Trump's Russian Collusion

[a fan]

It's not wild accusations. The leaks happened.

Yes. The "wild accusations" isn't that the leaks happened.

The "wild" is using the phrase Deep State....implying a massive conspiracy at all levels of government, when for all you know, it could have been one single person doing that leaking. You don't know. None of us do. So by saying Deep State, you're using a tinfoil hat conspiracy term, when for all you know it could simply some dude in the DoJ named Steve.

My point is, you ripped everyone else for speculating. So stop doing that. Seems fair, no?

Have a great weekend!

[get it to x]

BTW, did she prove the axiom to "Never ask a question like that unless you already know the answer"? She looked completely gobsmacked.

That axiom is advice to a lawyer questioning a witness during a trial -- after discovery is complete and everything the lawyer is asking about is already somewhere in the record, meaning they should know the answer to all the questions; and the point of the questions is to educate the judge and jury, hopefully not the lawyer. During discovery, the whole point is to ask questions you don't know the answer to, because you are going to need them. What Congress does, or is supposed to do, is gather information by asking questions. So, no, she did not prove the axiom, because it does not even apply. I'm sure she was "gobsmacked" by how inappropriate his response was. I was, too.

While I'm at it, you probably also like the phrase "an investigation in search of a crime," made popular by rags like the Hill and morons who read it. This is a nonsensical derivation of the popular & overused political saying that a proposal is a "solution in search of a problem." Investigations are, by definition, a search for a crime. That's the point. The two things don't need to co-exist -- investigations quite routinely determine there was no crime, and it doesn't make the investigation improper or a waste. The only way to know is to investigate. Solutions, on the other hand, require a problem. Of course, the people using this phrase actually mean it in the sense that an investigation ultimately will find a crime of sort, because apparently all of us are just unwittingly committing crimes at every moment. The phrase they are probably looking for, but not finding, is "show me the man and I'll show you the crime", a phrase attributed to Stalin's secret police chief, who would fabricate crimes to indict political enemies. So again, a slight misuse of the phrase (fabricated crimes vs. "process" crimes) but at least closer.

Actually, as axioms go I prefer "A solution in search of a problem". Sorry you thought his answer was inappropriate. In my opinion he almost said what I was thinking. While he said the activity by the FBI was "directed at the Trump campaign" if you watch the tape he stopped himself in mid-word and was going to say "Directed against the Trump campaign". One infers neutrality, the other hostility. Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral.

[get it to x]

It's not wild accusations. The leaks happened.

Yes. The "wild accusations" isn't that the leaks happened.

The "wild" is using the phrase Deep State....implying a massive conspiracy at all levels of government, when for all you know, it could have been one single person doing that leaking. You don't know. None of us do. So by saying Deep State, you're using a tinfoil hat conspiracy term, when for all you know it could simply some dude in the DoJ named Steve.

My point is, you ripped everyone else for speculating. So stop doing that. Seems fair, no?

Have a great weekend!

You mean like you've been speculating that Trump was a Russian agent? Pot, meet kettle.

[MDlaxfan76]

BTW, did she prove the axiom to "Never ask a question like that unless you already know the answer"? She looked completely gobsmacked.

That axiom is advice to a lawyer questioning a witness during a trial -- after discovery is complete and everything the lawyer is asking about is already somewhere in the record, meaning they should know the answer to all the questions; and the point of the questions is to educate the judge and jury, hopefully not the lawyer. During discovery, the whole point is to ask questions you don't know the answer to, because you are going to need them. What Congress does, or is supposed to do, is gather information by asking questions. So, no, she did not prove the axiom, because it does not even apply. I'm sure she was "gobsmacked" by how inappropriate his response was. I was, too.

While I'm at it, you probably also like the phrase "an investigation in search of a crime," made popular by rags like the Hill and morons who read it. This is a nonsensical derivation of the popular & overused political saying that a proposal is a "solution in search of a problem." Investigations are, by definition, a search for a crime. That's the point. The two things don't need to co-exist -- investigations quite routinely determine there was no crime, and it doesn't make the investigation improper or a waste. The only way to know is to investigate. Solutions, on the other hand, require a problem. Of course, the people using this phrase actually mean it in the sense that an investigation ultimately will find a crime of sort, because apparently all of us are just unwittingly committing crimes at every moment. The phrase they are probably looking for, but not finding, is "show me the man and I'll show you the crime", a phrase attributed to Stalin's secret police chief, who would fabricate crimes to indict political enemies. So again, a slight misuse of the phrase (fabricated crimes vs. "process" crimes) but at least closer.

