Trump-Russia Probe: Criminal Investigation...

[firstfloor]

You're gonna have to be more specific than that.

POTUS frequently says that the Russia thing is a hoax. He never gives any details. So, what is he talking about? Does anyone have details? Is it the theory that Russia has been unfairly blamed for election interference, and if so, who conjured the deception, and for what purpose?

[Cow Poke]

POTUS frequently says that the Russia thing is a hoax. He never gives any details. So, what is he talking about? Does anyone have details? Is it the theory that Russia has been unfairly blamed for election interference, and if so, who conjured the deception, and for what purpose?

That was the "big issue" that was going to bring down Trump - it has largely collapsed, and may actually boomerang.

Here's the problem, ff... our country is so politically divided, and each "part" seems to have it's own media, so the "left" is obviously going to ignore anything that plays down the Russian thing, and the conservatives are going to play it up.

What happens then, is you'll get sources like Breitbart or ConservativeTreehouse (or whatever it is) providing quotes from people -- and even video -- but the left will always dismiss it as "well, that's BREITBART, so it's obviously conservative tripe" type stuff.

So, for example, when New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet says something like..

It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character. We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well.

...it's an indication that even the NYT is backing down on the Russian Collusion story.

Those who hate Trump (or have already declared him a criminal, or simply want him gone) aren't going to see the same thing in that statement as a conservative who will see that as an admission that the NYT got snookered.

[demi-conservative]

The Swamp is screaming. It's afraid.

[seanD]

POTUS frequently says that the Russia thing is a hoax. He never gives any details. So, what is he talking about? Does anyone have details? Is it the theory that Russia has been unfairly blamed for election interference, and if so, who conjured the deception, and for what purpose?

Contrary to perception, I think the finding may be something rather alarming for both liberals and conservatives, and what their views previously were about the intelligence community, that is, if that ship hasn't already sailed. I'm not sure it has just yet. For me personally, it did long ago. All this is just extra affirmation of my views.

[rogue06]

If they start handing out charges it will effect this present impeachment thing - it will made it all look like a witch hunt.

The MSM is already dutifully conducting damage control having started referring to it as Barr's "conspiracy theory."

[rogue06]

That was the "big issue" that was going to bring down Trump - it has largely collapsed, and may actually boomerang.

Here's the problem, ff... our country is so politically divided, and each "part" seems to have it's own media, so the "left" is obviously going to ignore anything that plays down the Russian thing, and the conservatives are going to play it up.

What happens then, is you'll get sources like Breitbart or ConservativeTreehouse (or whatever it is) providing quotes from people -- and even video -- but the left will always dismiss it as "well, that's BREITBART, so it's obviously conservative tripe" type stuff.

So, for example, when New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet says something like..

It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character. We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well.

...it's an indication that even the NYT is backing down on the Russian Collusion story.

Those who hate Trump (or have already declared him a criminal, or simply want him gone) aren't going to see the same thing in that statement as a conservative who will see that as an admission that the NYT got snookered.

The fact that the MSM has dropped the collusion angle except for the occasional wild-eyed guest on a panel discussion indicates that they have finally accepted that there really was "no there there"

[firstfloor]

My understanding is that “Russia hoax” is used by Trump to deflect the counter factual suggestion that Trump would not have defeated Clinton in the 2016 election if Russia had not been involved. Trump has no ‘hoax’ theory apart from what he hears from conspiracy theorists. Barr, however, is trying to put some bones on the ‘hoax’. This is not an evidence led investigation.

[NorrinRadd]

I can envision a scenario where the House votes to impeach, it turns out there are enough swampy scumpublicans in the Senate to get 55 or so votes to convict -- a majority, but well short of the necessary 67 -- AND the DOJ hands down a bunch of indictments for serious crimes by mid and high level "intelligence community" officials in the Obama and Trump administrations.

And then... well... reboot the country?

[oxmixmudd]

The fact that the MSM has dropped the collusion angle except for the occasional wild-eyed guest on a panel discussion indicates that they have finally accepted that there really was "no there there"

I suppose that is one way to spin it. Collusion implies conspiracy to work together with the Russions to change the election results. To be clear about what has been shown.

1) the Russians did try to influence our elections and their influence was directed for Trump and against Hillary.

2) The Trump campaign was more than willing to accept help from the Russians in the 2016 election.

