Mueller Investigation pt 7

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I can't imagine it either.

The interesting question though is who would President Pence want as his VP and who would want the job? I would imagine if Trump was impeached and removed that there might be a free for all for the GOP nomination.

It would be very hard to get a consensus on a replacement Veep. The Senate would want Cruz, while the House would insist on being rid of Nunez.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It would be very hard to get a consensus on a replacement Veep. The Senate would want Cruz, while the House would insist on being rid of Nunez.

They could compromise and give it to Moscow Mitch...

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You and all the rest of the gullible GOP base...

Just happening to 'believe' a conspiracy theory because the subject is a Democrat? That's not gullibility.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Just happening to 'believe' a conspiracy theory because the subject is a Democrat? That's not gullibility.

Yeah, it is.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

They could compromise and give it to Moscow Mitch...

Ah, but the Senate is run by Republicans and they like Mitch. He's quite effective for his party.

Everyone, regardless of party, hates Cruz, so he's the natural choice for the Senate.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by CORed

A minor detail: A new VP has to be confirmed by both House and Senate (unlike executive appointments and judges, which are confirmed by Senate only). Getting the appointment through both Democratic controlled house and Republican controlled Senate might be difficult, which would leave Pelosi as Speaker of the House as next in line. However, you are correct that, with impeachment and removal, Pence would be President, and very likely Republican nominee for 2020, in the unlikely event that the impeachment inquiry reveals that Trump is drinking the blood of babies, or whatever it is that would convince Republican senators to vote for his removal.

If it was brown babies our GOP Senators wouldn't blink a single eyelash.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Originally Posted by CORed

Getting the appointment through both Democratic controlled house and Republican controlled Senate might be difficult, which would leave Pelosi as Speaker of the House as next in line.

I actually disagree here. I don't see the Democrats playing political games if the nominated person is a reasonable choice.

Probably not, but the simple act of acceptance by House Democrats would probably be enough to make whoever it was anathema to the Senate GOP.

And before you say it, yes, even if it was their selection to begin with. Consistency has not been a particularly noteworthy aspect of Republican behavior for the past few decades.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I still don't understand your point. Do you know why they requested a FISA warrant and why the judge granted it? You're desperately trying to construct some nefarious dark world conspiracy despite the absence of any evidence. The hypocrisy of the Republican party has reached massive proportions

They requested the FISA warrant so they could spy on members of the Trump campaign. The FBI signed off on the application affirming that the information in the warrant had been verified. It wasn't. The FISA warrant was based off the allegations from the Steele dossier. The FBI signatory asserted:

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information regarding Carter W. Page is true and correct.”

The FBI committed fraud in obtaining this warrant and should be held accountable. But police-state liberals don't care about any of this.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Have you? Most of the dossier, except for a glaring exception, has been either demonstrated to be true or is now highly probable.
No, that doesn't follow at all.

This statement is completely false. What in the dossier has been demonstrated to be true or is highly probable?

The Hill reports on 07/16/19:

"But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search. In other words, it was mostly useless."

But fill me in on your findings?

Originally Posted by smartcooky

When an asset is "cultivated" and supported, that doesn't necessary mean that the asset is "conspiring". What is being implied in the Steele Dossier is the relationship between a puppet and its puppetmaster. Trump is the puppet, and Putin is the one pulling the strings...Same mistake. You are assuming that because "A" is helping "B", that "B" is therefore conspiring with "A". Your assumptions don't necessarily follow..

You obviously haven't read the dossier. The Steele dossier states specifically that there was a two-way flow of intelligence between Trump and Putin,

"Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries..."

Also the dossier never gives the impression that Trump is Putin's puppet, but that they share mutual interests. "Putin's puppet" is just Leftoid propaganda.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Perhaps you can explain why Trump....

1. Keeps going out of his way to help Russia & Putin.

2. Won't allow any any American government officials to be present (other than a translator) when talking with Putin.

3. Confiscates the translator's notes after talking with Putin.

4. Is so desperate to exonerate Russia for interference in the 2016 election; interference that the REPUBLICAN led Senate Intelligence Committee has 100% confirmed.