Actually, as axioms go I prefer "A solution in search of a problem". Sorry you thought his answer was inappropriate. In my opinion he almost said what I was thinking. While he said the activity by the FBI was "directed at the Trump campaign" if you watch the tape he stopped himself in mid-word and was going to say "Directed against the Trump campaign". One infers neutrality, the other hostility. Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral.

good lord, the right wing propaganda really does get repeated again and again and again.

The counterintelligence effort was directed at, against, the Russian effort to influence the election. It was never directed "at" much less "against" the Trump Campaign.

That's where it started. The question they then had was whether anyone on the Trump Campaign, including the candidate himself, was in on it or was otherwise compromised.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's not wild accusations. The leaks happened.

Yes. The "wild accusations" isn't that the leaks happened.

The "wild" is using the phrase Deep State....implying a massive conspiracy at all levels of government, when for all you know, it could have been one single person doing that leaking. You don't know. None of us do. So by saying Deep State, you're using a tinfoil hat conspiracy term, when for all you know it could simply some dude in the DoJ named Steve.

My point is, you ripped everyone else for speculating. So stop doing that. Seems fair, no?

Have a great weekend!

You mean like you've been speculating that Trump was a Russian agent? Pot, meet kettle.

"agent" or just compromised?
He was definitely compromised, he was lying publicly about something that would have been embarrassing, and the Russians knew it. Moscow Tower.

We also know that Don Jr welcomed the possibility of dirt on HRC thinking it was coming from the Russian gov't.

That's not in dispute, right?

Trying to claim some equivalence is just downright stubbornly ignorant. Or just partisan.

[a fan]

You mean like you've been speculating that Trump was a Russian agent? Pot, meet kettle.

Nope. I never said he was, and never thought Mueller would find conspiracy. Ask around. You're talking to the wrong guy.

See, here's how logic works: I bet you dollars to donuts that you were annoyed at the Trump-Russian conspiracy theories, right? All that speculation with no basis in fact. It was stupid, and annoying.

See, what that means, is, you don't get to do the same thing....because that would be hypocritical.

So you can't make wild speculations about some magical "Deep State", when you have absolutely no clue if all the FISA leaks came from just one person.

[a fan]

Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral.

This is your idea of logic?

I'd wager you'd like to see Hillary prosecuted for her email and server stupidity, yes?

Great.

Now what if I found out that, let's say, that thee team of 3 people at the FBI who were investigating Hillary for this offense....voted for Trump?

Now what? What you are saying above is, that investigation and any evidence gained from it is tainted, and now useless.


Do you not see how ridiculous that is? Having strong/weak/no political convictions is 1000% morally, ethically, and legally allowed in America....and that includes all Federal employees.

[old salt]

It's not wild accusations. The leaks happened.

Yes. The "wild accusations" isn't that the leaks happened.

The "wild" is using the phrase Deep State....implying a massive conspiracy at all levels of government, when for all you know, it could have been one single person doing that leaking. You don't know. None of us do. So by saying Deep State, you're using a tinfoil hat conspiracy term, when for all you know it could simply some dude in the DoJ named Steve.

My point is, you ripped everyone else for speculating. So stop doing that. Seems fair, no?

Have a great weekend!

In your usual hyperbolic exaggeration for effect, you choose to define Deep State as a "massive conspiracy at all levels of the govt."
Thay's your hype. I said from the start that it was likely a limited numbers of partisan political appointees & entrenched career bureaucrats, working to thwart or subvert an incoming admin they don't agree with. Who knows how big it is ? How many heeded the Farkas call to arms ?

[cradleandshoot]

BTW, did she prove the axiom to "Never ask a question like that unless you already know the answer"? She looked completely gobsmacked.

That axiom is advice to a lawyer questioning a witness during a trial -- after discovery is complete and everything the lawyer is asking about is already somewhere in the record, meaning they should know the answer to all the questions; and the point of the questions is to educate the judge and jury, hopefully not the lawyer. During discovery, the whole point is to ask questions you don't know the answer to, because you are going to need them. What Congress does, or is supposed to do, is gather information by asking questions. So, no, she did not prove the axiom, because it does not even apply. I'm sure she was "gobsmacked" by how inappropriate his response was. I was, too.

