My apologies, Mr. President
You tried to tell us. Your band of loyal Trumpsters did their best to add volume to your passionate cries.
It "could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds," you pleaded with us as to the identity of those who meddled in the 2016 American presidential election. "It's a hoax!" you cried from every available mountaintop.
According to a 13 page indictment unsealed today in Washington D.C. you were right, sir....
- Well, there were at least 13 people, not one
- And the indictment says nothing about their weight (but that doesn't rule out that at least one of them weighed 400 pounds!)
- And the people indicted WERE Russians, not Greeks, or Chinese, or any of the other heritages you mused about
- And their coordinated efforts, for the most part, WERE for you and against Hillary Clinton
- And these charges are not reported in an op-ed in the "failing New York Times," or an editorial in the "fake news Washington Post." They're part of an indictment that will be adjudicated in an American court of law.
- And yes, this indictment DOES make it seem that the Mueller team believes it HAS found evidence of Russian involvement in the election, and therefore, the natural follow-up question is does this mean Mueller is getting closer to Russians' connections with your campaign?
But other than that, Mr President, you and your Trumpsters were right! And I therefore humbly apologize.
p.s. Be sure to let us know whether you plan to hold trial-watching parties.
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
You tried to tell us. Your band of loyal Trumpsters did their best to add volume to your passionate cries.It "could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds," you pleaded with us as to the identity of those who meddled in the 2016 American presidential election. "It's a hoax!" you cried from every available mountaintop.
According to a 13 page indictment unsealed today in Washington D.C. you were right, sir....
- Well, there were at least 13 people, not one
- And the indictment says nothing about their weight (but that doesn't rule out that at least one of them weighed 400 pounds!)
- And the people indicted WERE Russians, not Greeks, or Chinese, or any of the other heritages you mused about
- And their coordinated efforts, for the most part, WERE for you and against Hillary Clinton
- And these charges are not reported in an op-ed in the "failing New York Times," or an editorial in the "fake news Washington Post." They're part of an indictment that will be adjudicated in an American court of law.
- And yes, this indictment DOES make it seem that the Mueller team believes it HAS found evidence of Russian involvement in the election, and therefore, the natural follow-up question is does this mean Mueller is getting closer to Russians' connections with your campaign?
But other than that, Mr President, you and your Trumpsters were right! And I therefore humbly apologize.
p.s. Be sure to let us know whether you plan to hold trial-watching parties.
Good grief don't be an idiot Bill. Nobody denies the Russians were involved in influencing our elections. What we deny (because it isn't true) is collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Once again, nothing to see here people. Liberal red herrings blowing smoke because they hate the president and can't get over the fact that Crooked Hillary lost the election. Really these people need some therapy on how to deal with loss.
Of course, it should be no surprise that they can't. Political correctness makes everyone a winner and that is what they teach kids these days so I guess they never learned to cope with defeat.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
According to a 13 page indictment unsealed today in Washington D.C. you were right, sir....Good grief don't be an idiot Bill.
I wasn't aware that being an "idiot" was a choice, David. I've always thought I was an idiot because I was born an "idiot." Now, I guess being an idiot is another one of those "nature v. nuture" issues. I didn't know. Thanks.
Nobody denies the Russians were involved in influencing our elections. What we deny (because it isn't true) is collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The point of my post, as I'm sure you noticed, was that today's indictment shows the Mueller team HAS found evidence of criminal involvement in the election by Russians; that's not something other indictments or pleas have demonstrated. The natural question, as much as I'm SURE you don't want to address it, is if the Mueller team has found evidence of Russian involvement, will they ALSO find Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. I don't know the answer to that because I don't know what other evidence Mueller has collected, or what future cooperating witnesses (the next one might be Rick Gates) have told him. Your absolute claim here seems to suggests that you know Mueller's evidence, David. (I assume you knew today's indictment was coming?) We'll have to see whether your reading of the evidence is correct.
Once again, nothing to see here people. Liberal red herrings blowing smoke because they hate the president and can't get over the fact that Crooked Hillary lost the election. Really these people need some therapy on how to deal with loss.