5. Blocked efforts of the US Government to condemn Russia for seizing Ukrainian shipping in the Kerch Strait.

6. Undermined US relationships with European allies (to the benefit of Putin).

7. Dismisses the evidence and the findings of his own intelligence officials, preferring to believe the Kremlin instead.

8. Calls the US’s commitment to NATO into question (to the benefit of Putin).

9. Fails to respond to Russian human rights violations thereby creating an easier political environment for Putin to crack down his opponents.

10. Attacks the European Union and publicly supports anti-EU, Kremlin-backed parties.

11. Repeatedly praises and defends Putin, thus affording him the credibility of his standing to the US presidency.

12. repeatedly parrots Putin/Russian/Kremlin talking points across a whole range of international issues.

13, Tries to block, lift, roll back, impede, and lessen the impact of Russia sanctions every chance he gets.

14. Attacks specific NATO members that are particularly vulnerable to Russian aggression.

15. Refused to recommit to NATO’s Article 5 at the opening of their new headquarters. (Article 5 is the bit that states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all).

16. Openly supported the Brexit campaign - something Putin desperately wants as well.

When you've done trying to explain/handwave these away, I've got plenty more examples to post.

Note: The majority of Brits voted for Brexit. The EU is a totalitarian monstrosity. NATO should be abolished as the Cold War has been over for decades.

All of these are policy differences. Ever since Trump began his campaign, the Deep State and the Leftist establishment have attempted to criminalize policy differences. Trump might have a different perspective on world affairs than the CFR and the Atlantic Council. This is good. But the Deep State manufactured a false narrative that Trump was somehow Putin's puppet.

It is interesting to note that Obama's and Hillary Clinton's overtures to Russia were never called into question in the same way. Secretary Clinton wrote a column for the WSJ in 2012 entitled: Trade With Russia Is a Win-Win .

"..Russia will join the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the culmination of a process that began nearly two decades ago. This is good news for American companies and workers...But there is one obstacle standing in the way. American businesses won't be able to take advantage of this new market opening unless Congress terminates the application of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and extends "permanent normal trading relations" (PNTR) to Russia....Now it's time to set it aside...But it is in our long-term strategic interest to collaborate with Russia in areas where our interests overlap..."

Uh oh, collaborate, that almost sounds like collude. It is a good thing Trump didn't write this. It may have been used to impeach him. But there was also Uranium One, and Bill Clinton receiving $500,000 from a Russian bank for giving a "speech". Remember Obama chastising Romney for saying that Russia is a threat in the 2012 debate?

Obama: "Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s."

This is why in Obama's 2nd term the FBI and Justice Department investigated the Obama administration for being under the thumb of Putin and conspiring with a hostile foreign power.

Oh wait, that didn't happen. Hostility to Russia was just manufactured during Trump's 2016 campaign as a pre-text spy on and then launch a coup to overthrow his Presidency under the guise of a "Russian counter-intelligence probe."

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by tanabear

They requested the FISA warrant so they could spy on members of the Trump campaign. The FBI signed off on the application affirming that the information in the warrant had been verified." ...........

****** nonsense.

Yeah sure. Obama was under Putin's thumb? Where is Trump? Up his ass?

There are so many factually wrong things in your post it is absurd.
Mostly it's right wing conspiracy theory crap that has nothing to do with reality.

To start with, we live in the same world with Russia and until there is reason to treat Russia as an adversary, there really is no reason to do it. I supported for a while attempting to work with Russia. That is before they invaded Crimea and Putin jailed his main political opponent and jailing homosexuals. And frankly, there was NOTHING wrong with selling them uranium to be used in a Nuclear reactor.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

And frankly, there was NOTHING wrong with selling them uranium to be used in a Nuclear reactor.

