Report: More Attempted Collusion

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_Hawkeye
_Emeritus
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:45 pm

Report: More Attempted Collusion

Post by _Hawkeye »

No wonder Trump is going berserk trying to investigate the investigation. The walls are closing in.

Looks like Don Jr. is guilty of at least attempting to collude with not only Russia, but also Israel/Saudi Arabia.

Trump Jr. and Other Aides Met With Gulf Emissary Offering Help to Win Election

The morons on this forum will likely scoff at the fact that this is actually illegal, and they'll probably wail and moan about how there is no definitive proof of collusion. But what we do know beyond a doubt now is that Trump Jr. at least attempted to collude with Russia and now two other countries.

I guess it really did take the whole world to bring Hillary down. :lol:

I just can't get over the fact that the amount of evidence for illegal activity on the Trump side doesn't even faze the same people who see conspiracy and illegality in virtually every little thing Hillary supposedly did.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Report: More Attempted Collusion

Post by _Dr. Shades »

This reminds me of the accusation that George Bush, Sr. met with Iranian officials in 1980 and struck a deal to keep the hostages on ice past the election so that Carter wouldn't be re-elected.

If one believes in the Trump/Russia collusion, is it reasonable to also believe in the Reagan/Iran collusion?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Report: More Attempted Collusion

Post by _subgenius »

Hawkeye wrote:I just can't get over the fact that the amount of evidence for illegal activity on the Trump side doesn't even faze the same people who see conspiracy and illegality in virtually every little thing Hillary supposedly did.

Funny how you claim there is evidence when there is none and when there is evidence you claim "supposedly".

Point is, Hillary Clinton list all by herself, it's real dude...she list the election, it wasn't stolen, no fraud, no crime, no "manipulation" just people voting, freely voting.

Dude, you got nothing...nothing but that hair-fire, yo.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Report: More Attempted Collusion

Post by _subgenius »

Dr. Shades wrote:This reminds me of the accusation that George Bush, Sr. met with Iranian officials in 1980 and struck a deal to keep the hostages on ice past the election so that Carter wouldn't be re-elected.

If one believes in the Trump/Russia collusion, is it reasonable to also believe in the Reagan/Iran collusion?

Absolutely reasonable...most sure losers in an election resolve the loss with some sort of tin foil theory....and proven or not that theory has no impact on reality...Reagan served 2 terms.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Hawkeye
_Emeritus
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Report: More Attempted Collusion

Post by _Hawkeye »

subgenius wrote:Funny how you claim there is evidence when there is none and when there is evidence you claim "supposedly".

The evidence is everywhere, beginning with the fact that virtually everyone in the administration has been caught lying about their ties to Russia, and Donald Jr got busted in an email saying he was willing to collude with Russia when he met with them thinking he was going to get some dirt on Hillary. This is indisputable and you just spin, bob and weave like the typical moron.
_Hawkeye
_Emeritus
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Report: More Attempted Collusion

Post by _Hawkeye »

Dr. Shades wrote:This reminds me of the accusation that George Bush, Sr. met with Iranian officials in 1980 and struck a deal to keep the hostages on ice past the election so that Carter wouldn't be re-elected.

If one believes in the Trump/Russia collusion, is it reasonable to also believe in the Reagan/Iran collusion?


No, because there is evidence to support the Trump collusion. And now we find out Don Jr. met with Israeli and Saudia Arabians to seek help with the campaign. Something that is absolutely illegal.
_Hawkeye
_Emeritus
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Report: More Attempted Collusion

Post by _Hawkeye »

Trump Says There’s No Evidence of Collusion. There Is So Much Evidence Already.

You might know that a man ran into a building with a gun, then a person was shot in the building, and then the man ran out. All this would be evidence he committed the murder, while perhaps falling short of proof. Proof is a very high standard to meet. But evidence of collusion? There’s simply no question that there is evidence. Lots and lots of it.

Paul Manafort’s lawyers adopted a version of the Trumpian defense, that the Mueller probe is a fishing expedition for unrelated crimes. The Department of Justice answered this with a legal filing specifically affirming that he is investigating whether Manafort “committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.”

What do we know about Manafort? We know he ran the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate on behalf of Russia previously; that he had taken on massive debt to a foreign patron, Oleg Deripaska; that Deripaska was working on behalf of the Russian government’s foreign policy; that Manafort accepted his position as Trump’s campaign manager for free; and that he hoped his work for Trump would help him “get whole” with Deripaska.

Does that prove Trump’s campaign manager was working with Russia? No, but it certainly counts as evidence.

Want more evidence? Okay. Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos met with a Russian agent who told him he had dirt on Hillary Clinton, later boasted that Russia had obtained damaging Clinton emails, and lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russia. That would also qualify as evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Peter W. Smith, a veteran Republican political operative, attempted to obtain stolen Clinton emails and told the people he contacted in pursuit of these emails he was working on behalf of the Trump campaign. When one of the cybersecurity experts he contacted warned Smith that his work might involve collusion with Russia, it did not dissuade him at all. That also seems like evidence.