And as of today, some Russians need attorneys for help on how to deal with criminal charges against them.
The "red herring" in this matter, David, is all of your comments about everything EXCEPT the charges brought today. Are you outraged that Russians interfered in our election? Are you outraged that the president has yet to invoke the sanctions against Russia that Congress passed nearly unanimously and he signed last summer?
Of course, it should be no surprise that they can't. Political correctness makes everyone a winner and that is what they teach kids these days so I guess they never learned to cope with defeat.
And some Russians need to learn quickly how to cope with federal charges. Perhaps folks on team Trump will get some pointers from their Russian forerunners.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
According to a 13 page indictment unsealed today in Washington D.C. you were right, sir....Good grief don't be an idiot Bill.
I wasn't aware that being an "idiot" was a choice, David. I've always thought I was an idiot because I was born an "idiot." Now, I guess being an idiot is another one of those "nature v. nuture" issues. I didn't know. Thanks.
Nobody denies the Russians were involved in influencing our elections. What we deny (because it isn't true) is collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The point of my post, as I'm sure you noticed, was that today's indictment shows the Mueller team HAS found evidence of criminal involvement in the election by Russians; that's not something other indictments or pleas have demonstrated. The natural question, as much as I'm SURE you don't want to address it, is if the Mueller team has found evidence of Russian involvement, will they ALSO find Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. I don't know the answer to that because I don't know what other evidence Mueller has collected, or what future cooperating witnesses (the next one might be Rick Gates) have told him. Your absolute claim here seems to suggests that you know Mueller's evidence, David. (I assume you knew today's indictment was coming?) We'll have to see whether your reading of the evidence is correct.
Oh brother Bill, do you even know what these people did? They posed as AMERICANS and Americans who spoke with them did not even know they were Russian. Clearly not in the same ballpark.
Once again, nothing to see here people. Liberal red herrings blowing smoke because they hate the president and can't get over the fact that Crooked Hillary lost the election. Really these people need some therapy on how to deal with loss.
And as of today, some Russians need attorneys for help on how to deal with criminal charges against them.
Yep, nothing to see here.
The "red herring" in this matter, David, is all of your comments about everything EXCEPT the charges brought today. Are you outraged that Russians interfered in our election? Are you outraged that the president has yet to invoke the sanctions against Russia that Congress passed nearly unanimously and he signed last summer?
Are you outraged we interfere in other elections? Interfere isn't even the right word. Influenced maybe, but not interfere. Let's use the right terminology.
Of course, it should be no surprise that they can't. Political correctness makes everyone a winner and that is what they teach kids these days so I guess they never learned to cope with defeat.
And some Russians need to learn quickly how to cope with federal charges. Perhaps folks on team Trump will get some pointers from their Russian forerunners.
Once again, nothing to see here.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Clearly not in the same ballpark. ...
Yep, nothing to see here. ...
Once again, nothing to see here.In those 17 words, David, you distill the essence of the Trumpster approach to the Mueller probe. Well done.
Now you've apparently seen Mueller's evidence, so you're in a better position than I to know, but were I a Trumpster today, I'd toss another log on my worry fire.
We can't adjudicate these matters here, of course. But there's no doubt that today's indictment is a BIG advance in the Mueller investigation. We know Flynn and Papadopolous are cooperating. There are reports Rick Gates is close to a plea deal to cooperate. You know as well as I that prosecutors don't approve plea deals unless the people who receive them have something significant to offer about the people above them in the food chain.
But it'll be okay, David, as long as you keep chanting, "Nothing to see here."
-
Oh good grief. All this over that? Bill, that sure stirred your pot!
U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller unveiled the details of a widespread and coordinated campaign by Russians to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump
Probably every American alive could have said as much without Mueller's investigation. A lot of American's and Parties like Democrats and Republicans did exactly the same thing only a whole lot more of it.
Bill, I am sure you will stand up and say, "No! Not me! I never did any of that!" I dare you.
David says it well:
Once again, nothing to see here people. Liberal red herrings blowing smoke because they hate the president and can't get over the fact that Crooked Hillary lost the election. Really these people need some therapy on how to deal with loss.
Also like David says:
Yep, nothing to see here.