3) Trump publically asked for such help, though in a way that would not imply collusion

4) trump has continued to attempt to employ the help of foreign actors in the upcoming 2020 election, for which he may well be impeached

5) meullers report showed significant involvement by Russian actors in the campaign, many of which were indicted.

The only thing that hasn't been established here is direct, 1 on 1 planning involving the direct cooperation of both sides in a conscious effort to win.

It is a very, very sad day when people of your caliber rogue can say with a straight face that the above constitutes 'no collusion' and can proclaim the president not guilty and act as if the media had no justification reporting on such matters.

And it is a very sad day when a large part of the country, and such prominent members of this site, can think that such a history by a sitting president is justifiable or acceptable - regardless of the party.

Jim

[MaxVel]

I suppose that is one way to spin it. Collusion implies conspiracy to work together with the Russions to change the election results. To be clear about what has been shown.

1) the Russians did try to influence our elections and their influence was directed for Trump and against Hillary.

2) The Trump campaign was more than willing to accept help from the Russians in the 2016 election.

3) Trump publically asked for such help, though in a way that would not imply collusion

4) trump has continued to attempt to employ the help of foreign actors in the upcoming 2020 election, for which he may well be impeached

5) meullers report showed significant involvement by Russian actors in the campaign, many of which were indicted.

The only thing that hasn't been established here is direct, 1 on 1 planning involving the direct cooperation of both sides in a conscious effort to win.

So, even if we grant your 5 points above, there is no collusion (by your definition). Fair enough.

It is a very, very sad day when people of your caliber rogue can say with a straight face that the above constitutes 'no collusion' and can proclaim the president not guilty and act as if the media had no justification reporting on such matters.

And it is a very sad day when a large part of the country, and such prominent members of this site, can think that such a history by a sitting president is justifiable or acceptable - regardless of the party.

Jim

Uh, what? YOU just established that there was no collusion, as per YOUR definition. How come you're criticising rogue for something YOU agree with him on?

[Mountain Man]

My understanding is that “Russia hoax” is used by Trump to deflect the counter factual suggestion that Trump would not have defeated Clinton in the 2016 election if Russia had not been involved. Trump has no ‘hoax’ theory apart from what he hears from conspiracy theorists. Barr, however, is trying to put some bones on the ‘hoax’. This is not an evidence led investigation.

Talk about a conspiracy theory. There is, to date, zero evidence that alleged Russian attempts to influence the election compelled a single a person to vote differently than they otherwise would have.

[Juvenal]

That was the "big issue" that was going to bring down Trump - it has largely collapsed, and may actually boomerang.

Here's the problem, ff...

Here's the real problem, preacher:

Y'all think there's something called "conservative news."

Conservative is a partisan viewpoint. News is nonpartisan. "Conservative news" is an oxymoron, lipstick for a propaganda pig. "Conservative news" is the "news" that shows up in the FNC logo that shows up on every episode of Hannity.

One of the first goals of any propaganda organ is to discredit the real thing, which is why these "conservative news" outlets spend all their time attacking mainstream journalism, with just the barest pass at providing journalism themselves. The thinking is quite correct, that if they can keep the attention on their own accusations, their readers won't notice every last accusation being hurled, hoping to get in a scratch — and sometimes even succeeding, causing careful re-examination to avoid making the same mistake again — is an open wound on the hurler, but carefully tended to keep it from healing, because without their sickness, they'd have nothing.

How else to explain nonsense like this:

... the NYT is backing down on the Russian Collusion story.

Who told you the Times was pumping up the Russian collusion story? Who's saying it matters, but what really matters is that it's a lie.

I would know, because unlike folks who pretend they can know what the Times says by reading about the Times — in organs whose very existence depends on attacking the Times and its confreres — I get my opinions about the Times from reading the Times ... as a former investigative journalist and editor with the attention to detail that comes from having had your own name in the byline, and the masthead.

There was one source harping on Russian collusion every single day, multiple times a day: President Trump. Every day he'd shout and tweet out, "No collusion, no collusion," which would be duly reported, with the same old, same fill each time explaining how "collusion" wasn't an actual thing being investigated, because it's not a criminal offense.

