeting supposedly about dirt on Clinton
July-09 | Donald Trump Jr. issues a new statement* changing his story from less than 24 hours earlier, and accepting that it was about getting dirt on clinton but that nothing came of it:
July-10| Don Jr hires lawyer
July-12| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case

 

[Ziggurat]

No, that's the first thing that came to mind.

There is so much evidence - it gets swamped - however the highlighted is highly suspicious on its own, without everything else. Remember also that Trump and Don Jr have changed their story multiple times on this meeting, and who was present.

People often change their story when the truth is embarrassing, not just when it's criminal. And no, actually, it's not that suspicious. Candidates like getting dirt on their opponents. The Clinton campaign was quite happy to get dirt on Trump from the Ukrainians, for example. It may be worth investigating, but so far it looks like nothing has turned up, again despite years of investigation.

 

[Steve]

Start with the factthat Putin probably expected Hillary to win. Almost everyone did, and with good reason. Why collude with the future loser? Plenty of risk and little upside with that strategy. Then note that Russia's involvement seems to have been directed mostly at stirring the ****, as they say, rather than trying to achieve any specific wins. Which makes sense, because that advances their aims regardless of the outcome, and the outcome didn't look like it would be a Trump win. Finally, note that even after years of investigation, there's still no apparent there there.

Those two words really do not belong together. Make up your mind. Is it a fact or is it your speculation?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

On the recent non-binding vote (420-0) in Congress about releasing the Mueller Report, I told leadership to let all Republicans vote for transparency. Makes us all look good and doesn’t matter. Play along with the game!

 

[Steve]

People often change their story when the truth is embarrassing, not just when it's criminal. And no, actually, it's not that suspicious. Candidates like getting dirt on their opponents. The Clinton campaign was quite happy to get dirt on Trump from the Ukrainians, for example. It may be worth investigating, but so far it looks like nothing has turned up, again despite years of investigation.

Does it look like this to you because of your intimate knowledge of all the info Mueller's team has collected, or because of your speculation based on the limited information that Mueller has publicly released?

Years of investigation = 2 years. Is hyperbole something you commonly use?

 

[Steve]

Trump Tweets

On the recent non-binding vote (420-0) in Congress about releasing the Mueller Report, I told leadership to let all Republicans vote for transparency. Makes us all look good and doesn’t matter. Play along with the game!

I wonder when he will tweet that he has told senate repubs the same thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does it look like this to you because of your intimate knowledge of all the info Mueller's team has collected, or because of your speculation based on the limited information that Mueller has publicly released?

Mueller isn't the only one who's been investigating this.

Years of investigation = 2 years. Is hyperbole something you commonly use?

That is what qualifies as hyperbole for you on this forum?

And Mueller may have only been independent counsel for 2 years now (well, one day short as of this post), but the FBI and the press were investigating allegations of collusion for some time before that as well. Are you going to jump on me for my use of "some time"?

 

[Steve]

Mueller isn't the only one who's been investigating this.



That is what qualifies as hyperbole for you on this forum?

And Mueller may have only been independent counsel for 2 years now (well, one day short as of this post), but the FBI and the press were investigating allegations of collusion for some time before that as well. Are you going to jump on me for my use of "some time"?

So are you then implying that you have inside knowledge of the results of other ongoing investigations? Ones that are not the topic of this particular thread?

I was not commenting on the forum. I was responding to your specific post where you seemed to think your hyperbole was necessary.

 

[Ziggurat]

So are you then implying that you have inside knowledge of the results of other ongoing investigations? Ones that are not the topic of this particular thread?

I claim no particular inside knowledge. Press investigations have been pretty public. The details of Congressional investigations may not all be public, but the way Congressmen and Senators act in response largely is. Nobody seems to be acting like there's anything damning so far.

I was not commenting on the forum. I was responding to your specific post where you seemed to think your hyperbole was necessary.

2 years is literally years. You only need two to qualify for a plural.

 

[jimbob]

A new timeline:

