Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort employee Kilimnik gave Russia election data

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom  •  one month ago  •  111 comments

By:   Dan Mangan (CNBC)

Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort employee Kilimnik gave Russia election data
Konstantin Kilimnik, who has been identified as a Russian intelligence agent, worked closely with Paul Manafort, the 2016 Trump campaign chairman.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Published Thu, Apr 15 202112:40 PM EDTUpdated Thu, Apr 15 20211:14 PM EDT Key Points

  • A longtime associate of former President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign chief Paul Manafort gave Russian intelligence agencies "sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy" during the election that year, the U.S. Treasury Department said.
  • Manafort's associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, "also sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election," the department said Thursday as the Biden administration announced new sanctions on Russia, Kilimnik and others.
  • Those sanctions relate in part to Russia's alleged effort to affect the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Konstantin Kilimnik, as he appears on an FBI poster. Source: FBI

A longtime associate of former President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign chief Paul Manafort gave Russian intelligence agencies "sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy" during the election that year, the U.S. Treasury Department said Thursday.

Manafort's associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, "also sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election," the Treasury Department said as the Biden administration announced new sanctions on Russia, Kilimnik and others.

Those sanctions relate in part to Russia's alleged effort to affect the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort arrives for arraignment on a third superseding indictment against him by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on charges of witness tampering, at U.S. District Court in Washington, June 15, 2018. Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

Kilimnik, a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant who worked for years with the longtime Republican political operative and consultant Manafort, previously has been identified as a known agent for Russian intelligence services.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election, in 2018 accused Manafort of lying about sharing polling data with Kilimnik during the 2016 campaign, according to a prior court filing by Manafort's lawyer.

Trump in 2019 denied knowing anything about Manafort giving Kilimnik polling data.

Trump himself for years disputed the idea, widely accepted by U.S. intelligence agencies, that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election that ended with his victory.

Kilimnik was indicted in 2017 along with Manafort on U.S. federal charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice regarding lobbying work.

That work was related to efforts by Kilimnik and Manafort, 70, to restore former Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych to power.

Kilimnik has never been arrested in the U.S. case. He is believed to be in Russia. The FBI has offered a reward of up to $250,000 for information leading to his arrest.

Manafort, who was convicted at one trial and who pleaded guilty before another trial of crimes related to his work in Ukraine, was pardoned last December by Trump, a month before the ex-president left office.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    one month ago

Manafort, who was convicted at one trial and who pleaded guilty before another trial of crimes related to his work in Ukraine, was pardoned last December by Trump, a month before the ex-president left office.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    one month ago

well, he was obviously guilty of inn know sense, as about all who Trump associated with. And the gOP still claims big nothing burger... 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.1.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    one month ago
And the gOP still claims big nothing burger...

That's their main style of operation.  Manafort?  Manafort who?  Pretty soon it will be Trump?  Trump who?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.1    one month ago

gOP still claims big nothing burger

Your big gotcha is the sharing of polling data. 

Whooo!  

It's not like the GOP took information from a man kicked out of America for being a Russian spy and used it  combined it with lies and misled a Court into allowing the feds to spy on Democrats, did they? 

There's a reason no one was indicted by Mueller for colluding with Russia. Can you guess what it was?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
1.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.2    one month ago
There's a reason no one was indicted by Mueller for colluding with Russia. Can you guess what it was?

yea, cause collusion is a political term, not a law term. [Deleted] Trump and the GOP are GUILTY as SHIT !   Or, do you Sean, believe Trump did everything on the up and up ...?

Especially the Fck the US Constitution finale ! A putin Wet Dresam come true, eh [Deleted !@!!]

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.1.4  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.2    one month ago
There's a reason no one was indicted by Mueller for colluding with Russia. Can you guess what it was?

What igknorantzrulz said.  So nanner boo-boo.

Also, see comment

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.3    one month ago
llusion is a political term, not a law term. Stop being foolish. Trump and the GOP are GUILTY as SHIT !   Or, do you Sean, believe Trump did everything on the up and up ...?