Uranium One didn't even rise to that level. Russian uranium company bought a Canadian uranium company. End of Story. At last check, no "American" uranium was diverted to Russia and the allegations flung about were extremely far-fetched, to be excessively kind. Actual witch hunt territory, one could say.

As for the rest of Tanabear's post, when Tanabear keeps claiming such utterly moronic nonsense wholesale and refuses to change his tune in the face of actual fact, I've lost interest in engaging.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Buzzfeed, through multiple FOIA requests have got hold of a large cache of Mueller's documents

They will be releasing them in instalments once a month for "at least the next eight years".

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Buzzfeed, through multiple FOIA requests have got hold of a large cache of Mueller's documents

They will be releasing them in instalments once a month for "at least the next eight years".

Say all you want about Trump but he is a boon to the struggling "Treason Evidence of the Month Club" industry.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Buzzfeed, through multiple FOIA requests have got hold of a large cache of Mueller's documents

They will be releasing them in instalments once a month for "at least the next eight years".

We've already got that the RNC knew about the Wikileaks release dates in advance and coordinated with them and that Flynn agreed to try to get the emails at Trump's request, for example.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Uranium One didn't even rise to that level. Russian uranium company bought a Canadian uranium company. End of Story. At last check, no "American" uranium was diverted to Russia and the allegations flung about were extremely far-fetched, to be excessively kind. Actual witch hunt territory, one could say.

<snip>

Another salient tidbit, which Trumpista conspiracy advocates find inconvenient and don't go out of their way to mention is that the U.S. is a net importer of Russian uranium. Not the other way around.

We need theirs more than they need ours.

Makes the whole goofy, ginned-up fantasy even goofier, but what can you expect from Trump supporters.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Perhaps you can explain why Trump....

1. Keeps going out of his way to help Russia & Putin.

2. Won't allow any any American government officials to be present (other than a translator) when talking with Putin.

3. Confiscates the translator's notes after talking with Putin.

4. Is so desperate to exonerate Russia for interference in the 2016 election; interference that the REPUBLICAN led Senate Intelligence Committee has 100% confirmed.

5. Blocked efforts of the US Government to condemn Russia for seizing Ukrainian shipping in the Kerch Strait.

6. Undermined US relationships with European allies (to the benefit of Putin).

7. Dismisses the evidence and the findings of his own intelligence officials, preferring to believe the Kremlin instead.

8. Calls the US’s commitment to NATO into question (to the benefit of Putin).

9. Fails to respond to Russian human rights violations thereby creating an easier political environment for Putin to crack down his opponents.

10. Attacks the European Union and publicly supports anti-EU, Kremlin-backed parties.

11. Repeatedly praises and defends Putin, thus affording him the credibility of his standing to the US presidency.

12. repeatedly parrots Putin/Russian/Kremlin talking points across a whole range of international issues.

13, Tries to block, lift, roll back, impede, and lessen the impact of Russia sanctions every chance he gets.

14. Attacks specific NATO members that are particularly vulnerable to Russian aggression.

15. Refused to recommit to NATO’s Article 5 at the opening of their new headquarters. (Article 5 is the bit that states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all).

16. Openly supported the Brexit campaign - something Putin desperately wants as well.

When you've done trying to explain/handwave these away, I've got plenty more examples to post.

17. Disclosed classified information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office.

17a. While simultaneously boasting about just firing FBI Director James Comey: “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

18. Ardently advocated for Russia to be readmitted to the G7.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

17. Disclosed classified information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office.

17a. While simultaneously boasting about just firing FBI Director James Comey: “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

18. Ardently advocated for Russia to be readmitted to the G7.

19. Breaking the Iran deal effectively shoved Iran further into Russia's influence, while simultaneously driving the price of oil up. Oil is one of Russia's main sources of income, so Russia ended up profiting very significantly from that.

20. Trump got involved with North Korea not too long after Putin requested that the exercises with South Korea stop. Trump stopped the exercises with South Korea in return for... nothing.