Year | Date | Event
2015 | April 8 | Rise in Russian cyberattacks.
2015 | Unknown date in June | Russians set up social media trolling operation.
2015 | June 16 | Trump announces candidacy for president.
2015 | Aug. 4 | FBI begins Clinton email investigation.
2015 | September | FBI aware of Russian hack of DNC.
2016 | Feb. 1 | Iowa Caucuses begin 2016 election cycle.
2016 | May 26 | Trump clinches the GOP nomination for president.
2016 | June or July, dates unknown | According to an indictment, Stone informs the Trump campaign about possible Wikileaks release of damaging Clinton documents. 2016 | June 14 | DNC announces it was hacked.
2016 | July 5 | Comey closes Clinton email investigation.
2016 | July 11 | Trump campaign helps change GOP platform on Ukraine/Russia .
2016 | July 15 | Trump chooses Pence as VP.
2016 | July 18 - 21 | GOP Convention
2016 | July 22 | Wikileaks releases 20,000 DNC emails. 2016 | July 24 | DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigns.
2016 | July 25 | FBI begins investigation of DNC hack.
2016 | July 25 to 28 | Democratic National Convention.
2018 | Aug. unknown date | Alleged Russian operative Maria Butina (re)enters the United States on a student visa, according to DOJ indictiment. 2016 | Aug. 19 | Manafort leaves Trump's campaign.
2016 | Sept. 5 | President Obama tells Putin to stop hacking.
2016 | Sept. 26 | First presidential debate
2016 | Oct. 7 | "Access Hollywood tape revealed.
2016 | Oct. 9 | Second presidential debate brings up hacking.
2016 | Oct. 19 | Third presidential debate
2016 | Oct. 31 | White House red phones another warning to Russia.
2016 | Nov. 8 | Trump is elected president
2016 | Dec. 29 | U.S. announces new Russia sanctions.
2016 | Dec. 30 | Russia says it will not retaliate for sanctions.
2017 | Jan. 20 | Trump becomes president.
2017 | Feb. 14 | New York Times, CNN report Trump aides communicated with Russians during campaign.
2017 | May 9 | Trump fires Comey.
2017 | May 11 | Trump suggests Comey firing was related to Russia probe.
2017 | May 17 | Bob Mueller named special counsel, takes over FBI's Russia investigation.
2017 | June 1 | Putin denies role in U.S. elections.
2017 | July 8 | NYT first reports Donald Trump Jr. 2016 meeting with Russian lawyer. 2017 | July 11 | Donald Trump Jr. releases emails about meeting with Russian lawyer after offer of anti-Hillary Clinton material. 2017 | July 27 | U.S. Senate sends new Russia sanctions to Trump's desk.
2017 | July 28 | Russia reacts to sanctions bill, expelling U.S. diplomats.
2017 | Aug. 2 | Trump signs new sanctions against Russia, but says bill is "flawed."
2018 | March 18 | Putin elected to six more years in office.
2018 | April 6 | U.S. issues new sanctions against Russian oligarchs, including Oleg Deripaska.
2018 | June11 | U.S. issues new sanctions against a handful of Russian companies and individuals for cyberattacks on U.S. energy and other interests.
2018 | July 16 | At summit, Putin denies Russian election meddling. Trump says "I don't see any reason why" Russia would interfere.
2018 | July 19 | Trump asks National Security Advisor John Bolton to invite Putin to the U.S. this fall.
2018 | July 25 | Bolton says Putin's U.S. trip is postponed to 2019 because president believes it "should take place after the Russia witch hunt is over."

 

[Ziggurat]

A new timeline:

Strangely absent from that timeline: Wikileak's public announcement in a TV interview on June 12, 2016 and on their official Twitter page on June 16, 2016 that they would be releasing the DNC emails. Stone wouldn't need any insider information from Wikileaks or Russia to know what was already made public.

 

[Steve]

I claim no particular inside knowledge. Press investigations have been pretty public. The details of Congressional investigations may not all be public, but the way Congressmen and Senators act in response largely is. Nobody seems to be acting like there's anything damning so far.
You confuse the words facts and probably.


2 years is literally years. You only need two to qualify for a plural.

In summary:

You don't know what evidence Mueller has.
You don't know what evidence the FBI has.
You don't know what evidence Congress has.
You have some idea of the evidence the press has uncovered.
You use the words facts and probably as if they belong together.
You use the imprecise word years in an attempt to imply a longer period of time than is factual.

And you use all this as a basis for stating that "so far it looks like nothing has turned up".

Perhaps you really meant nothing has been announced because you really have no idea what the investigations have " turned up".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Mueller was convinced of Hatfill's guilt. Hatfill's wasn't guilty. Innocence is not the shield you seem to believe.

Given you have yet again failed to cite a source for a claim, I assume it is a false claim.

 

[Ziggurat]

Given you have yet again failed to cite a source for a claim, I assume it is a false claim.

I wasn't aware this was a controversial claim. Which part specifically do you want a cite for?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Start with the fact that Putin probably expected Hillary to win. Almost everyone did, and with good reason. Why collude with the future loser? Plenty of risk and little upside with that strategy. Then note that Russia's involvement seems to have been directed mostly at stirring the ****, as they say, rather than trying to achieve any specific wins. Which makes sense, because that advances their aims regardless of the outcome, and the outcome didn't look like it would be a Trump win. Finally, note that even after years of investigation, there's still no apparent there there.

Wow, I think you got all the classic easily refuted denials.

Regardless of who Putin thought would win, he still asked for and got favors from Trump.

What risk did Putin take that wouldn't have happened had Clinton won? I.e. he had nothing to lose.

For someone not trying to achieve a Trump win, Putin's bringing in Cambridge Analytica suggests otherwise.

And you added the most obvious ********, the length of the investigation claiming nothing was found when Mueller has indictments and convictions of Trump's top people already and you don't know what was found on Trump because Mueller hasn't reported on Trump yet.

Your rationale here is nothing but worn out bunk.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Mueller isn't the only one who's been investigating this....

No, there were those GOP controlled committees that clearly avoided actually investigating Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I claim no particular inside knowledge. Press investigations have been pretty public. The details of Congressional investigations may not all be public, but the way Congressmen and Senators act in response largely is. Nobody seems to be acting like there's anything damning so far.

Wow, that's some denial you got going there.