Don't be dishonest. IF he had colluded, he would be guilty of criminal conspiracy. Again, read the damn Mueller report.  Ask questions if you need to. But stop spreading false information. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
1.1.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.5    one month ago

you wish to open season on parsing of words.....i believe something you will regret with me. Mueller's report could not prove collusion, as that was not Mueller's Capacity or objective in his report. H e was employed to investigate if Russia had played a hand in helping Trump get elected, and if so, were they working in concert. Mueller refused to make a determination, but did state his report found No evidence of exoneration, as Trump had claimed. His report wound up inconclusive to some, while many in Trumps' inner circle wound up indicted. So carry on in denial all you wish, but know, i do not believe you are THAT ignorant, but i DO NJOY the PARSING of words ! This shall be FUN Sean, cause i'm about sick up and Fed with all the bullSHIT Spread, and i just may, be able to parse a word or too said, cause on the outside, you can't always tell who's in bred , on a roll, probably dead, or dancing round a pole positioning for the next best thing to hand you the phone till it's the real deal, and may not appeal from the thick skinned alive jive , known as your new spiel, cause i like to break open and seal till it feels unreal and not fresh as a summers eve on the odd day you even should deal me and a Trump card like a joker from the deck, cause my favorite ship to sail, is a shipwreckless and abandonmeant for you, cause it previously, was about all i could due, sea if it can't be set sale 3 yellow sheets to the juantis winds a blowin US closer, cause higher pressure to lower barometrix are four kidds herd of  egging ewe on often....if so, were the intent a two man, cuz don't fly that way but not unhappy about not being gay, just have some pent up cheer to spray everybody's way

 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.6    one month ago
Mueller's report could not prove collusion, as that was not Mueller's Capacity or objective in his report

Yes it was. Read his instructions. He's specifically directed to investigate and prosecute collusion.. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
1.1.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.7    one month ago

tomatoe 

President Donald Trump is right about one thing — he may never be charged with “collusion.” Despite its current use as a sort of catchall term for the Trump administration’s alleged ties to Russian meddling, “collusion” is only a federal crime in the area of antitrust law. In this legal context, collusion occurs when two or more people or entities decide to gain an unfair market advantage and/or secretly limit open competition.

One of the quintessential examples of collusion is an agreement to engage in price-fixing. Or put another way, collusion has nothing to do with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

So if you’ve been talking about whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in the 2016 presidential election, you’ve been saying it wrong. But you’re also in good company. The vast majority of the public and the press routinely, and erroneously, use the word collusion to refer to a host of potential federal crimes. This does not mean the investigation is fake news, but it does mean we have been using the wrong term to describe it. toomottow

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.8    one month ago

I think when the average person discusses collusion in this case they are doing so according to the dictionary definition not the legal one

 collude   :  cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.

(1) collude - Bing

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.9    one month ago

By this definition the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians by Trump Jr and Kushner, the transfer of the polling data to a Russian spy, and Stone's contacts with wikileaks could all be described as collusion

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.1.11  gooseisgone  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.8    one month ago
So if you’ve been talking about whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in the 2016 presidential election

Mueller wasn't tasked with finding only "COLLUSION" he was free to charge any crime he came across, he found no Conspiracy with Russia.  If there were crimes there would have been charges, its that simple. But hey...you can keep telling yourself that.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    one month ago

Nothingberder

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.5    one month ago
But stop spreading false information. 

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1    one month ago

the declassified and unredacted mueller report needs to be released in it's entirety to the media.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.2.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago

It was clear that Mueller knew.  But he was adamant that a sitting president should not be indicted.  For crying out loud, he did everything but supply a verbal blueprint.  I hope someone backs a paddy wagon up to Mar a Lago.  Since Manafort cannot be tried, his ass needs to be sent back home to Russia.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2.1    one month ago

Since Manafort cannot be tried, his ass needs to be sent back home to Russia.

He cannot be tried for the crime he received the pardon for.  They should just get him for something else.  They never charge a person like that with every single crime they are guilty of.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2.1    one month ago
Since Manafort cannot be tried, his ass needs to be sent back home to Russia.

jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.2.4  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2.1    one month ago

he's already being investigated for something else that wasn't covered by his pardon, so is flynn.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.2.5  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.2    one month ago

I hope you are right.  What would be fabulous is if there is some kind of law that says pardons given by a criminally liable president will not be honored.  All of Trump's pals would go back to prison.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Guide
1.2.6  Greg Jones  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago

Why?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.2.7  gooseisgone  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2.1    one month ago
It was clear that Mueller knew. 

You're right "Mueller knew" .........he knew in the first 30 days there was no conspiracy with Russia.  

