The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Shofercia]

So when you first say that It's probably not a good idea for you to keep insisting Mueller wrote two damning reports, rather than one with two volumes and later state that It really makes no difference to me if you eat it as one big damning report or two damning reports - you are not debating yourself. Gotcha.




So many times that you've yet to point out any of them. Once again, you're projecting.




I can tell you, with certainty, that he won't be impeached.




Not sure why you'd think that an online poster on a forum that might be read by a few thousand people, would try to convince Robert Mueller, but you do you Rogue Hyperpower, you do you. And I'll wait to see all of those indictments about conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, all zero of them. I'm actually hoping that there are some, and that those get taken to a Court of Law - as those trials would be very amusing to watch.

"Counselor, do you have evidence that is not based on a rumor, nor circumstantial?"
"Rumors are evidence your Honor, Orange Man Bad!"

How'd that work out with Justice Kavanaugh?

In your exhaustive efforts to eradicate any possibly unwarranted notions that you may eventually have some intelligible insight into the Mueller Report, you bring up the Kavanaugh hearings. Or Jussie Smollett. Or the Flat Earth Society. All of these off topic references you've made serve as milestones for when your weak argument took a fatal blow.

Sourcing a relevant event is now the equivalent of a fatal blow? I guess that would explain how the Democratic Primary candidates are acting.

It's almost as if you're deriving a sense of pleasure or satisfaction out of failing.

Your failing.

At this point in the thread, I just have to ask who else besides me has faith you have something intelligent to say? We all know an actual analysis of the Mueller Report pretty much stomps your "No CoLlUsIoN tOtAl ExHOnErAtIoN" flag into the dirt, but please stop disappointing us. Give me a post where I don't have to point out that you're making a fool of yourself. Just for kicks. If you can handle the strain. Don't drool yourself into dehydration.

Your entire post is just one giant attack at this point. Also, for those of us with reading comprehension, I never argued that there was total exoneration on the issue of obstruction.

The evidence Mueller has gathered is not "circumstantial" or "rumors." A lot of middlemen between Russia and the Trump campaign have been indicted. Some have been convicted. Those Conspiracy Against The United States charges Manafort and Flynn had to eat are motherfuckers. I'm sure more of the same are coming down the pipeline. The Mueller Report will continue to be explored and expanded.

Flynn had a conspiracy charge? It's so funny, when you attack, you seem so bad-ass in your mind, (and nowhere else,) but when you attempt to provide actual facts, your argument becomes a most glorious laughing stock. Let's take a look at Flynn's charges: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indictm ... d=61147177

The Admitted Offense: In his dramatic and surprise guilty plea in U.S. District Court on Dec. 1, 2017, early in Mueller's investigation, Flynn acknowledged that his false statements and omissions in FBI interviews a few days after Trump was sworn in "impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election," which the statement of offense he agreed to said. He specifically admitted to lying about asking the Russian ambassador to refrain from responding to Obama administration sanctions against Russia for its election interference and further requested Russia help block a United Nations vote on Israeli settlements which the incoming administration didn't agree with. Flynn also agreed that he lied about his lobbying activities in federal filings related to work on behalf of the Republic of Turkey throughout the 2016 campaign.

Flynn lied to the FBI, met with the Russian Ambassador and asked him to not respond to Obama's Sanctions as the latter was leaving office, asked Russia to block Obama's anti-Israeli stance, and lied about the campaign finances as it relates to Turkey. So where's the part about Russian Collusion/Conspiracy? Honestly, his lie to the FBI aside, I'm not seeing the big deal.

The Russians waited until the Ukrainian Elections were completed, before taking an anti-Kiev measure over Poroshenko's little attempt in the Kerch Straits, so there's no reason to think that the Russians would've instantly responded to Obama's actions. As for the Israeli vote, said information should've been either publicly stated, or relayed by Israel. Total damage done by Flynn, as it relates to Russia, (not Turkey,) aside from lying to the FBI? Zilch. That's why Mueller suggested no sentence.

Following Mueller's recommendation that Flynn should serve no time in prison because of his "substantial" assistance in the Russia probe, though federal court guidelines for such offenses carry up to six months' incarceration

Wow. He lied to the FBI, and was forced to set the record straight, like he should've been forced to do. What a "motherfucker" that he had to eat. His entire punishment consisting of righting his wrongs, the biggest of which was lying to the FBI. That was it.