-
@GaoLu said:
Oh good grief. All this over that? Bill, that sure stirred your pot!U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller unveiled the details of a widespread and coordinated campaign by Russians to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump
It's a criminal indictment executed by a federal grand jury that contains charges that will be adjudicated in a court of law. In addition, it's a charge document that annihilates the "It's a hoax!" escape hatch Trump and his Trumpsters have repeated throughout Mueller's investigation.
Probably every American alive could have said as much without Mueller's investigation. A lot of American's and Parties like Democrats and Republicans did exactly the same thing only a whole lot more of it.
"A lot of Americans and parties" have criminally coordinated to influence another nation's elections? Please provide links.
Bill, I am sure you will stand up and say, "No! Not me! I never did any of that!" I dare you.
Thanks for the dare. I have NEVER criminally coordinated to influence another nation's elections. Nor have I ever criminally conspired to influence an American election. Have you?
Also like David says:
Yep, nothing to see here.
Sure seems that Mueller's team and his grand jury believe there's something to see there. But I DO understand how comforting a mantra that is for you and your fellow Trumpsters.
The most haunting part of this indictment for Trump et al is that we're just getting started. Mueller has two guilty pleas, two (perhaps three) cooperating witnesses. And now an indictment against Russian operatives for criminally interfering in our elections. No one saw today's indictment coming (Mueller's team doesn't leak). No one knows what's coming next. But whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it will be a declaration that there IS something to see... for those willing to look.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
It's a criminal indictment executed by a federal grand jury that contains charges that will be adjudicated in a court of law. In addition, it's a charge document that annihilates the "It's a hoax!" escape hatch Trump and his Trumpsters have repeated throughout Mueller's investigation.
Dem's have to have something to show for all the taxpayers money they spent. We shall see how it ends, won't we. Crickets....
"A lot of Americans and parties" have criminally coordinated to influence another nation's elections? Please provide links.
I said what I said, not what you said.
Bill, I am sure you will stand up and say, "No! Not me! I never did any of that!" I dare you.
Thanks for the dare. I have NEVER criminally coordinated to influence another nation's elections. Nor have I ever criminally conspired to influence an American election. Have you?
You twisted my words...the old Bill resurfaces. At least we know it is you.
Also like David says:
Yep, nothing to see here.
Sure seems that Mueller's team and his grand jury believe there's something to see there. But I DO understand how comforting a mantra that is for you and your fellow Trumpsters.
I understand how hopeful it must feel to you to imagine, "Maybe there will be something to see here!" Actually, I suspect the show is all political sham and not even hope.
The most haunting part of this...
No need to feel haunted Bill.
If wrongdoing was done, hopefully, we shall find out. If this is all political or deep-state shinanigans, we may never know the truth. Either way, I bet shrill little trumpets will blow, echo briefly in the corridors of history and be gone.
No one knows what's coming next. But whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it will be a declaration that there IS something to see... for those willing to look.
Maybe. Thanks for backing waaaaaay down from your former tone.
-
@GaoLu said:
Dem's have to have something to show for all the taxpayers money they spent. We shall see how it ends, won't we. Crickets....What we have are allegations of an organized and criminal attempt to undermine American elections. If what the Russians did was illegal, are you concerned? Do you want the American government to do whatever it can to keep it from happening again?
"A lot of Americans and parties" have criminally coordinated to influence another nation's elections? Please provide links.
I said what I said, not what you said.
Yes. And I asked you to back up what you said.
You twisted my words...the old Bill resurfaces. At least we know it is you.
No. I didn't twist your words.
In response to my summary of today's indictment, what I called allegations of "a widespread and coordinated campaign by Russians to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump," you said we all knew that without Mueller's investigation, THEN you added this....
"A lot of American's and Parties like Democrats and Republicans did exactly the same thing only a whole lot more of it."
I then asked you for links to prove that "a lot of Americans and parties like the Democrats and Republicans did exactly" what the Russians did: try to influence what, for them, was a foreign election.