 
 
 
bugsy
PhD Guide
1.2.8  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago
the declassified and unredacted mueller report needs to be released in it's entirety to the media

Even if it was released, and STILL no wrongdoing was found, you and yours will continue to allege collusion was committed, and probably call Mueller a liar.

THAT is the leftist loon MO.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     one month ago

But Hillary...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
2.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Kavika @2    one month ago

I know, right?  But I'm certain 'they' are not through saying it...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    one month ago

Maybe someone can appoint John Durham or Bill Barr to get to the bottom of all this jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif .

-

Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential election, by promoting and pinpointing fake news state by state on US social media. Trump knew about it and encouraged it. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
3.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago

Haven't heard much from Bill Barr these days.  That's a man who deserves whatever shit storm is headed his way.  His little about face in the last 5 minutes of his public service will not save him.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
4  r.t..b...    one month ago

Manafort, Stone, Cohen, Floyd plus all the un-indicted co-conspirators: Giuliani, Miller, the nepotists, et.al...a rogues gallery that makes nixon’s cabal seem tame by comparison. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  r.t..b... @4    one month ago
a rogues gallery that makes nixon’s cabal seem tame by comparison. 

Nixon is rolling over in his grave saying, "See?  I knew the shit we did wasn't that bad!"

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  r.t..b... @4    one month ago
a rogues gallery that makes nixon’s cabal seem tame by comparison. 

If you know nothing about what happened, sure. 

No one was indicted for colluding with Russia. Say it again with me. No one was indicted for colluding with Russia.  Got it? 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.2.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2    one month ago
No one was indicted for colluding with Russia. Say it again with me. No one was indicted for colluding with Russia.  Got it?  

Dude...

Michael Cohen

Trump's former attorney and fixer Cohen pleaded guilty as part of a plea deal last week to lying to Congress over a planned Trump Organization real estate project in Moscow.

Cohen told a federal judge in Manhattan that he had spoken more extensively with Trump about the project than he had admitted to Congress in testimony last year, with conversations extending to June 2016.

George Papadopoulos

A former foreign policy adviser with the Trump campaign, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in October 2017 about people who he believed were working on behalf of Russians. He was sentenced to 14 days in prison in August.

In April 2016 Papadopoulos met with Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud, who said he could put Papadopoulos in touch with Russians who had dirt of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump's rival during the 2016 presidential election. Papadopoulos went on to have further contact with the professor, who brokered meetings between Papadopoulos and two Russian nationals.

Paul Manafort

Manafort served as chairman of Trump's presidential campaign, and was charged in October 2017 with tax and bank fraud, false statements, being an unregistered agent of a foreign power, and obstruction of justice.

The charges stemmed from Manafort's work as a lobbyist for Ukrainian politicians and the Ukrainian government, and his bid to conceal his role and the money he made.

He initially fought the charges, and in August was convicted in Virginia on eight counts of fraud. The jury though could not reach a consensus verdict on ten of the 18 counts. He will be sentenced in February.

He accepted a plea deal with Mueller in September, pleading guilty to conspiring to defraud the U.S. and conspiring to obstruct justice. But in November the deal fell apart and the FBI said Manafort had breached the plea bargain and lied to them.

Rick Gates

An associate of Manafort and former campaign adviser to Trump, Gates pleaded guilty in February to financial fraud and lying to the FBI as part of a plea deal with Mueller.

Gates in August testified at Manafort's trial, saying that he and Manafort had run an elaborate network of offshore accounts and shell companies where they channeled their lobbying cash, and admitted to stealing from Manafort to fund a lavish lifestyle and extramarital affair.

Bill Flynn

Trump's former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty last December to lying to the FBI about his contact with Russia's ambassador to the United States.

In December 2016, Flynn had spoken with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about new sanctions imposed on Russia by the outgoing Obama administration, and about a planned UN Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements. He admitted lying to the FBI about the content of his discussions with Kislyak.

And then there were all those Russian nationals...living the high life in the US while stealing us blind.

The charges related to the hacking of emails from DNC servers in June 2016, which were then leaked online in a bid to damage Clinton's campaign.

The Russian government has denied the accusations.

A further 13 Russian nationals and three related companies had been indicted in February on charges of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to commit bank fraud, identity theft.

The charges relate to Russia's use of "troll farms" to spread propaganda and disinformation during the 2016 campaign, with the notorious Internet Research Agency and two companies created to finance it singled out in the indictment.

Among those charged was Yevgeny Prigozhin, the alleged financier of the operation and member of Russian President Vladimir Putin's inner circle, who runs a network of catering and restaurant businesses.

