Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Shalcker]

He certainly knew they were hacking the emails, since by the time he asked them, they already had the Trump Tower meeting. He asked them on July 27th in 2016. The Trump Tower meeting happened June 9th I believe.

Trump tower had nothing to do with hacking, and never implied hacking was happening.

[Orbitus]

Well, Clinton said it was a joke, must be a joke.

Same for Trump, right? He isn't great comedian but he definitely jokes now and then.

There is no proof she said it at all. But thanks for equating it to her. You would know this if you read the fucking link provided.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump tower had nothing to do with hacking, and never implied hacking was happening.

Considering the Trump Tower meeting happened in June, on the premise that they had information on Hillary Clinton, and the DNC emails were already hacked by then, yes, it was based on hacking. Fucking ignorance is bliss isn't it?

[Shadowferal]

Kamala Harris leaping on the impeachment, as well as Kirsten Gillibrand

Meanwhile, Trump rage tweets about the fallout after claiming that he's not worried.

[Shalcker]

Considering the Trump Tower meeting happened in June, on the premise that they had information on Hillary Clinton, and the DNC emails were already hacked by then, yes, it was based on hacking. Fucking ignorance is bliss isn't it?

Noone knew about DNC emails hack at that point though, so, nope.

[Breccia]

Meanwhile, Trump rage tweets about the fallout after claiming that he's not worried.

It's like he has something to hide.

Oh, sorry, I'm quoting his longtime lawyer Cohen.

In an official statement issued through his attorney, Lanny Davis, Cohen asserted, “We trust that the courts will deal with all issues fairly on the merits. We won’t dignify the personal accusations in the filings except to say that frivolous things said by frivolous people don’t deserve a serious response. The reasons for Mr. Trump’s desperate attempt to prevent his tax returns from being made public, like all prior presidents, is no mystery. Does anyone doubt he has something to hide?”

- - - Updated - - -

Noone knew about DNC emails hack at that point though

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

Oh, sorry, Roger Stone did. Hey, isn't he going to trial for exactly this? Oh, right, it's all over the news. Funny how you missed it Since you get different news in Russia, I've linked a summary article that should catch you back up, so you can catch up with the full and correct information before posting again.

[zenkai]

No, let me explain this very clearly -

Trump made the "joke" in public, in front of cameras, at an official rally.

Clinton is alleged to have made the "joke" in private, and there is no conclusive proof she ever did.

Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to explain it using more words?

Yes, Trump colluded with Russia, even though 2 years of heavy investigation can't prove it, he even flaunted it by not making a joke, he asked in public because he is a Russian spy all along!

You know conspiracy theories are against the forum rules, right?

Hey, who funded the Russian Spy report that was targeted Trump, was that Trump too?

[Edge-]

Yes, Trump colluded with Russia, even though 2 years of heavy investigation can't prove it, he even flaunted it by not making a joke, he asked in public because he is a Russian spy all along!

You know conspiracy theories are against the forum rules, right?

Good thing that wasn't what I said. Let me know where you found my post that says this.

Hey, who funded the Russian Spy report that was targeted Trump, was that Trump too?

Initially, the conservative Washington Free Beacon. Also, that report was entirely legal opposition research.

[Grapemask]

Bro...I click on the link and two seconds later...

"I should emphasize that the below is my interpretation of the evidence as Mueller seems to provide it—others may have different readings. "

Even offers another take. Doesn't work. You're reading opinions that confirm your bias.

There is no legal view on this planet that isn't technically an opinion. This is evidenced by the very existence of federal courts, which interpret law. What you are arguing now is purely fallacy, because you're stating that a topic which is comprised solely of what could be classified as opinions is faulty because you have been provided an "opinion." It's like saying the hershey bar you gave me is bad because it's made of chocolate.

However, as this guy - and others, who he has linked - have shown, it's hard to come to any other conclusion from Mueller's report. I've yet to find a rightwing legal mind that has come to an opposite conclusion and bothered to post similar breakdowns. Probably because it can't be backed up without deliberately butchering Mueller's words.

The guy linked provides his reasoning for his conclusions. He's pretty strict in that he doesn't use his own interpretation of the evidence for these conclusions - he ranks the words Mueller used to describe it, and how these statements correspond to statements of evidence in the real legal world. Mueller said X "strongly supports" Y, and that's meaningful in the legal world where they don't throw words around like our president does.

[Breccia]

Initially, the conservative Washington Free Beacon. Also, that report was entirely legal opposition research.

Hey Edge- wasn't lifelong Republican and bone-spurs-free war hero John McCain also involved? And also, how do you feel about leading questions?

[zenkai]

Good thing that wasn't what I said. Let me know where you found my post that says this.