Although, I am amused how you, Rogue Hyperpower, managed to equate the actual charge that Manafort ate, which included actual corruption and money laundering, (on behalf of Ukraine, not Russia,) to Flynn's "motherfucker" which was basically "you lied, you got caught, tell the truth" - such harsh punishment, much wow. Your ability to equate things that are drastically different, is most hilarious. Please continue.

That said, let's take a look at the other case - Manafort: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ ... ent-244307

That looks like Ukraine. And more of Ukraine. And even more of Ukraine. You do realize that Ukraine was not Russia at the time, right? I know that those Eastern European countries can be very confusing to some, but Ukraine wasn't Russia at the time. It just wasn't. And then there was money laundering. Wow. Someone in DC launders money. That is so unexpected by anyone lacking a brain. Bank fraud. You mean more money laundering in DC? Speaking of wasting taxpayer money, can we look at the F-35 contract that took place under Obama? No? Oh well, at least some money laundering was caught. Yay!

Oh yeah, where's all the Russian Conspiracy/Collusion at? Absent. Funny how you keep on whining about someone's intelligence, while failing to grasp the difference between Russia and Ukraine for the umpteenth post.

Perhaps your faith in the outcome of a potential trial of Trump, a guy so innocent that he pays out hush money and settlements every time he's faced a court or the threat of court (as innocent people do, lol) is a bit more clumsy than you'd like it to be.

I was talking about the Russia Conspiracy/Collusion, not the hush money paid out to Stefanie Clifford. Are you excited enough to Google her, Rogue Hyperpower? Don't bother, even you know who that is - you just know her as Stormy Daniels, the only hooker to give the US President, also known as President Trump, a refund. Maybe he earned it, maybe not. You keep on bashing someone else's intelligence, but when asked to provide facts, you fall on your face harder than Michael Avenatti.

[Neutraligon]

So when you first say that It's probably not a good idea for you to keep insisting Mueller wrote two damning reports, rather than one with two volumes and later state that It really makes no difference to me if you eat it as one big damning report or two damning reports - you are not debating yourself. Gotcha.




So many times that you've yet to point out any of them. Once again, you're projecting.




I can tell you, with certainty, that he won't be impeached.




Not sure why you'd think that an online poster on a forum that might be read by a few thousand people, would try to convince Robert Mueller, but you do you Rogue Hyperpower, you do you. And I'll wait to see all of those indictments about conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, all zero of them. I'm actually hoping that there are some, and that those get taken to a Court of Law - as those trials would be very amusing to watch.

"Counselor, do you have evidence that is not based on a rumor, nor circumstantial?"
"Rumors are evidence your Honor, Orange Man Bad!"

How'd that work out with Justice Kavanaugh?

In your exhaustive efforts to eradicate any possibly unwarranted notions that you may eventually have some intelligible insight into the Mueller Report, you bring up the Kavanaugh hearings. Or Jussie Smollett. Or the Flat Earth Society. All of these off topic references you've made serve as milestones for when your weak argument took a fatal blow. It's almost as if you're deriving a sense of pleasure or satisfaction out of failing. At this point in the thread, I just have to ask who else besides me has faith you have something intelligent to say? We all know an actual analysis of the Mueller Report pretty much stomps your "No CoLlUsIoN tOtAl ExHOnErAtIoN" flag into the dirt, but please stop disappointing us. Give me a post where I don't have to point out that you're making a fool of yourself. Just for kicks. If you can handle the strain. Don't drool yourself into dehydration.

The evidence Mueller has gathered is not "circumstantial" or "rumors." A lot of middlemen between Russia and the Trump campaign have been indicted. Some have been convicted. Those Conspiracy Against The United States charges Manafort and Flynn had to eat are motherfuckers. I'm sure more of the same are coming down the pipeline. The Mueller Report will continue to be explored and expanded.

Perhaps your faith in the outcome of a potential trial of Trump, a guy so innocent that he pays out hush money and settlements every time he's faced a court or the threat of court (as innocent people do, lol) is a bit more clumsy than you'd like it to be.

Given your history, *** 1 day ban for flaming ***.

[Alien Space Bats]

Obstruction is one of those "process crimes" that is kind of hard to have without there being an actual crime whose investigation was obstructed.