Mueller has also charged several individuals not employed by the Trump campaign.

Sam Patten

A lobbyist who has worked with Manafort, Patten in August pleaded guilty as part of a plea deal to failing to register as an agent of a foreign power.

Konstantin Kilimnik

A Russian army-trained linguist and former associate of Manafort, Kliminik was charged in June with obstruction of justice.

Alex van der Zwaan

An attorney who worked with Manafort and Gates, van der Zwaan pleaded guilty in February to lying to investigators about conversations with Gates, and was sentenced to 30 days in prison in April.  He was deported to the Netherlands after serving his sentence.

Richard Pinedo

California resident Pinedo  pleaded guilty to identity fraud  in April 2018, after selling bank accounts opened using fraudulent information online to Russians. He was jailed for six months in October.

You should have known all of this Sean.  Get your shit together.  

Source

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2.2    one month ago

 should have known all of this Sean.  Get your shit together. 

Did you read your link? Not a single indictment for colluding with Russia. Read them again if you didn't understand them the first time. 

It doesn't get more simple then this. From the Mueller report: 

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities." 

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
4.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.3    one month ago
No one was indicted for colluding with Russia. Say it again with me. No one was indicted for colluding with Russia.  Got it? 

800

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.4    one month ago

Try another meme. Obstruction of justice is not colluding with Russia.  Not a good look to confuse the two.  Remember promising Trump would be arrested for obstructing justice as soon as he left office? 

Whoops!

This was all hashed out many, many times over the last few years. That some people still don't understand what Mueller made plain shows just how prevalent belief in fake conspiracies are on the left. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.5    one month ago

Conservatives like to conflate the fact that the FBI was eager to investigate the Trump campaign with the idea that Trump was "framed" for collaboration with Russia. 

1. Trump asked Russia to help him by "finding" Hillary Clinton's missing emails. 

2. Trump's family members met with Russians in pursuit of dirt on Hillary Clinton. 

3. Trump's good buddy Roger Stone was trying to co-ordinate the release of wikileaks material (obtained from Russia) damaging to Clinton with real time events on the campaign trail. 

4. Trump's campaign manager was providing the Russian government , through an intermediary, with private polling information about the US election. 

And you think there was no reason to investigate Trump. Bizarre. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
4.2.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.6    one month ago

As Trump was a co-conspirator as well, he would have been locked up with his 'lawyer', if not for the stupid can't indict sitting bullshit. What a joke these R's R

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.6    one month ago
onservatives like to conflate the fact that the FBI was eager to investigate the Trump campaign with the idea that Trump was "framed" for collaboration with Russia. 

Liberals like to conflate the fact that  of Russia interfering in the election with the false claim that Trump colluded with Russia. 

ign with the idea that Trump was "framed" for collaboration with Russia. 

He was. Emails were altered, affidavits containing false and misleading information were submitted by the DOJ to justify the investigation, Democratic congressmen lied about the basis for the investigation in a reports the media used as propaganda...

All of this is easily accessible  information. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.2.7    one month ago
l, he would have been locked up with his 'lawyer', if not for the stupid can't indict sitting bullshit.

Is Trump a sitting President? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
4.2.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.9    one month ago

so now Trump WASN'T"T PRESIDENT ???

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.2.10    one month ago

You know how this works right? Trump isn't President RIGHT NOW. If what you said was true, he would have been indicted when he left office. Bill Clinton had to negotiate a deal to avoid being arrested when his term expired. Trump didn't. And he's still not been arrested. Have you worked out why, yet? 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.2.12  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.3    one month ago

Collusion comes in many forms, Sean, and therefore I stand by my post.  (The only difference is that I'm doubling down on the fact that you need to get your shit together.)

For your convenience:

Collusion is a deceitful agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal right. Collusion is not always considered illegal. It can be used to attain objectives forbidden by law; for example, by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve "unions, wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.

Got it?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
4.2.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.11    one month ago

Would Trump have been indicted if he were not a sitting potUS when his attorney was indicted and TRUMP WAS NAMED A CO_CONSPIRATOR ? Or do you claim Trump mWAS NOT the said co-conspirator mentioned ?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2.12    one month ago
ollusion comes in many forms, Sean, and therefore I stand by my post

You might as well stand by a claim that George Washington lives on Mars and plays professional golf. That's as accurate as your collusion  claim is.  