Your comment that "the old Bill" has resurfaced is merely a rhetorical shiny object to distract attention from the fact that you made a claim that you can't - or don't want to - prove.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
If what the Russians did was illegal, are you concerned?Big whopping giant "If." Americans can "What iF" ourselves into big-eyed, spooky bankruptcy as the lawyers walk away with fat billfolds.
Do you want the American government to do whatever it can to keep it from happening again?
Yes. If anything significant happened. If.
Yes. And I asked you to back up what you said.
I got lost in who is backing up what and why. Sorry. [sound of loud beeping]
You twisted my words...the old Bill resurfaces. At least we know it is you.
No. I didn't twist your words.
Yes I didn't. No you did. You did! I didn't! Didn't! Did!
I then asked you for links to prove that "a lot of Americans and parties like the Democrats and Republicans did exactly" what the Russians did: try to influence what, for them, was a foreign election.
Your comment that "the old Bill" has resurfaced is merely a rhetorical shiny object to distract attention from the fact that you made a claim that you can't - or don't want to - prove.
- I think we all know that many Americans and plenty of people from a variety of nations all engage in trying to influence the direction of elections. That is what the whole election process is all about. To point to some nation and accuse them of trying to hard to influence the process is purely ridiculous and we all know that. Of course everyone is doing their best. Whey shouldn't other nations do their best? I wish they wouldn't, but nothing prevents them from doing so. America does such things all the time (and rightly so, by George!) in other nations. Whoop-Dee-Doo.
- Engaging in criminal activity--whatever that means--should not be part of the process. I am sure every Party engages in some illegal activity--all they can get away with--and some nations do a lot of it. US too. Surprise! Surprise! We should stop it where we can. What is going on today is just plain deliberately rotten politics. You are quite the glib politician yourself--one that once wished to run for president. You likely know all this far better than the rest of us do, so stop pretending you don't. We are not fooled.
- I have no links for that because I am an original source along with almost everyone else on earth. If you are not then ballyhoo for you and you can link directly to me.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Oh good grief. All this over that? Bill, that sure stirred your pot!U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller unveiled the details of a widespread and coordinated campaign by Russians to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump
It's a criminal indictment executed by a federal grand jury that contains charges that will be adjudicated in a court of law. In addition, it's a charge document that annihilates the "It's a hoax!" escape hatch Trump and his Trumpsters have repeated throughout Mueller's investigation.
Cut the crap of lies Bill. You bold faced liar. Typical liberal democrat idiot. Nobody says Russian meddling is a hoax and you know it.
Probably every American alive could have said as much without Mueller's investigation. A lot of American's and Parties like Democrats and Republicans did exactly the same thing only a whole lot more of it.
"A lot of Americans and parties" have criminally coordinated to influence another nation's elections? Please provide links.
We did the same thing to Israel.
Also like David says:
Yep, nothing to see here.
Sure seems that Mueller's team and his grand jury believe there's something to see there. But I DO understand how comforting a mantra that is for you and your fellow Trumpsters.
Except this is totally separate and they were ADAMANT of no American involvement in the plot.
The most haunting part of this indictment for Trump et al is that we're just getting started. Mueller has two guilty pleas, two (perhaps three) cooperating witnesses. And now an indictment against Russian operatives for criminally interfering in our elections. No one saw today's indictment coming (Mueller's team doesn't leak). No one knows what's coming next. But whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it will be a declaration that there IS something to see... for those willing to look.
But what I did see is that there were no Americans involved. Apparently you missed that part.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Cut the crap of lies Bill. You bold faced liar. Typical liberal democrat idiot. Nobody says Russian meddling is a hoax and you know it.Before you cast barbs such as "bold faced liar" and "typical liberal democrat idiot," David, you should take stock of the evidence you have to support them. For example, what if I turn out to be an "A-typical liberal democrat idiot"? Or perhaps, a "typical liberal Democratic idiot"? or, God forbid, an "atypical liberal Democratic moron"? The egg on your face would be embarrassing, I'm guessing.
I just want you to feel proud of the labels you attach to people, if for no other reason than that I'm sure you want people to feel proud of the labels they attach to you. (It's that "Attach labels unto others as you would have them attach labels unto you" rule that Jesus made such a big deal about.)