Unsurprisingly, that's exactly what Mueller said in his report ... before detailing outreach from the Trump campaign which was beyond troubling, "Russia, if you're listening ...," but apparently insufficient to support a prosecution. That was as close to exoneration as you can get for anything that troubling. The obstruction charges, on the other hand, couldn't be exonerated, as also explicitly spelled out in his "I would have if I could have."

And the next day, Trump would tweet out, "No collusion, no collusion," and the cycle repeated, with every "conservative news" outlet expressing their support by accusing someone other than Trump of pushing the collusion story. The gritty truth is the Times always knew they were getting played, too, but were stuck reporting it, every time, because the alternative was to disappear statements by the president in the "paper of record," and that couldn't be done.

As if it needed to be said, once again, the Mueller investigation wasn't about collusion. It was about Russian interference in our elections, and in particular, Russian interference in support of the Trump campaign.

"If it's what you say, I love it."

Because "conservative news" is a thing, you get people parroting propaganda that tells them their fringe, partisan opinions are just as valid as actual, mainstream journalism, and more, that mainstream journalism is just another source of fringe partisan opinions; that the findings of the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and most recently, the Senate Intelligence Committee, every last one of which is a Republican stronghold, are "liberal news" that can be ignored.

And that Schiff is behind a "coup" looking to install a President Pence.

That level of crazy is the real problem, preacher, and your silence on it speaks volumes about your own partisan biases.

... our country is so politically divided, and each "part" seems to have it's own media, so the "left" is obviously going to ignore anything that plays down the Russian thing, and the conservatives are going to play it up.

What happens then, is you'll get sources like Breitbart or ConservativeTreehouse (or whatever it is) providing quotes from people -- and even video -- but the left will always dismiss it as "well, that's BREITBART, so it's obviously conservative tripe" type stuff.

When the "left" includes the FBI, and Comey, and Mueller, there is no "left" left. When you can't see the elephant in the room, you're not in the room.

and even video

You're still smarting from getting busted on that. I don't know what to tell ya. Stop being lazy and sloppy, or just trolling, and you won't get smacked for it again.

Veritas wasn't indicted because it was "conservative tripe," but because a grand jury found their videos provided in support of charges against Planned Parenthood misrepresented the exchanges so badly the grand jury judged them to be likely criminal. Veritas didn't pay damages to Acorn staff because Veritas was partisan, they paid up because their lies amounted to libel in a court of law, or because that's what they figured would happen when they decided to settle.

You were wrong to post a Veritas video without doing any checking on it. Doesn't matter whether it was because you were trolling, or because you were misled by lazy and sloppy habits. So long as you're looking for personal wins rather than wins for truth over lies, you're setting yourself up for the fall. There's no point whining about the jerks in the gallery cheering your charge off the cliff.

That's what you get living on the fringe, baby.

So, for example, when New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet says something like..

It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character. We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well.

...it's an indication that even the NYT is backing down on the Russian Collusion story.

Those who hate Trump (or have already declared him a criminal, or simply want him gone) aren't going to see the same thing in that statement as a conservative who will see that as an admission that the NYT got snookered.

Every serious journalist and even casual observers could see that Trump, and only Trump, was promoting the "collusion" story by using the "no collusion" line to pump it up every time the echoes died down.

What could they do, ignore the president? To get out of the hole, they needed a reason to dismiss the story as a story itself. The obvious escape hatch was an explainer on why Trump was promoting the story, by necessity a story about his character, a story focused not on objective facts, but on inner motivations, something which may be necessary, but which isn't the proper role for journalism. No news organization is set up for that.

This is why we can't have anything nice.

There's nothing that can be built that some idiot can't break.

[Cow Poke]

The fact that the MSM has dropped the collusion angle except for the occasional wild-eyed guest on a panel discussion indicates that they have finally accepted that there really was "no there there"

EGGzackly.

[oxmixmudd]

EGGzackly.

No CP - there are mountains there. As I detailed. As juvenal detailed. Ignoring those mountains as you are in this post is what sometimes causes me to forget your official stance is 'not supporting Trump when he has done wrong'

Jim

[Cow Poke]

No CP - there are mountains there. As I detailed. As juvenal detailed. Ignoring those mountains as you are in this post is what sometimes causes me to forget your official stance is 'not supporting Trump when he has done wrong'

Jim

The rotund lady has not yet vocalized - I'm good with whatever happens when she does.