Unfortunately for you, the absurdity of your claim is easily verified by reading your link. No one was indicted for colluding with Russia. Read the indictments again and look up any words that confuse you. 

What part of this don't you understand? I made the indisputably correct assertion that no one was indicted for colluding with Russia. 

Your response was to post a list of indictments of people not indicted for colluding with Russia.  Do you now understand that no one was indicted for colluding or conspiring with Russia? Period. End of story

P.S. Simply making unsupported declarations doesn't help you. You have to actually provide evidence, (an indictment), or just admit you were wrong. Since you know by now you are wrong, you should just be honest enough to admit it. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.2.13    one month ago
Would Trump have been indicted if he were not a sitting potUS when his attorney was indicted and TRUMP WAS NAMED A CO_CONSPIRATOR ?

If Trump committed an indictable offense, he would have been indicted when he left office. Again, do you understand how this works? The preference against indicting a SITTING President ends when a President leaves office.  There is nothing (except the lack of evidence of a crime) preventing Trump from being arrested the second his term expired.

PSST... Read the Cohen indictment again, it has nothing to do with Russian collusion. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.8    one month ago

All that information is irrelevant to whether or not Trump approved of Russia's interference in the election. He publicly, and I'm sure privately,  encouraged it for God's sake. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.2.17  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.14    one month ago

Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line

"Collusion" is a meaningless word here anyway. "Collusion" is not a legal term.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.17    one month ago

Let's go over this again. Democrats spent years leading up to the report claiming he "colluded." When Mueller  wrote his report, he used the term conspiracy because it's used to describe the conduct Democrats had been calling collusion.  As Mueller himself wrote," As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute."  The underlying conduct being investigated is the same. It's just a question of semantics if you call it collusion or conspiracy. 

The idea that he "colluded" but didn't "conspire" is silly. Mueller  was charged with looking into collusion,  and then described the behavior using conspiracy to be consistent with the federal criminal code. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.16    one month ago
formation is irrelevant to whether or not Trump approved of Russia's interference in the election.

Considering Hillary used information she paid for  from a Russian spy, do you think she was approved of Russian interference? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.3    one month ago

As I recall the Mueller report stated that any collusion between the trump campaign and russia could not be established in part because of lack of co-operation and possible destruction of evidence by members of the trump campaign. 

One interesting thing that occurred is when Trump attempted to collude with Ukraine to smear the Biden campaign.  This is actually fairly good corroboration of trump's willingness to collude with foreign countries to effect US elections in which he is involved. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.2.21  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.18    one month ago
Democrats spent years leading up to the report claiming he "colluded."

As I recall it was about collusion and obstruction of justice. Collusion is not a chargeable offense, obstruction of justice is.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller pushed back against U.S. President Donald Trump’s characterizations of his 22-month investigation, telling lawmakers on Wednesday that he did not evaluate “collusion” with the Russian government, and confirming that his report did not conclude that there was “no obstruction” of the probe.

Obstruction of justice, not collusion or conspiracy, was the actionable offense. Mueller clearly said he could NOT rule it out.

Anything else you want to "go over" ?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.2.22  pat wilson  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.21    one month ago

Apologies to you John for sounding like I'm repeating your words. I didn't see them before I posted.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.21    one month ago
Collusion is not a chargeable offense, obstruction of justice is.

Conspiracy is a chargeable offense.  As Mueller said, it's synonymous with collusion. If he colluded, he would have conspired. 

Obstruction of justice, not collusion or conspiracy, was the actionable offense. Mueller clearly said he could NOT rule it out

But again, the claim is that he conspired with Russia to interfere with the election. The obstruction issue has nothing to do with Russia and supposedly happened  AFTER the election. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.2.24  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.23    one month ago

Where did I say conspiracy was not a chargeable offense ? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.24    one month ago

Where did I say conspiracy was not a chargeable offense ? 

I have no idea what you were trying to do other than make some sort of garbled argument that acts of collusion aren't chargeable. Collusion is chargeable as a conspiracy. It's not that difficult. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.2.26  pat wilson  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.24    one month ago

I guess it looked like I did. But the Mueller report made it clear obstruction of justice could not be ruled out but would not be used against a sitting president.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.27  JohnRussell  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.22    one month ago

no problem. People often say the same thing here. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.2.28  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.25    one month ago

What's garbled about collusion not being chargeable ? I think I was pretty clear.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.2.29  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.23    one month ago
"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @4.2.29    one month ago

We are discussing collusion/conspiracy.  You are referring to obstruction. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.28    one month ago
Because Collusive acts are chargeable as a conspiracy. Again, as Mueller wrote, the terms are synonymous.  