As for whether "nobody says Russian meddling is a hoax," I guess that depends on whether Donald Trump is a "nobody." To wit:
- June 15, 2016: In a statement, Trump says, "We believe it was the DNC that did the ‘hacking’ as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader. Too bad the DNC doesn’t hack Crooked Hillary’s, 33,000 missing emails."
- September 8, 2016: Trump tells RT (Russia Today) that it's "pretty unlikely" that the Russian government hacked the DNC's emails.
- October 9, 2016: At the second presidential debate, in response to a U.S. intelligence community finding that Russia was behind attacks aimed at influencing our election, Trump says "I notice any time anything wrong happens they like to say, the Russians, the Russians — she doesn’t know it’s the Russians doing the hacking, maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia."
- October 19, 2016: In response to another reminder of the intelligence community's Russia intervention finding during the third presidential debate, Trump says, "She (Hillary Clinton) has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else." "...our country has no idea," he says later.
- November 28, 2016: In an interview with Time Magazine, Trump says "I don’t believe they (the Russians) interfered. That became a laughing point, not a talking point, a laughing point. Any time I do something, they say ‘oh, Russia interfered.'" After calling the Russians "effective and smart," Trump says "It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey. I believe that it could have been Russia and it could have been any one of many other people, sources, or even individuals."
- December 9, 2016: In response to a Washington Post report that the CIA had concluded that Russian interference was aimed at helping Trump win the election, Trump issues a statement that says of the CIA, "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.'"
- January 3, 2017: Before an intelligence briefing on Russian intervention in the election, Trump tweets "The ‘Intelligence’ briefing on so-called ‘Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!"
- September 22, 2017: Upon learning that Facebook reps will testify about Russian purchase of election ads on the social media giant, Trump tweets, "The Russia hoax continues, now it’s ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?"
Probably every American alive could have said as much without Mueller's investigation. A lot of American's and Parties like Democrats and Republicans did exactly the same thing only a whole lot more of it.
"A lot of Americans and parties" have criminally coordinated to influence another nation's elections? Please provide links.
We did the same thing to Israel.
I'll ask again: In which criminally chargeable activities did the U.S. government take part to interfere in Israeli elections? Links, please.
Except this is totally separate and they were ADAMANT of no American involvement in the plot.
Deputy AG Rosenstein said only that there was **"no allegation in (the) indictment that any American was a knowing participant in (the) illegal activity" alleged in the indictment. Such a statement does not rule out American involvement in illegal activities OTHER than those charged in last week's indictment.
But what I did see is that there were no Americans involved. Apparently you missed that part.
What I didn't miss is the fact that last week's indictment was a standalone document that imposed NO limitations on future special counsel indictments against other persons (e.g. today's indictment of a son-in-law of a Russian oligarch).
You may, and no doubt will, continue call me names, David, but the fact is the special counsel's investigation is not closed, and with ever new plea deal and cooperating witness, the bullseyes on the backs of Trump's inner circle grow larger and clearer.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Cut the crap of lies Bill. You bold faced liar. Typical liberal democrat idiot. Nobody says Russian meddling is a hoax and you know it.Before you cast barbs such as "bold faced liar" and "typical liberal democrat idiot," David, you should take stock of the evidence you have to support them. For example, what if I turn out to be an "A-typical liberal democrat idiot"? Or perhaps, a "typical liberal Democratic idiot"? or, God forbid, an "atypical liberal Democratic moron"? The egg on your face would be embarrassing, I'm guessing.
I just want you to feel proud of the labels you attach to people, if for no other reason than that I'm sure you want people to feel proud of the labels they attach to you. (It's that "Attach labels unto others as you would have them attach labels unto you" rule that Jesus made such a big deal about.)
As for whether "nobody says Russian meddling is a hoax," I guess that depends on whether Donald Trump is a "nobody." To wit:
- June 15, 2016: In a statement, Trump says, "We believe it was the DNC that did the ‘hacking’ as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader. Too bad the DNC doesn’t hack Crooked Hillary’s, 33,000 missing emails."
- September 8, 2016: Trump tells RT (Russia Today) that it's "pretty unlikely" that the Russian government hacked the DNC's emails.