21. Trump's Trade War with China has ended up with a heck of a lot of Chinese turning to Russian suppliers. That's benefiting Russia at direct cost to the US.

22. Syria. Kurds. Does anything more need said on that?

[varwoche]

The most ludicrous aspect of the conspiracy theory being foisted here is that the Dems and/or Deep State, take your pick, went to truly extraordinary, illegal efforts to damage Trump, yet they didn't bother to release an October surprise. Instead, they held it close to the vest in order to launch a witch hunt against Trump after he became POTUS.

This is a scheme that makes the underpants gnomes look like geniuses.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

This is a scheme that makes the underpants gnomes look like geniuses.

Conspiracy theorists aten't good at making believable narratives.

[JoeMorgue]

So what is Mueller up to these days? Anyone know/think/guess if he's going to wind up back in the "process" in some way as the impeachment rolls on?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So what is Mueller up to these days? Anyone know/think/guess if he's going to wind up back in the "process" in some way as the impeachment rolls on?

He might be one of the few people in Washington DC who leaves to spend more time with his family who is actually spending more time with his family.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by tanabear

They requested the FISA warrant so they could spy on members of the Trump campaign. The FBI signed off on the application affirming that the information in the warrant had been verified. It wasn't. The FISA warrant was based off the allegations from the Steele dossier. The FBI signatory asserted:

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information regarding Carter W. Page is true and correct.”

The FBI committed fraud in obtaining this warrant and should be held accountable. But police-state liberals don't care about any of this.



This statement is completely false. What in the dossier has been demonstrated to be true or is highly probable?

The Hill reports on 07/16/19:

"But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search. In other words, it was mostly useless."

But fill me in on your findings?



You obviously haven't read the dossier. The Steele dossier states specifically that there was a two-way flow of intelligence between Trump and Putin,

"Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries..."

Also the dossier never gives the impression that Trump is Putin's puppet, but that they share mutual interests. "Putin's puppet" is just Leftoid propaganda.



Note: The majority of Brits voted for Brexit. The EU is a totalitarian monstrosity. NATO should be abolished as the Cold War has been over for decades.

All of these are policy differences. Ever since Trump began his campaign, the Deep State and the Leftist establishment have attempted to criminalize policy differences. Trump might have a different perspective on world affairs than the CFR and the Atlantic Council. This is good. But the Deep State manufactured a false narrative that Trump was somehow Putin's puppet.

It is interesting to note that Obama's and Hillary Clinton's overtures to Russia were never called into question in the same way. Secretary Clinton wrote a column for the WSJ in 2012 entitled: Trade With Russia Is a Win-Win .

"..Russia will join the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the culmination of a process that began nearly two decades ago. This is good news for American companies and workers...But there is one obstacle standing in the way. American businesses won't be able to take advantage of this new market opening unless Congress terminates the application of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and extends "permanent normal trading relations" (PNTR) to Russia....Now it's time to set it aside...But it is in our long-term strategic interest to collaborate with Russia in areas where our interests overlap..."

Uh oh, collaborate, that almost sounds like collude. It is a good thing Trump didn't write this. It may have been used to impeach him. But there was also Uranium One, and Bill Clinton receiving $500,000 from a Russian bank for giving a "speech". Remember Obama chastising Romney for saying that Russia is a threat in the 2012 debate?

Obama: "Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s."

This is why in Obama's 2nd term the FBI and Justice Department investigated the Obama administration for being under the thumb of Putin and conspiring with a hostile foreign power.

Oh wait, that didn't happen. Hostility to Russia was just manufactured during Trump's 2016 campaign as a pre-text spy on and then launch a coup to overthrow his Presidency under the guise of a "Russian counter-intelligence probe."

1. Really? You're going with "no puppet, you're the puppet" ?. Why am I not surprised that you would parrot your Dear Leader? Are you capable of any independent thought, or are you just going to parrot the garbage you get bombarded with in that right-wing echo-chamber in which you live?