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.2.32  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.30    one month ago

The point still stands. Mueller was not nor was he ever going to determine guilt or innocence.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.2.33  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.31    one month ago

"Lets go over this again".

Black's Law Dictionary defines collusion as "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party..." A conspiracy, on the other hand , is defined as "a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purposes of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators." Got it? You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @4.2.32    one month ago

The point still stands. 

Of course it doesn't. How many times do I have to quote Mueller's findings?  

By all means, read the report and cite where Mueller says he found evidence to sustain a possible indictment for conspiracy or collusion with Russia.  If you actually read the report on conspiracy  instead of bootstrapping arguments about obstruction onto his conclusion on conspiracy, you'd realize how ridiculous your claim is. 

I can't believe I have to write this, but you can't charge someone when the "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."  

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.2.35  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.23    one month ago
The obstruction issue has nothing to do with Russia and supposedly happened  AFTER the election. 

trump tried every which way from Sunday to obstruct Mueller's investigation. Mueller stated that. Should I get that and paste it for you ?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.36  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.33    one month ago

Why don't you just listen to Mueller himself in his report?

He was tasked with investigating collusion. He would charge anyone who colluded under the conspiracy statutes simply because that how the statues defines criminal collusion.  The idea that Mueller couldn't charge someone for colluding with Russia is incredibly dishonest. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.37  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.35    one month ago
rump tried every which way from Sunday to obstruct Mueller's investigation

Wow. Sounds like he committed tons of crimes. Since he's no longer  President and not protected by any DOJ policies, why hasn't he been arrested for all those supposed acts of obstruction? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
4.2.38  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.11    one month ago
You know how this works right? Trump isn't President RIGHT NOW.

Oh, this argument? 

800

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
4.2.39  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.5    one month ago
Obstruction of justice is not colluding with Russia.

Um, it is if the obstruction was to hide the collusion...

OOPS!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.2.40  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.37    one month ago

Do you think your love and admiration of the man could be clouding your judgment?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
4.2.41  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.6    one month ago
Trump asked Russia to help him by "finding" Hillary Clinton's missing emails. 

Yeah right.........and CornPop was a bad dude.

Trump's family members met with Russians in pursuit of dirt on Hillary Clinton

So they were charged with a crime? Tell me what was the purpose of the Steele Dossier. 

Trump's good buddy Roger Stone was trying to co-ordinate the release of wikileaks material (obtained from Russia) damaging to Clinton with real time events on the campaign trail.

Show me the "PROOF" wikileaks got the emails from Russia. 

Trump's campaign manager was providing the Russian government , through an intermediary, with private polling information about the US election

So your saying someone was charged with giving "POLLING DATA" to Russia, please provide the link for this crime. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
4.2.42  gooseisgone  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.39    one month ago
Um, it is if the obstruction was to hide the collusion...

Well if that's the case, there is no obstruction of justice because there is no collusion, you should know that. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.43  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.2.40    one month ago
o you think your love and admiration of the man could be clouding your judgment?

Since I don't admire him, no.

I didn't even vote for him.

DO you think your hatred of Trump  is clouding your inability to understand the Mueller report?  Because I have  no other explanation for what's been going on in this thread. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.44  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.39    one month ago

, it is if the obstruction was to hide the collusion..

No, it's not.  Its like watching the English language get murdered in real time reading through these assaults on reality. 

Read the report. Look up words you don't  know.  Stop with the nonsense.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.45  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.44    one month ago

The Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Period.  Manafort, while he was Trump's campaign manager gave private polling information to a Russian spy who then reported to his Kremlin bosses with the info which was then used to format the Russian disinformation program against Hillary Clinton. That is collusion. 

Stop fooling yourself. 

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
4.2.46  expatingb  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.42    one month ago
Well if that's the case, there is no obstruction of justice because there is no collusion, you should know that. 

The fact that Manafort was associated with Trump is sufficient for the left to hat e and despise the man.

I DO love the fact that Trump is still living rent free in their heads 24x7 even now, after President Trump is out of office.  Their fear of the man and his followers must be maddening to them.

Personally, I'm hoping the Republicans nominate someone other than Trump, he was an arrogant SOB, but I have to give credit where credit is due, he was effective.