- October 9, 2016: At the second presidential debate, in response to a U.S. intelligence community finding that Russia was behind attacks aimed at influencing our election, Trump says "I notice any time anything wrong happens they like to say, the Russians, the Russians — she doesn’t know it’s the Russians doing the hacking, maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia."
- October 19, 2016: In response to another reminder of the intelligence community's Russia intervention finding during the third presidential debate, Trump says, "She (Hillary Clinton) has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else." "...our country has no idea," he says later.
- November 28, 2016: In an interview with Time Magazine, Trump says "I don’t believe they (the Russians) interfered. That became a laughing point, not a talking point, a laughing point. Any time I do something, they say ‘oh, Russia interfered.'" After calling the Russians "effective and smart," Trump says "It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey. I believe that it could have been Russia and it could have been any one of many other people, sources, or even individuals."
- December 9, 2016: In response to a Washington Post report that the CIA had concluded that Russian interference was aimed at helping Trump win the election, Trump issues a statement that says of the CIA, "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.'"
- January 3, 2017: Before an intelligence briefing on Russian intervention in the election, Trump tweets "The ‘Intelligence’ briefing on so-called ‘Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!"
- September 22, 2017: Upon learning that Facebook reps will testify about Russian purchase of election ads on the social media giant, Trump tweets, "The Russia hoax continues, now it’s ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?"
Not one of those denied that Russia did some meddling in the election. Nice try but no points for your poor effort.
Except this is totally separate and they were ADAMANT of no American involvement in the plot.
Deputy AG Rosenstein said only that there was **"no allegation in (the) indictment that any American was a knowing participant in (the) illegal activity" alleged in the indictment. Such a statement does not rule out American involvement in illegal activities OTHER than those charged in last week's indictment.
Except you tout this as some big discovery. It's not. We already knew this was going on, it was no secret and hasn't been a secret for decades, not just 2016.
But what I did see is that there were no Americans involved. Apparently you missed that part.
What I didn't miss is the fact that last week's indictment was a standalone document that imposed NO limitations on future special counsel indictments against other persons (e.g. today's indictment of a son-in-law of a Russian oligarch).
Good grief, the point is, this is nothing to support your outrageous claims against the current administration.
You may, and no doubt will, continue call me names, David, but the fact is the special counsel's investigation is not closed, and with ever new plea deal and cooperating witness, the bullseyes on the backs of Trump's inner circle grow larger and clearer.
larger, maybe, but clearer? Nope. No evidence whatsoever has been shown to this point. Probably because there isn't any.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Not one of those denied that Russia did some meddling in the election.In my view, when Trump told Time that he didn't think the Russians "interfered," it sounded a lot like he was denying that "Russia did some meddling"... unless you argue that one can "meddle" in an election without "interfering" in it.
Nice try but no points for your poor effort.
I'm confused that you award my "nice try," but simultaneously knock my "poor effort." Are you sure I didn't make a "nice effort," but in a "poor try"? [NOTE: My own view is that my try was nice BECAUSE my effort was nice. Boy, do WE come from different parts of the country!]
Except you tout this as some big discovery. It's not. We already knew this was going on, it was no secret and hasn't been a secret for decades, not just 2016.
What hasn't been going on for decades - what IS new to the 2016 election - is the depth and breadth of a foreign adversary's involvement in the American election, the filing of criminal charges against nationals and companies of that adversary for their role in said election involvement, and the large number of a major party candidate's family and advisors who had, forgot, and then were helped to remember their many campaign and post-campaign season contacts with officials and other nationals of that foreign adversary.
What else is new to the 2016 election is a special counsel's investigation that so far has elicited guilty pleas and witness cooperation agreements from three people, two indictments of campaign representatives, one of whom is reportedly about to cop a plea deal, and the indictment of thirteen foreign adversary nationals and three of that adversary's companies for their criminal involvement in our election. All that WITHOUT mention of the high stakes issues such as stolen emails, the "dirt" the adversary nation offered to a major party candidate about the other major party candidate, and that whole "obstruction of justice" thing.
This is ALL new, David.