Initially, the conservative Washington Free Beacon. Also, that report was entirely legal opposition research.

Yes, because Republican top dogs (not the voters) hated Trump

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...steele-n897506

Steele, a former MI6 operative who opened a private firm, compiled the Trump dossier during the 2016 presidential campaign under contract to the U.S. research firm Fusion GPS.

Fusion had been hired to get information on Trump during the primaries by a Republican media firm, Washington Free Beacon. When Trump became the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party began picking up the tab for the Fusion research. Fusion owner Glenn Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, to gather information from his sources in Russia.

Totally unbiased research right there.

[Shalcker]

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

Oh, sorry, Roger Stone did. Hey, isn't he going to trial for exactly this? Oh, right, it's all over the news. Funny how you missed it Since you get different news in Russia, I've linked a summary article that should catch you back up, so you can catch up with the full and correct information before posting again.

Except we know he didn't actually talk to Assange, so that was bald-faced lie.

[Bodakane]

Yes, because Republicans hated Trump

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...steele-n897506

Steele, a former MI6 operative who opened a private firm, compiled the Trump dossier during the 2016 presidential campaign under contract to the U.S. research firm Fusion GPS.

Fusion had been hired to get information on Trump during the primaries by a Republican media firm, Washington Free Beacon. When Trump became the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party began picking up the tab for the Fusion research. Fusion owner Glenn Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, to gather information from his sources in Russia.

Its like you can't read.

[Edge-]

Yes, because Republicans hated Trump

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...steele-n897506

Steele, a former MI6 operative who opened a private firm, compiled the Trump dossier during the 2016 presidential campaign under contract to the U.S. research firm Fusion GPS.

Fusion had been hired to get information on Trump during the primaries by a Republican media firm, Washington Free Beacon. When Trump became the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party began picking up the tab for the Fusion research. Fusion owner Glenn Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, to gather information from his sources in Russia.

Yes, the Clinton campaign took over, and? If they hated Trump so much, why did they drop funding the report after he won the candidacy? Was any of this illegal or improper?

[zenkai]

Yes, the Clinton campaign took over, and? If they hated Trump so much, why did they drop funding the report after he won the candidacy? Was any of this illegal or improper?

That's ok in your eyes but Turmp making a joke = Russia collusion

[Edge-]

That's ok in your eyes but Turmp making a joke = Russia collusion

What's ok, going through normal, legal channels for opposition research? Yes, that's totally fine.

And again, I never said the joke was collusion. You're either intentionally ignoring my posts to push a lie or you're simply not reading anything I write.

[Belize]

Kamala Harris leaping on the impeachment, as well as Kirsten Gillibrand

Meanwhile, Trump rage tweets about the fallout after claiming that he's not worried.

It's incredibly convincing that he's not worried, seeing how he's constantly talking about Mueller and the Report, while furiously trying to make shit up about it to discredit the investigation.

Yup.

[Breccia]

Except we know he

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

What we have is Cohen, testifying under oath, that they did talk. Also Stone told Bannon he had in emails that Mueller now has. We'll see them in trial, and find out if he was "joking".

Stone, by the way, faces charges of lying to Mueller about talking to WikiLeaks. Saying "we know he didn't" before the trial/evidence/arguments sounds awfully presumptuous. Because I don't think he'd be going to trial on such charges, unless there was evidence of such charges.

Basically, I have evidence and you have denial. Did you read that article I linked? Most of this was in there.

[Benggaul]

What's ok, going through normal, legal channels for opposition research? Yes, that's totally fine.

And again, I never said the joke was collusion. You're either intentionally ignoring my posts to push a lie or you're simply not reading anything I write.

Seriously, the sooner you and everyone else with more than two brain cells to rub together puts him on ignore the better. He has never once contributed anything worthwhile to any discussions here and is always just regurgitating the same (false) talking points regardless of the truth. The more you guys respond to him, the more he posts his bullshit and the more ACTUAL discussion gets buried. It's the same tact most Trump supporters use when trying to defend the indefensible: lie, deflect and misdirect.

[Orbitus]

Noone knew about DNC emails hack at that point though, so, nope.

Really? So they weren't reporting the hack happened on June 14th? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/u...dnc-trump.html

That was the first reporting of it.

[Breccia]

Russian bots push 'Russiagate Hoax' on Twitter right about the same time Trump declines cybersecurity again.

Hold on, I could have sworn I saw something about this...

he actually said Congress should get involved in Twitter because he doesn't have enough followers

THERE it was. Yes, Trump is complaining about having few followers, and apparently, thousands of them are Russian bots. I don't think having Congress involved will replace those thousands of Russian bots.