Actually, that's not true. Obstruction can occur in the absence of criminal action by the person engaged in the obstruction — such as to conceal a politically embarrassing fact. See the Republican accusation that President Clinton obstructed justice in attempting to conceal his romantic fling with Monica Lewinsky for a particularly notorious example.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

In your exhaustive efforts to eradicate any possibly unwarranted notions that you may eventually have some intelligible insight into the Mueller Report, you bring up the Kavanaugh hearings. Or Jussie Smollett. Or the Flat Earth Society. All of these off topic references you've made serve as milestones for when your weak argument took a fatal blow.

Sourcing a relevant event is now the equivalent of a fatal blow? I guess that would explain how the Democratic Primary candidates are acting.

It's almost as if you're deriving a sense of pleasure or satisfaction out of failing.

Your failing.

At this point in the thread, I just have to ask who else besides me has faith you have something intelligent to say? We all know an actual analysis of the Mueller Report pretty much stomps your "No CoLlUsIoN tOtAl ExHOnErAtIoN" flag into the dirt, but please stop disappointing us. Give me a post where I don't have to point out that you're making a fool of yourself. Just for kicks. If you can handle the strain. Don't drool yourself into dehydration.

Your entire post is just one giant attack at this point. Also, for those of us with reading comprehension, I never argued that there was total exoneration on the issue of obstruction.

The evidence Mueller has gathered is not "circumstantial" or "rumors." A lot of middlemen between Russia and the Trump campaign have been indicted. Some have been convicted. Those Conspiracy Against The United States charges Manafort and Flynn had to eat are motherfuckers. I'm sure more of the same are coming down the pipeline. The Mueller Report will continue to be explored and expanded.

Flynn had a conspiracy charge? It's so funny, when you attack, you seem so bad-ass in your mind, (and nowhere else,) but when you attempt to provide actual facts, your argument becomes a most glorious laughing stock. Let's take a look at Flynn's charges: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indictm ... d=61147177

The Admitted Offense: In his dramatic and surprise guilty plea in U.S. District Court on Dec. 1, 2017, early in Mueller's investigation, Flynn acknowledged that his false statements and omissions in FBI interviews a few days after Trump was sworn in "impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election," which the statement of offense he agreed to said. He specifically admitted to lying about asking the Russian ambassador to refrain from responding to Obama administration sanctions against Russia for its election interference and further requested Russia help block a United Nations vote on Israeli settlements which the incoming administration didn't agree with. Flynn also agreed that he lied about his lobbying activities in federal filings related to work on behalf of the Republic of Turkey throughout the 2016 campaign.

Flynn lied to the FBI, met with the Russian Ambassador and asked him to not respond to Obama's Sanctions as the latter was leaving office, asked Russia to block Obama's anti-Israeli stance, and lied about the campaign finances as it relates to Turkey. So where's the part about Russian Collusion/Conspiracy? Honestly, his lie to the FBI aside, I'm not seeing the big deal.

The Russians waited until the Ukrainian Elections were completed, before taking an anti-Kiev measure over Poroshenko's little attempt in the Kerch Straits, so there's no reason to think that the Russians would've instantly responded to Obama's actions. As for the Israeli vote, said information should've been either publicly stated, or relayed by Israel. Total damage done by Flynn, as it relates to Russia, (not Turkey,) aside from lying to the FBI? Zilch. That's why Mueller suggested no sentence.

Following Mueller's recommendation that Flynn should serve no time in prison because of his "substantial" assistance in the Russia probe, though federal court guidelines for such offenses carry up to six months' incarceration

Wow. He lied to the FBI, and was forced to set the record straight, like he should've been forced to do. What a "motherfucker" that he had to eat. His entire punishment consisting of righting his wrongs, the biggest of which was lying to the FBI. That was it.

Although, I am amused how you, Rogue Hyperpower, managed to equate the actual charge that Manafort ate, which included actual corruption and money laundering, (on behalf of Ukraine, not Russia,) to Flynn's "motherfucker" which was basically "you lied, you got caught, tell the truth" - such harsh punishment, much wow. Your ability to equate things that are drastically different, is most hilarious. Please continue.

That said, let's take a look at the other case - Manafort: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ ... ent-244307

That looks like Ukraine. And more of Ukraine. And even more of Ukraine. You do realize that Ukraine was not Russia at the time, right? I know that those Eastern European countries can be very confusing to some, but Ukraine wasn't Russia at the time. It just wasn't. And then there was money laundering. Wow. Someone in DC launders money. That is so unexpected by anyone lacking a brain. Bank fraud. You mean more money laundering in DC? Speaking of wasting taxpayer money, can we look at the F-35 contract that took place under Obama? No? Oh well, at least some money laundering was caught. Yay!