Good grief, the point is, this is nothing to support your outrageous claims against the current administration.
As I said, the Mueller probe has not ended. New plea agreements mean new cooperating witnesses. New cooperating witnesses mean more information, farther up the food chain. That's prosecution 101, David.
You're welcome to believe nothing happened, just as I am welcome to believe something did.
larger, maybe, but clearer? Nope. No evidence whatsoever has been shown to this point. Probably because there isn't any.
You're probably right. The fact that SO many Trump campaign people just happened to have multiple contacts with Russians during a campaign when the Russians were working overtime to sow discord, chaos, as well as to elect Donald Trump; AND that said campaign people just happened to forget those contacts over and over again until they were compelled to remember them - well, that's nothing but coincidence. Why, I bet Obama's people were in cahoots with Kenyan officials in both of his elections!
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Not one of those denied that Russia did some meddling in the election.In my view, when Trump told Time that he didn't think the Russians "interfered," it sounded a lot like he was denying that "Russia did some meddling"... unless you argue that one can "meddle" in an election without "interfering" in it.
There is no evidence of Russian Interference. Influence, yes, but not interference.
Except you tout this as some big discovery. It's not. We already knew this was going on, it was no secret and hasn't been a secret for decades, not just 2016.
What hasn't been going on for decades - what IS new to the 2016 election - is the depth and breadth of a foreign adversary's involvement in the American election, the filing of criminal charges against nationals and companies of that adversary for their role in said election involvement, and the large number of a major party candidate's family and advisors who had, forgot, and then were helped to remember their many campaign and post-campaign season contacts with officials and other nationals of that foreign adversary.
The attempts are not new, it's been going on since WW2. We are just now deciding to do something about it.
You're welcome to believe nothing happened, just as I am welcome to believe something did.
larger, maybe, but clearer? Nope. No evidence whatsoever has been shown to this point. Probably because there isn't any.
You're probably right. The fact that SO many Trump campaign people just happened to have multiple contacts with Russians during a campaign when the Russians were working overtime to sow discord, chaos, as well as to elect Donald Trump; AND that said campaign people just happened to forget those contacts over and over again until they were compelled to remember them - well, that's nothing but coincidence. Why, I bet Obama's people were in cahoots with Kenyan officials in both of his elections!
Clinton officials had contacts as well but I don't see you losing your mind over that.
-
And pretty soon, Russia just may release Clinton's 30,000 "missing" emails. That will meddle, now won't it!
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
There is no evidence of Russian Interference. Influence, yes, but not interference.How could the Russians have had "influence" without also having interfered? Are you contending somebody brought the Russians into the campaign against their will?
The attempts are not new, it's been going on since WW2. We are just now deciding to do something about it.
NOTHING like what the Russians did in the 2016 election "has been going on since WW2." Identify for me ANY nation in any previous presidential campaign that was as active as the Russians were in 2016, AND had as many meetings with members of one of the major party candidate's staff and inner circle as the Russians did with the Trump campaign in 2016.
Clinton officials had contacts as well but I don't see you losing your mind over that.
You compile a list of the Clinton campaign's contacts with Russians, and I'll compile a list of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russians. Then we'll compare lists.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
There is no evidence of Russian Interference. Influence, yes, but not interference.How could the Russians have had "influence" without also having interfered? Are you contending somebody brought the Russians into the campaign against their will?
I recommend a dictionary. in·ter·fere
ˌin(t)ərˈfir/Submit
verb
1.
prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.They did not interfere, they influenced with information campaigns.
The attempts are not new, it's been going on since WW2. We are just now deciding to do something about it.
NOTHING like what the Russians did in the 2016 election "has been going on since WW2." Identify for me ANY nation in any previous presidential campaign that was as active as the Russians were in 2016, AND had as many meetings with members of one of the major party candidate's staff and inner circle as the Russians did with the Trump campaign in 2016.
Clinton officials had contacts as well but I don't see you losing your mind over that.
You compile a list of the Clinton campaign's contacts with Russians, and I'll compile a list of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russians. Then we'll compare lists.