While I'm at it, you probably also like the phrase "an investigation in search of a crime," made popular by rags like the Hill and morons who read it. This is a nonsensical derivation of the popular & overused political saying that a proposal is a "solution in search of a problem." Investigations are, by definition, a search for a crime. That's the point. The two things don't need to co-exist -- investigations quite routinely determine there was no crime, and it doesn't make the investigation improper or a waste. The only way to know is to investigate. Solutions, on the other hand, require a problem. Of course, the people using this phrase actually mean it in the sense that an investigation ultimately will find a crime of sort, because apparently all of us are just unwittingly committing crimes at every moment. The phrase they are probably looking for, but not finding, is "show me the man and I'll show you the crime", a phrase attributed to Stalin's secret police chief, who would fabricate crimes to indict political enemies. So again, a slight misuse of the phrase (fabricated crimes vs. "process" crimes) but at least closer.

Actually, as axioms go I prefer "A solution in search of a problem". Sorry you thought his answer was inappropriate. In my opinion he almost said what I was thinking. While he said the activity by the FBI was "directed at the Trump campaign" if you watch the tape he stopped himself in mid-word and was going to say "Directed against the Trump campaign". One infers neutrality, the other hostility. Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral.

good lord, the right wing propaganda really does get repeated again and again and again.

The counterintelligence effort was directed at, against, the Russian effort to influence the election. It was never directed "at" much less "against" the Trump Campaign.

That's where it started. The question they then had was whether anyone on the Trump Campaign, including the candidate himself, was in on it or was otherwise compromised.

good lord, the right wing propaganda really does get repeated again and again and again. Wait... as an avowed disgruntled rat baztard Republican are you not a cog in right wing propaganda machine? I forgot, your not that kind of Republican. Just out of curiosity... what the hell kind of Republican are you anyway? You come across as a Republican with more affection and love for the Democrats. My bad... that would make you a typical Republican. Defined by Led Zeppelin as "dazed and confused" If you really are a Republican MD you are clearly one screwed up little puppy. You might as well be one of those folks who can't make up their mind what gender they are. IMO the Republicans deserve you lock, stock and barrel. Sometimes I forget why I can't stand republicans, thank you MD for reminding me what a bunch of screwballs you republicans are. I don't think any of you would know your ass from a hole in the ground. I may have a lot of defects of character but at least being a republican will never be one of them. FYI... I know you are very sensitive MD. I am busting your stones, don't take it personal, like republicans tend to do.

[a fan]

I said from the start that it was likely a limited numbers of partisan political appointees & entrenched career bureaucrats, working to thwart or subvert an incoming admin they don't agree with.

You're doing it again. This is wild speculation. Both who is leaking, and why they were leaking.

Stop doing this. You don't know who did it. And you most certainly don't know why they did it.


How many times did you hammer Disslaxxic and other posters for speculating like this about Trump and Russia? 100 times? 200 times?

[cradleandshoot]

I said from the start that it was likely a limited numbers of partisan political appointees & entrenched career bureaucrats, working to thwart or subvert an incoming admin they don't agree with.

You're doing it again. This is wild speculation. Both who is leaking, and why they were leaking.

Stop doing this. You don't know who did it. And you most certainly don't know why they did it.


How many times did you hammer Disslaxxic and other posters for speculating like this about Trump and Russia? 100 times? 200 times?

Then let the investigators find out the TRUTH. What the hell are you so steamed about a Fan. Nobody on this forum knows what the hell happened in 2016. IF there were people in the FBI that hated Trump so much that they MAY have abused their authority to bring him down that is equally as disconcerting as allegations that Trump colluded. A lot of dirty stuff happened here but it was not all one sided. IF some of these FBI folks abused their authority to try and influence the downfall of an American POTUS... then the American people need to know. It is very difficult to differentiate the bad guys from the good guys anymore. IMO lines were crossed on both sides and trying to get at the truth may be impossible given the confusing information coming forth from both sides.

[a fan]

Then let the investigators find out the TRUTH. What the hell are you so steamed about a Fan. Nobody on this forum knows what the hell happened in 2016.

You don't know?

Because the Forum's right wingers HAMMERED other posters for wanting the Mueller investigation to occur, and for him to present his findings. Non stop gripes, complaints, and generally making fun of any thought that Trump and his band did immoral and illegal things.

Pick a lane! Either you're cool with both investigations, or with neither. Pick one.

I picked "i'm cool with both investigations".

What the right wing at the Forum chose was "complain non-stop about the Mueller investigation, because it's not cool to be mean to Trump.....but hey, if you want to investigate the Deep State that I made up? Hooray! That's fantastic!".