Trump confidant Roger Stone reportedly knew about stolen Clinton emails, emailed with the person who had the stolen material, publicly flaunted his advance knowledge of these emails, and also spoke regularly with Donald Trump during the period when he had this knowledge. It is a virtual certainty Stone colluded with Russia on the email hack, and highly probable he made Trump an accessory after the fact.

Then of course there is the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. I would argue that the publicly available information pertaining to that episode amounts to proof of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. You have a Russian agent dangling Russian assistance in the election (“part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”), and the offer of help being accepted (“if it’s what you say I love it”). It doesn’t even matter to what degree or even whether the offer was actually followed through. If you take a meeting to plan a crime, and the crime later happens and you benefit, you are an accessory to the crime whether or not you participated after the meeting.

But even if you don’t consider the Trump Tower meeting to be absolute proof of collusion, it is certainly evidence of collusion. It was, after all, a meeting held for the express purpose of furthering cooperation — or, as it were, collusion — between the Trump campaign and Russia. And there is no reason to believe that the publicly available evidence of this meeting — which Trump and his family have lied about, repeatedly — contains the entire extent of the information about it.

The report from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee reports that, on June 6, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. made two phone calls with Emin Agalarov. In between those two calls — which, based on emails he exchanged around that time with Rob Goldstone, indicate Trump successfully arranged the meeting during the calls — Donald Jr. made another call. Phone records show the call, at 4:27 p.m., was to a blocked phone number. Corey Lewandowski told the House Intelligence Committee that Donald Trump had a blocked phone number. “Despite the [Democratic] Minority’s repeated efforts to obtain home or cell phone records for then-candidate Trump to determine whether the blocked call was Trump Jr.’s father,” Democrats report, “the Majority was unwilling to pursue the matter.”

This has not attracted nearly enough attention. There is clear forensic evidence to show that Donald Trump, Jr. called somebody, quite likely his father, while he was rushing to set up the Trump Tower meeting. House Republicans blocked an effort to prove that Donald Trump was the person he called.

Trump’s own rhetoric after the meeting provides more evidence he was briefed on the Russian offer to provide dirt on Clinton. Trump promised to deliver a “major speech” within a few days. Trump promised he would be “discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.”

The Republican narrative has embraced the fantastical interpretation first that there is no public evidence of collusion, and the even more delusional offshoot belief that Mueller therefore has no private evidence of collusion. The intent of saying this, of course, is to enable Republican efforts to obstruct or eventually end the probe, which they can justify on the grounds that there was no evidence of collusion anyway. And they are advertising in advance their intent to declare Trump innocent of wrongdoing regardless of how damning the final indictment may be.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Report: More Attempted Collusion

Post by _moksha »

Dr. Shades wrote:If one believes in the Trump/Russia collusion, is it reasonable to also believe in the Reagan/Iran collusion?

Or believing that John Wilkes Booth had anything to do with the Lincoln assassination?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Report: More Attempted Collusion

Post by _subgenius »

Hawkeye wrote:What do we know about Manafort? We know heran the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate on behalf of Russia previously;

you are wholly unqualified to parade yourself as knowledgeable on this topic...at best you are naïve.

Yes, Manafort worked on Russia campaign and you behave as if this is some sort of smoking gun - but wait, the guys that ran Obama's campaign just so happen to run the Russia campaign for another candidate in the same Russia election that Manafort was working...because both gained so much notoriety from the American campaigns...funny how that works is it not?

Just look at all this evidence of collusion....just look at it!

In Kiev and Kharkiv and other cities in Ukraine, American political consultants who worked against one another in Iowa and New Hampshire and then in the general election are facing off again in a somewhat surreal Eastern European replay of the 2008 campaign.

The firm headed by Hillary Clinton’s former chief strategist, Mark Penn, is helping run incumbent President Victor Yushchenko’s campaign. Meanwhile Paul Manafort, whose firm worked on Republican John McCain’s losing effort, and Tad Devine, a top strategist on the Democratic presidential campaigns of Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, are consulting for Victor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian frontrunner in the polls.
...
Chicago-based media consulting firm AKPD, the contract to help guide Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko’s campaign is part of a new, growth area of business that presented itself after the firm helped Barack Obama win the White House last fall.


https://www.politico.com/story/2009/11/ ... oad-029410

seriously, get you that education.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Hawkeye
_Emeritus
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Report: More Attempted Collusion

Post by _Hawkeye »

1. Going for the lowest hanging fruit in a giant tree of evidence you cannot even begin to refute.
2. Pretending the two are equal when they're not. If you had the honesty to quote the entirety of this writer's comments you'd see they're not equivalent.

I'll highlight the part you ignored:

What do we know about Manafort? We know he ran the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate on behalf of Russia previously; that he had taken on massive debt to a foreign patron, Oleg Deripaska; that Deripaska was working on behalf of the Russian government’s foreign policy; that Manafort accepted his position as Trump’s campaign manager for free; and that he hoped his work for Trump would help him “get whole” with Deripaska.

Does that prove Trump’s campaign manager was working with Russia? No, but it certainly counts as evidence.


You said there was no evidence of collusion. You're easily refuted. You just don't understand what constitutes evidence. You're too dumb.
Post Reply