Oh yeah, where's all the Russian Conspiracy/Collusion at? Absent. Funny how you keep on whining about someone's intelligence, while failing to grasp the difference between Russia and Ukraine for the umpteenth post.

Perhaps your faith in the outcome of a potential trial of Trump, a guy so innocent that he pays out hush money and settlements every time he's faced a court or the threat of court (as innocent people do, lol) is a bit more clumsy than you'd like it to be.

I was talking about the Russia Conspiracy/Collusion, not the hush money paid out to Stefanie Clifford. Are you excited enough to Google her, Rogue Hyperpower? Don't bother, even you know who that is - you just know her as Stormy Daniels, the only hooker to give the US President, also known as President Trump, a refund. Maybe he earned it, maybe not. You keep on bashing someone else's intelligence, but when asked to provide facts, you fall on your face harder than Michael Avenatti.

You must be the only person on the internet planet that believes the Ukrainian politician Manafort laundered money for is not a pro-Russian stooge.

Do you have any informed opinions?

[Shofercia]

You must be the only person on the internet planet that believes the Ukrainian politician Manafort laundered money for is not a pro-Russian stooge.

Do you have any informed opinions?

The claim was that President Trump conspired/colluded with the Russians over an American election. That's the one that took place in the US. Not Ukrainian Election. That one took place in Europe. The European Continent is quite different than the North American Continent, and we're talking about an American Election. Manafort allegedly aided Yanukovich in becoming/remaining the President of Ukraine. Not the United States. Those are two different continents Rogue Hyperpower. Pretending that they're the same, because "Russia bad" and "Orange Man Bad" is simply incorrect. And since my opinions tend to rely on facts, they're usually informed.

Anyway, it does not matter whether or not Yanukovich was a pro-Russian stooge. Unless you believe that America has a God-Given Right to elect Presidents of other countries, or that no American must oppose Dear Leader Obama's foreign policy, Manafort aiding the election/retention of Yanukovich, on its own, is not a crime, provided that he properly filled out the paperwork, paid the fees and taxes, and was honest about it with Mueller and the FBI. He didn't, hence the prison term. And it had nothing to do with the US Election.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

You must be the only person on the internet planet that believes the Ukrainian politician Manafort laundered money for is not a pro-Russian stooge.

Do you have any informed opinions?

The claim was that President Trump conspired/colluded with the Russians over an American election. That's the one that took place in the US. Not Ukrainian Election. That one took place in Europe. The European Continent is quite different than the North American Continent, and we're talking about an American Election. Manafort allegedly aided Yanukovich in becoming/remaining the President of Ukraine. Not the United States. Those are two different continents Rogue Hyperpower. Pretending that they're the same, because "Russia bad" and "Orange Man Bad" is simply incorrect. And since my opinions tend to rely on facts, they're usually informed.

Anyway, it does not matter whether or not Yanukovich was a pro-Russian stooge. Unless you believe that America has a God-Given Right to elect Presidents of other countries, or that no American must oppose Dear Leader Obama's foreign policy, Manafort aiding the election/retention of Yanukovich, on its own, is not a crime, provided that he properly filled out the paperwork, paid the fees and taxes, and was honest about it with Mueller and the FBI. He didn't, hence the prison term. And it had nothing to do with the US Election.

You make some very curious assertions that you base your opinions on facts. Maybe you should post those here instead of making a fool of yourself.

You've been trying, hilariously, to deny a Manafort connection to the Russians, despite the very well known fact that his employer Viktor Yanukovych is the puppet of Russian oligarchs.

Mueller looked into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Did you forget Manafort was a part of Trump's campaign? Help me understand why when presented with an opportunity to respond to me, you choose to devastate your argument for me in the most obtuse way possible?

[Shofercia]

The claim was that President Trump conspired/colluded with the Russians over an American election. That's the one that took place in the US. Not Ukrainian Election. That one took place in Europe. The European Continent is quite different than the North American Continent, and we're talking about an American Election. Manafort allegedly aided Yanukovich in becoming/remaining the President of Ukraine. Not the United States. Those are two different continents Rogue Hyperpower. Pretending that they're the same, because "Russia bad" and "Orange Man Bad" is simply incorrect. And since my opinions tend to rely on facts, they're usually informed.