2. You have not addessesed a single item on my list. Oh, you have come up with a few whataboutsisms, but whataboutery is not a valid response to a question.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by varwoche

The most ludicrous aspect of the conspiracy theory being foisted here is that the Dems and/or Deep State, take your pick, went to truly extraordinary, illegal efforts to damage Trump, yet they didn't bother to release an October surprise. Instead, they held it close to the vest in order to launch a witch hunt against Trump after he became POTUS.

This is a scheme that makes the underpants gnomes look like geniuses.

Seriously?

They didn't bother to release an October surprise because of their confidence Hillary would win.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Seriously?

They didn't bother to release an October surprise because of their confidence Hillary would win.

Seriously?

No matter how confident, one would release an October surprise--if such skullduggery was entertained--in order to pad the odds.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by tanabear

But fill me in on your findings?

At this point if you want to undo the consensus on this, the burden's on you. We don't need to re-prove everything to every new wide-eyed ignorant who comes along.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Seriously?

They didn't bother to release an October surprise because of their confidence Hillary would win.

Confident enough not to publish. Yet not so confident that they still engage in a massive, illegal conspiracy. A conspiracy so well executed that Intel was snookered and/or in on it.

Not credible.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re John Solomon, The Hill's resident right-wing troll. This isn't for you tanabear, it's for everyone else.

Originally Posted by tanabear

The Hill reports on 07/16/19:

"But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search. In other words, it was mostly useless."

But fill me in on your findings?

I used to think The Hill was a reliable source. Now I wonder:
Daily Beast: Leaked Memo: Colleagues Unload on John Solomon, the Journo Who Kicked Off Trump’s Ukraine Conspiracy

Quote:

The Trump-friendly scribe and his Biden-Ukraine conspiracies were cited multiple times in the whistleblower memo. Many of his co-workers are ashamed to be associated with him.

Beltway-centric newspaper The Hill employs a team of dozens of journalists from a variety of backgrounds. But only one has managed to alienate many of his colleagues, fuel the paranoia of Fox News viewers, and inadvertently play a key role in the whistleblower complaint and President Donald Trump’s potential impeachment.

Over the past several years, John Solomon, a long-time journalist with bylines at the Washington Post, the Associated Press, and Newsweek/The Daily Beast, has pivoted to becoming the Trumpian right’s favorite “investigative reporter.”

And now, thanks to several mentions in the whistleblower’s complaint, his work has come under intense scrutiny following the revelation that a series of his stories about Ukraine, along with his Fox News appearances promoting them, may have led to the president asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to team up with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate the Biden family.

Over the past several months, and with the benefit of substantial airtime from Fox News primetime host Sean Hannity, Solomon has peddled a series of Ukraine-based conspiracy theories and allegations that have primarily taken aim at two of Trumpworld’s biggest targets: Biden and Hillary Clinton.

So, Solomon is a CTer. The Hill used to be trustworthy. That means we need a different source to verify the Steele dossier. Fortunately, there are many.

Let's start where we agree. There's no evidence of the pee tape and the evidence is mixed about Cohen being in Prague. His phone pinged from there, his passport doesn't show it.

From The Daily Kos: Just how much is confirmed from the Christopher Steele dossier?

Quote:

After doing well over 100 diaries as part of a Trump Russia Corruption Timeline I have drawn together those resources to analyze and compare Steele’s dossier with Mueller’s report and press reports which indicate that about 73 percent of his allegations have been either fully or partially confirmed — all of which is summarized at the end.

So, my sources which cite the original material, or that CT nut Solomon making assertions out of his ass?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Seriously?

They didn't bother to release an October surprise because of their confidence Hillary would win.

That's what that piece of **** Comey said. He had rationalizations for all his actions no doubt to ease his conscience.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Seriously?

They didn't bother to release an October surprise because of their confidence Hillary would win.

No? They were fairly confident of a win, yes, but the Russian e-mails ploy nonsense was sucking up virtually all the attention of the media, regardless.