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
4.2.47  expatingb  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.44    one month ago
Its like watching the English language get murdered in real time

Virtually every word in the English language is being butchered by the radical left.   Hell, when they claim day care is infrastructure, they're really desperate.

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
4.2.48  expatingb  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.45    one month ago
The Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Period.

Except for the fact that they didn't. Period.

You know as well as the rest of the world knows that the "collusion" was with the DNC and Clinton campaign and a KNOWN Russian spy in collusion with a British spy named Steele.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
4.2.49  r.t..b...  replied to  expatingb @4.2.47    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
4.2.50  r.t..b...  replied to  expatingb @4.2.46    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.51  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.45    one month ago
he Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Why was no one charged with that John?  Conspiring to interfere in an election would be a crime.  Yet no charges were brought....

 Manafort, while he was Trump's campaign manager gave private polling information to a Russian spy who then reported to his Kremlin bosses with the info which was then used to format the Russian disinformation program against Hillary Clinton.

Really? Where was that documented?  I'd love to see the evidence getting you from point a to point c on that.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.52  Sean Treacy  replied to  expatingb @4.2.48    one month ago
was with the DNC and Clinton campaign and a KNOWN Russian spy in collusion with a British spy named Steele.

funny how getting lies from a Russian spy to use against Trump doesn't really bother them.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
4.2.53  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.51    one month ago
Why was no one charged with that John?  Conspiring to interfere in an election would be a crime.  Yet no charges were brought....

This has been explained over and over again up and down the thread. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.54  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.53    one month ago

LOL.  No one has even tried to explain why Paul Manafort is immune to conspiracy charges.  Have you been paying attention? But by all means, find an off topic meme that you think explains why Paul Manafort and every other member of the Trump campaign couldn't be charged with conspiring with Russia. That would be fun. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.2.55  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.38    one month ago

If you are going to rely on memes, at least make sure they are on point. 

If you understood what was being discussed, you'd understand it's exact opposite situation. Trump CAN be charged with any crime he committed now while in office. Funny he hasn't been. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
5  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Before this conspiracy mongering gets out of hand and more insanity gets spread, remember what Bob Mueller declared   in the Mueller report:

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities." 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
5.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one month ago
"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities." 

did not establish, due to Mueller's view of indicting a sitting potUS.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1    one month ago
did not establish, due to Mueller's view of indicting a sitting potUS.

You are speaking gibberish now. That's a very dishonest distortion of what Mueller wrote, because his conclusion was not qualified by Trump being a sitting President. Please stop spreading misinformation. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
5.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    one month ago
Please stop spreading misinformation.

Says a Trump defender/supporter attempting to spread disinformation cause i never actually miss information.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.1.3  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    one month ago

Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia includes a 200-page volume chronicling Trump’s repeated efforts to thwart his investigation. He documented 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, describing in detail the president’s persistent efforts to derail Mueller’s work and constrain the scope of his probe.

But Mueller noted at the outset that he faced significant constraints on his ability to investigate Trump — chief among them a long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits the criminal indictment of a sitting president.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
5.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @5.1.3    one month ago

What point do you think you are making? That the policy exists isn't in question. Mueller's conclusion that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities" was not effected by that policy. Read the report. It's very clear.

It's truly amazing how warped people's perception of the report is.  But instead of cherry picking out of context claims, why don't you simply find where Mueller claimed he would have indicted Trump for conspiring with Russia but for that policy. Should be really easy to find that in the report if it's true that's what stopped him from indicting Trump for conspiracy. 

Good luck with that. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.1.5  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.4    one month ago

I pasted this already but here ya go...

Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia includes a 200-page volume chronicling Trump’s repeated efforts to thwart his investigation. He documented 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, describing in detail the president’s persistent efforts to derail Mueller’s work and constrain the scope of his probe.

But Mueller noted at the outset that he faced significant constraints on his ability to investigate Trump — chief among them a long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits the criminal indictment of a sitting president.

That's about as plain as you can get. If you're blind to that I have nothing else to say.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5.1.6  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.4    one month ago
Should be really easy to find that in the report if it's true that's what stopped him from indicting Trump for conspiracy.

How about straight from Mueller's lips? The following (in bold) is from a televised statement he made upon completion of the investigation.

And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the Volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

Here is his statement in its entirety...and please, do yourself a favor and read it.  All of it.  If you would rather watch his statement, you can find it at the same source linked at the bottom of this page. 