Anyway, it does not matter whether or not Yanukovich was a pro-Russian stooge. Unless you believe that America has a God-Given Right to elect Presidents of other countries, or that no American must oppose Dear Leader Obama's foreign policy, Manafort aiding the election/retention of Yanukovich, on its own, is not a crime, provided that he properly filled out the paperwork, paid the fees and taxes, and was honest about it with Mueller and the FBI. He didn't, hence the prison term. And it had nothing to do with the US Election.

You make some very curious assertions that you base your opinions on facts. Maybe you should post those here instead of making a fool of yourself.

You've been trying, hilariously, to deny a Manafort connection to the Russians, despite the very well known fact that his employer Viktor Yanukovych is the puppet of Russian oligarchs.

Mueller looked into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Did you forget Manafort was a part of Trump's campaign? Help me understand why when presented with an opportunity to respond to me, you choose to devastate your argument for me in the most obtuse way possible?

Wow, that is a giant goalpost shift. That's like the biggest goal post shift that I've ever seen on NSG. My argument was that conspiracy/collusion between President Trump and the Russians did not take place, as it relates to the US election. Your claim was the opposite of that, and the opposite of the actual facts. Now you're claiming that members of the Trump Campaign colluded with Russia on the issue of Ukraine, even though the collusion had nothing to do with the US election.

That's like accusing someone whom you just called a drunk driver of drinking in January and driving in March. I don't even have to answer that. No one does. That kind of desperation deserves all the mockery and derision that it's getting from Fox News, and then some. I was talking about Manafort's connection as it relates to the 2016 American Election. Having lost that argument so profoundly that now anyone can use it as an example of what not to do, you've shifted goal posts to argue that Manafort was connected to Yanukovich who was connected to the Russians, and are accusing me of hiding that. Except I'm not hiding it; I'm stating that it is completely and utterly irrelevant to my argument.

Again, what you've done, is the equivalent of, after throwing the drunk driving accusation around, is to accuse someone of drinking in January and driving in March. That doesn't make anyone a drunk driver. Is it possible that the Russians, Manafort, and Yanukovich, colluded/conspired in Ukraine's Election? As I've told you before, Rogue Hyperpower Ukraine is located in Europe; not in North America. They're like totally different continents, bro.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

You make some very curious assertions that you base your opinions on facts. Maybe you should post those here instead of making a fool of yourself.

You've been trying, hilariously, to deny a Manafort connection to the Russians, despite the very well known fact that his employer Viktor Yanukovych is the puppet of Russian oligarchs.

Mueller looked into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Did you forget Manafort was a part of Trump's campaign? Help me understand why when presented with an opportunity to respond to me, you choose to devastate your argument for me in the most obtuse way possible?

Wow, that is a giant goalpost shift. That's like the biggest goal post shift that I've ever seen on NSG. My argument was that conspiracy/collusion between President Trump and the Russians did not take place, as it relates to the US election. Your claim was the opposite of that, and the opposite of the actual facts. Now you're claiming that members of the Trump Campaign colluded with Russia on the issue of Ukraine, even though the collusion had nothing to do with the US election.

That's like accusing someone whom you just called a drunk driver of drinking in January and driving in March. I don't even have to answer that. No one does. That kind of desperation deserves all the mockery and derision that it's getting from Fox News, and then some. I was talking about Manafort's connection as it relates to the 2016 American Election. Having lost that argument so profoundly that now anyone can use it as an example of what not to do, you've shifted goal posts to argue that Manafort was connected to Yanukovich who was connected to the Russians, and are accusing me of hiding that. Except I'm not hiding it; I'm stating that it is completely and utterly irrelevant to my argument.

Again, what you've done, is the equivalent of, after throwing the drunk driving accusation around, is to accuse someone of drinking in January and driving in March. That doesn't make anyone a drunk driver. Is it possible that the Russians, Manafort, and Yanukovich, colluded/conspired in Ukraine's Election? As I've told you before, Rogue Hyperpower Ukraine is located in Europe; not in North America. They're like totally different continents, bro.

You claimed Manafort had no ties to Russia. Manafort's ties to Russia landed him in prison.

Do you have any informed opinions?