You have heard of the Dossier right?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I recommend a dictionary. in·ter·fere
ˌin(t)ərˈfir/Submit
verb
1.
prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.They did not interfere, they influenced with information campaigns.
And I recommend that you look at the OTHER definition of the word "interfere" offered by the very online dictionary from which you quoted:
- take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity.
"she tried not to interfere in her children's lives"
synonyms: butt into, barge into, pry into, intrude into, intervene in, get involved in, encroach on, impinge on; meddle in, tamper with; informal - poke one's nose into, horn in on, muscle in on, stick one's oar in
"she tried not to interfere in his life"
In some circles, David, they'd refer to your decision not to mention your source's other definition of the word "interfere" as "cherry picking." I think I would, too.
You compile a list of the Clinton campaign's contacts with Russians, and I'll compile a list of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russians. Then we'll compare lists.
You have heard of the Dossier right?
The dossier originally ordered as oppo research by an anti-Trump concern, but most of whose costs were paid for by the Clinton campaign? The dossier compiled by a respected former British intelligence professional who grew so concerned about what he found in Trump's history with Russia that he contacted and met with the FBI? The former intelligence professional who reportedly met with the Mueller team for two days? The dossier very little of which has been disproven? whose content is MUCH MUCH MUCH more than a collection of salacious sexual tidbits?
Yes. I have heard of the Dossier. How does the dossier prove ANYTHING about the Clinton campaign's contacts with the Russians? Trump campaign officials met with Russians over and over and over again. How does the dossier prove that Clinton campaign officials did the same?
- take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I recommend a dictionary. in·ter·fere
ˌin(t)ərˈfir/Submit
verb
1.
prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.They did not interfere, they influenced with information campaigns.
And I recommend that you look at the OTHER definition of the word "interfere" offered by the very online dictionary from which you quoted:
- take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity.
"she tried not to interfere in her children's lives"
synonyms: butt into, barge into, pry into, intrude into, intervene in, get involved in, encroach on, impinge on; meddle in, tamper with; informal - poke one's nose into, horn in on, muscle in on, stick one's oar in
"she tried not to interfere in his life"
In some circles, David, they'd refer to your decision not to mention your source's other definition of the word "interfere" as "cherry picking." I think I would, too.
You compile a list of the Clinton campaign's contacts with Russians, and I'll compile a list of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russians. Then we'll compare lists.
You have heard of the Dossier right?
The dossier originally ordered as oppo research by an anti-Trump concern, but most of whose costs were paid for by the Clinton campaign? The dossier compiled by a respected former British intelligence professional who grew so concerned about what he found in Trump's history with Russia that he contacted and met with the FBI? The former intelligence professional who reportedly met with the Mueller team for two days? The dossier very little of which has been disproven? whose content is MUCH MUCH MUCH more than a collection of salacious sexual tidbits?
Yes. I have heard of the Dossier. How does the dossier prove ANYTHING about the Clinton campaign's contacts with the Russians? Trump campaign officials met with Russians over and over and over again. How does the dossier prove that Clinton campaign officials did the same?
The Dossier bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign that has been proven to be bogus time and time again and was the basis for a FISA warrant that was previously denied to that the Clinton/Obama Corruption scandal could bury Trump. That dossier.
- take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
The Dossier bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign that has been proven to be bogus time and time again and was the basis for a FISA warrant that was previously denied to that the Clinton/Obama Corruption scandal could bury Trump. That dossier.David, I trust that you follow the news closely enough to know that the Steele dossier has NOT been "proven to be bogus time and time again." (though I will welcome your links to evidence that it has) As a compilation of raw intelligence, of course, the dossier never claimed to be the final and inerrant word about the matters it discussed.
And the basis of a FISA warrant? Again, I'm confident that you follow the news closely enough to know that that claim died a rather public death earlier this year with the release of the infamous Devin Nunes memo. Nunes - no Hillary Clinton fanboy - confirmed previous NY Times reporting that George Papadopoulos, not the Steele Dossier, triggered the FBI probe (remember his drinking night out with an Australian diplomat?) when he wrote,
"The Papdopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counter-intelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Peter Strzok."
As I have posted many times before, David, we're entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