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel's office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Now, I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the special counsel's office and as well, I'm resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life.

I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office's written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber-techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. And at the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election.

These indictments contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The indictments allege and the other activities in our report describe efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work.

And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the Volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

A special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you.

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations. The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general's good faith in that decision.

Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So, beyond what I've said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it's for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.

Now, before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.

These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel's office were of the highest integrity. And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple systemic efforts to interfere in our election.  And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

Source

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.1.7  pat wilson  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1.6    one month ago

A valiant effort Sister but there are none so blind as those who will not read.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5.1.8  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  pat wilson @5.1.7    one month ago
A valiant effort Sister but there are none so blind as those who will not read.

!!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @5.1.5    one month ago

Here's all supporters of the former occupant of the White House regarding the truth

jrSmiley_46_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    one month ago
Please stop spreading misinformation. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
5.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1.6    one month ago

Good lord. Let me make this as simple as I can for you to understand.

There were two reports. One on collusion/conspiracy/coordination between Americans and Russia in the election. One on possible obstruction of the investifation after the election.  with me so far? apparently this is hard for many to grasp. 

The issue we were discussing is the FIRST REPORT.  Quoting conclusions from  the second report should be a rather obvious  hint to you that you are on wrong track.

In the First Report, as I've said time and time and time again,  Mueller  concluded the the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."  I mean, for fucks sake, you just linked to another statement where he explicitly said "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

This is your own link. The language is plain as fucking day. It's directly on point. How can it be any more plain?  He literally uses the word conclusion on the direct point of contention. 

Unfortunately, critical thinking has gone out of the window.  So general quotes from the SECOND report get thrown around  to muddy the water about the issue being discussed. But to an honest person, the specific on point language always triumphs general verbiage. That's how the English language works!

So, if you've read the reports, you'd know that Mueller concluded there was no crime. You literally just linked to that conclusion in your "gotcha" without apparently either reading it or understanding what you linked to. .

In the second report Mueller said there MIGHT be enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction.   S

Report  one "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities"..

 Report two: "These ten actions by Trump (listed in detail) may constitute obstruction pf justice, but we never made a determination because of justice department policy.

ee the difference yet?  It can be more clear.  With regards to collusion conspiracy:  charges against ANYONE for collusion can't supported by the evidence 

With regards to post election obstruction of the Mueller investigation, Mueller said there MIGHT be enough evidence that Trump obstructed the investigation to support criminal charges. 

If you stop conflating Report 1 and Report 2, read what was written and simply use common sense (the bar against PRESIDENTIAL prosecutions would only have applied  to Trump and no longer does, yet no one was prosecuted.  There was no barrier to prosecuting any other American if they colluded with Russia, you'll see how ridiculous your claims are. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5.2  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one month ago
conspiracy mongering

Oy.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Guide
6  Greg Jones    one month ago

More liberal pissing into wind!.

Getting wet yet?

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
6.1  pat wilson  replied to  Greg Jones @6    one month ago

Looks like you are, lol.

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
6.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  pat wilson @6.1    one month ago

A lot of these conservatives are just mad that trump lost. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
6.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.1    one month ago

Yep. I think NT lost a few members over it.

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
6.1.3  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @6.1.2    one month ago

fortunately it's a lot easier for them to flee to south america now...

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
7  MrFrost    one month ago

800

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
7.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MrFrost @7    one month ago

You ought to read the Wiki page on Viktor Yanukovych when you get the time.  It's like he and Trump are brothers from another mother with the whining and bragging and lying and the grift, etc.  Even Paul Manafort's contributions are identical in getting them both elected to an office for which neither of them are even the slightest bit qualified.  

 

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
7.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7.1    one month ago

I put it on my list of things to read. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
8  MrFrost    one month ago

So the former guy was/is a russian asset....something we have known since 2016. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
8.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MrFrost @8    one month ago
So the former guy was/is a russian asset....something we have known since 2016. 

But isn't it lovely for the current administration to confirm what most knew?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
9  Paula Bartholomew    one month ago

The man is a fing traitor and should be prosecuted as such.  Then send him to Gitmo and waterboard his ass daily.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
9.1  seeder  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9    one month ago

He's been sticking it to the US for years and years.  Bill S. said it best:  One may smile and smile and be a villain.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Kavika
cjcold
1stwarrior
shona1


51 visitors