Originally Posted by Belz...

At this point if you want to undo the consensus on this, the burden's on you. We don't need to re-prove everything to every new wide-eyed ignorant who comes along.

FTFY. Tanabear's hardly new to this. Given that it doesn't look like he cares about even acknowledging the facts which happen to show that many of his claims are total BS - repeatedly - I would be quite hesitant to call him wide-eyed or ignorant, either.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Confident enough not to publish. Yet not so confident that they still engage in a massive, illegal conspiracy. A conspiracy so well executed that Intel was snookered and/or in on it.

Not credible.

In addition, the aggregate polling data Nov 2015 through Oct 2016 shows that the lines crossed four times. Plenty of motivation to ready/aim/fire. But nope, we're asked to believe the Deep State executed a wide ranging conspiracy, involving the FBI, CIA, State Dept, Judiciary and others -- and sat on the damning information while these lines crossed, opting instead to launch a post election witch hunt.

What a joke.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Aridas

FTFY. Tanabear's hardly new to this. Given that it doesn't look like he cares about even acknowledging the facts which happen to show that many of his claims are total BS - repeatedly - I would be quite hesitant to call him wide-eyed or ignorant, either.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt because I honestly don't know how much of this he's aware of.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt because I honestly don't know how much of this he's aware of.

There's normal "not aware of it" and then there's "maintaining non-awareness in the face of repeatedly being given opportunity to become aware."

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

There's normal "not aware of it" and then there's "maintaining non-awareness in the face of repeatedly being given opportunity to become aware."

That tends to happen when the awareness is painful or inconvenient.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

There's normal "not aware of it" and then there's "maintaining non-awareness in the face of repeatedly being given opportunity to become aware."

Today, Trump accused the whistle-blower of "making up a story". The fact that a dozen or so witnesses, some of whom were "ear" witnesses - fact witnesses on the actual call, 100% corroborates what the whistle-blower said doesn't seem to register with him at all.

The degree to which Trump and Trump's Little Helpers try to pretend that clear, obvious, cold, hard, irrefutable evidence is not evidence at all, is truly astounding.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Today, Trump accused the whistle-blower of "making up a story". The fact that a dozen or so witnesses, some of whom were "ear" witnesses - fact witnesses on the actual call, 100% corroborates what the whistle-blower said doesn't seem to register with him at all.

The degree to which Trump and Trump's Little Helpers try to pretend that clear, obvious, cold, hard, irrefutable evidence is not evidence at all, is truly astounding.

Yeah, I'm debating this one:

Is it Trump's "I'm innocent" fantasy, because that could easily result in complete denial on his part.

Or is it more of a 'tell a lie often enough' planned shiny object?

[JoeMorgue]

Trump has well established the "fact" to his followers that he's the victim of some witchhunt from the Left.

Trump's got "Tell a lie often enough" distilled down to "Tell the life once, that's enough.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Trump has well established the "fact" to his followers that he's the victim of some witchhunt from the Left.

Trump's got "Tell a lie often enough" distilled down to "Tell the life once, that's enough.

That hasn't seemed to stop him from repeating the same lies incessantly, even after they have been proven incontrovertibly false.

I guess he wants to hedge his bets.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The first day of Roger Stone's indicates that Trump may have lied to Mueller

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The first day of Roger Stone's indicates that Trump may have lied to Mueller

It sucks they chose to say 'may have'.

There are alternatives such as, 'if the testimony is true it means Trump lied'.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It sucks they chose to say 'may have'.

There are alternatives such as, 'if the testimony is true it means Trump lied'.

Trump's responses to Mueller were couched in the relatively bulletproof "I don't recall."

If asked to explain his claims of having a great memory he can respond with the same.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The first day of Roger Stone's indicates that Trump may have lied to Mueller

"I don't recall" = "I do recall but I won't say because the truth is damaging to me."

Of course Trump lied to Mueller. Only a fool and a Trump supporter could possibly believe otherwise.