Hypocrisy. Partisan hypocrisy. That's what has me annoyed.

[old salt]

I said from the start that it was likely a limited numbers of partisan political appointees & entrenched career bureaucrats, working to thwart or subvert an incoming admin they don't agree with.

You're doing it again. This is wild speculation. Both who is leaking, and why they were leaking.

Stop doing this. You don't know who did it. And you most certainly don't know why they did it.


How many times did you hammer Disslaxxic and other posters for speculating like this about Trump and Russia? 100 times? 200 times?

.. ...the content of the leak, the reporter & context in which it is reported, & the result, make the objective obvious.

[a fan]

Right. Because it's totally impossible that an agent could agree with Trump administration policies, and yet not like all the lying they were doing surrounding Russia, and leak Flynn's lying to the nation, fearing the info. would get buried by the Trump Administration. Because that's un-possible.

You are speculating.

[cradleandshoot]

Then let the investigators find out the TRUTH. What the hell are you so steamed about a Fan. Nobody on this forum knows what the hell happened in 2016.

You don't know?

Because the Forum's right wingers HAMMERED other posters for wanting the Mueller investigation to occur, and for him to present his findings. Non stop gripes, complaints, and generally making fun of any thought that Trump and his band did immoral and illegal things.

Pick a lane! Either you're cool with both investigations, or with neither. Pick one.

I picked "i'm cool with both investigations".

What the right wing at the Forum chose was "complain non-stop about the Mueller investigation, because it's not cool to be mean to Trump.....but hey, if you want to investigate the Deep State that I made up? Hooray! That's fantastic!".

Hypocrisy. Partisan hypocrisy. That's what has me annoyed.

I picked "i'm cool with both investigations". You and me are on the same page. I don't care what party comes out on the short end. If there is truth out there to be found or lies yet to be discovered let the chips fall where they may. You already know where I stand... I don't trust either party.

[get it to x]

Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral.

This is your idea of logic?

I'd wager you'd like to see Hillary prosecuted for her email and server stupidity, yes?

Great.

Now what if I found out that, let's say, that thee team of 3 people at the FBI who were investigating Hillary for this offense....voted for Trump?

Now what? What you are saying above is, that investigation and any evidence gained from it is tainted, and now useless.


Do you not see how ridiculous that is? Having strong/weak/no political convictions is 1000% morally, ethically, and legally allowed in America....and that includes all Federal employees.

As to HRC, I am only interested in the truth. As for retribution, I would prefer reconciliation. I think Comey largely told it and she paid a consequence, so what does flailing at a beaten woman accomplish? I hate to scapegoat, but I blame the legacy media for much of our discord. By only criticizing one party they have kept us from having to engage. I appreciate Trump probably most for the fact that he doesn't let people hide from problems. I am fairly confident he is going to eventually forge a solution on immigration where everybody gets something and gives something mainly because he hates to lose.

[a fan]

Me neither, cradle. I don't doubt that a reexamination of Hill would put her in Court now that she's not running for POTUS. Obstruction for sure. Is "reckless stupidity" a felony with her private server?

I had no problem with the Mueller investigation. No problem looking at those leaks. No problem looking at our investigators....but there are serious flaws in having the executive branch investigating the executive branch. Case in point: the AG is holding a report concerning the behavior of his boss.

Sadly, because of the stupid D's and R's, American Republicans are too far gone to see that obvious ridiculousness as a problem.

What also p*sses me off is that after the FISA leaks, no one in Congress is working to improve what is obvious not the best system, particularly when looking at Russians working to undermine elections. FISA is not working correctly, if you believe all the FoxNation complaints.

And essentially, we have learned that if a Russian comes in contact with someone campaigning for President.....all of our intel services must stand down, because if they don't, they might wind up fired, or worse.

Anyone sensing a future problem with that?

[cradleandshoot]

Me neither, cradle. I don't doubt that a reexamination of Hill would put her in Court now that she's not running for POTUS. Obstruction for sure. Is "reckless stupidity" a felony with her private server?

I had no problem with the Mueller investigation. No problem looking at those leaks. No problem looking at our investigators....but there are serious flaws in having the executive branch investigating the executive branch. Case in point: the AG is holding a report concerning the behavior of his boss.

Sadly, because of the stupid D's and R's, American Republicans are too far gone to see that obvious ridiculousness as a problem.

What also p*sses me off is that after the FISA leaks, no one in Congress is working to improve what is obvious not the best system, particularly when looking at Russians working to undermine elections. FISA is not working correctly, if you believe all the FoxNation complaints.

And essentially, we have learned that if a Russian comes in contact with someone campaigning for President.....all of our intel services must stand down, because if they don't, they might wind up fired, or worse.

Anyone sensing a future problem with that?

A Fan we have only scratched the surface on this Pandoras Box. The Russians will continue to play this same game because... who is going to stop them? Is it a bigger issue that Trump may have played footsies with the Russians in comparison that some folks in the FBI wanted to take him down because they did not like him? I will tell you in all honesty that I have no idea. I would hope that there are still people with integrity at the FBI trying to sift through this entire mess. Good luck to them as they try to sort it all out.

[old salt]

What also p*sses me off is that after the FISA leaks, no one in Congress is working to improve what is obvious not the best system,
...FISA is not working correctly, if you believe all the FoxNation complaints.

Maybe that's part of what Barr wants to look into.
Perhaps that's part of what prompted him to re-enter the fray.
To clean up what's transpired since he left the DoJ.

[MDlaxfan76]

BTW, did she prove the axiom to "Never ask a question like that unless you already know the answer"? She looked completely gobsmacked.

That axiom is advice to a lawyer questioning a witness during a trial -- after discovery is complete and everything the lawyer is asking about is already somewhere in the record, meaning they should know the answer to all the questions; and the point of the questions is to educate the judge and jury, hopefully not the lawyer. During discovery, the whole point is to ask questions you don't know the answer to, because you are going to need them. What Congress does, or is supposed to do, is gather information by asking questions. So, no, she did not prove the axiom, because it does not even apply. I'm sure she was "gobsmacked" by how inappropriate his response was. I was, too.

While I'm at it, you probably also like the phrase "an investigation in search of a crime," made popular by rags like the Hill and morons who read it. This is a nonsensical derivation of the popular & overused political saying that a proposal is a "solution in search of a problem." Investigations are, by definition, a search for a crime. That's the point. The two things don't need to co-exist -- investigations quite routinely determine there was no crime, and it doesn't make the investigation improper or a waste. The only way to know is to investigate. Solutions, on the other hand, require a problem. Of course, the people using this phrase actually mean it in the sense that an investigation ultimately will find a crime of sort, because apparently all of us are just unwittingly committing crimes at every moment. The phrase they are probably looking for, but not finding, is "show me the man and I'll show you the crime", a phrase attributed to Stalin's secret police chief, who would fabricate crimes to indict political enemies. So again, a slight misuse of the phrase (fabricated crimes vs. "process" crimes) but at least closer.

Actually, as axioms go I prefer "A solution in search of a problem". Sorry you thought his answer was inappropriate. In my opinion he almost said what I was thinking. While he said the activity by the FBI was "directed at the Trump campaign" if you watch the tape he stopped himself in mid-word and was going to say "Directed against the Trump campaign". One infers neutrality, the other hostility. Any thinking person who has read some of the Strzok/Page texts knows the investigation was anything but neutral.

good lord, the right wing propaganda really does get repeated again and again and again.

The counterintelligence effort was directed at, against, the Russian effort to influence the election. It was never directed "at" much less "against" the Trump Campaign.

That's where it started. The question they then had was whether anyone on the Trump Campaign, including the candidate himself, was in on it or was otherwise compromised.

good lord, the right wing propaganda really does get repeated again and again and again. Wait... as an avowed disgruntled rat baztard Republican are you not a cog in right wing propaganda machine? I forgot, your not that kind of Republican. Just out of curiosity... what the hell kind of Republican are you anyway? You come across as a Republican with more affection and love for the Democrats. My bad... that would make you a typical Republican. Defined by Led Zeppelin as "dazed and confused" If you really are a Republican MD you are clearly one screwed up little puppy. You might as well be one of those folks who can't make up their mind what gender they are. IMO the Republicans deserve you lock, stock and barrel. Sometimes I forget why I can't stand republicans, thank you MD for reminding me what a bunch of screwballs you republicans are. I don't think any of you would know your ass from a hole in the ground. I may have a lot of defects of character but at least being a republican will never be one of them. FYI... I know you are very sensitive MD. I am busting your stones, don't take it personal, like republicans tend to do.

Quite the rant, cradle.
Ok, I won't take it 'personal'. Or personally.

To answer your actual question, I'm a traditional conservative, a life long Republican.

I'm not a right wing anything and I'm certainly not a Trumpist, which is far right, authoritarian populism.

Not confused in the slightest.
Horrified by Trumpism, yes.