[Shofercia]

Wow, that is a giant goalpost shift. That's like the biggest goal post shift that I've ever seen on NSG. My argument was that conspiracy/collusion between President Trump and the Russians did not take place, as it relates to the US election. Your claim was the opposite of that, and the opposite of the actual facts. Now you're claiming that members of the Trump Campaign colluded with Russia on the issue of Ukraine, even though the collusion had nothing to do with the US election.

That's like accusing someone whom you just called a drunk driver of drinking in January and driving in March. I don't even have to answer that. No one does. That kind of desperation deserves all the mockery and derision that it's getting from Fox News, and then some. I was talking about Manafort's connection as it relates to the 2016 American Election. Having lost that argument so profoundly that now anyone can use it as an example of what not to do, you've shifted goal posts to argue that Manafort was connected to Yanukovich who was connected to the Russians, and are accusing me of hiding that. Except I'm not hiding it; I'm stating that it is completely and utterly irrelevant to my argument.

Again, what you've done, is the equivalent of, after throwing the drunk driving accusation around, is to accuse someone of drinking in January and driving in March. That doesn't make anyone a drunk driver. Is it possible that the Russians, Manafort, and Yanukovich, colluded/conspired in Ukraine's Election? As I've told you before, Rogue Hyperpower Ukraine is located in Europe; not in North America. They're like totally different continents, bro.

You claimed Manafort had no ties to Russia. Manafort's ties to Russia landed him in prison.

Do you have any informed opinions?

Ah, I see the problem, you seem to have failed Reading Comprehension 101. Of course you won't actual find a single post of me claiming that, since you deal in fiction rather than facts, at least according to your posts in this thread, but let's take a look at what I actually said about Manafort, in actual reality, that we live in, not in your mind, Rogue Hyperpower:

No more indictments, no direct links showing collusion, bunch of hearsay, and quite a bit of financial machinations... Financial machinations are great to find! I never said that the report was all negative. However, what's to stop Manafort from exposing Podesta's financial machinations in Civil Court? The US desperately needs campaign finance reform, but we already knew that.

Paul Manafort: tax fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, obstruction...

1. Someone working for the Trump Campaign
2. Related to the Trump Campaign (i.e. does not include Ukrainian financial machinations)
3. Not related to lying, obstruction, or witness tampering, and could've been avoided by Pleading the Fifth
4. Excluding Cohen's breach of Fiduciary Duty

Paul Manafort: Prosecutors accused Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman, of laundering over $30 million in overseas income, using a network of companies to mask millions he earned as a political consultant and lobbyist for Ukrainian politicians. The charges were not connected to Manafort’s work for Trump. Manafort pleaded guilty and a jury convicted him on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. In March 2019, a federal judge sentenced Manafort to four years in prison and then a separate federal judge sentenced Manafort to 3 1/2 years related to secret foreign lobbying and witness tampering.

Manafort also is facing a 16-count indictment in New York. The indictment alleges Manafort lied on mortgage loan applications. That indictment, too, is unrelated to Manafort’s specific dealings with Trump and the Trump campaign.

I would've rather hand Sanders win the nomination, and the presidency, but that didn't actually happen. I've also seen the charges, and most of them were procedural charges, that wouldn't have taken place had the people asked questions actually plead the Fifth instead of lying, whereas Manafort was charged with financial machinations regarding Ukraine. At the time, Ukraine was not a part of Russia...There is evidence that Manafort helped Ukraine set some financial machinations in place, but at the time Ukraine wasn't a part of Russia.

Then there's the issue of the Ukrainian Peace Plan - but that has nothing to do with the election. Would the Russians have acted any differently if Trump rejected the peace plan? I doubt it. I think that it was wrong for Kilimnik and Manafort to even consider it, and that any peace plan regarding Ukraine should be publicly discussed, but the mere presentation of a peace plan is again, not evidence of collusion/conspiracy. What we have here is zero times a thousand. That's still zero. And that's my point.

That said, let's take a look at the other case - Manafort... That looks like Ukraine. And more of Ukraine. And even more of Ukraine. You do realize that Ukraine was not Russia at the time, right? I know that those Eastern European countries can be very confusing to some, but Ukraine wasn't Russia at the time. It just wasn't. And then there was money laundering.

I've stated, repeatedly, that Manafort had ties to Yanukovich - something that you've alleged I've hidden. In other threads I've stated that Yanukovich wanted a decent relationship with Russia, which makes him pro-Russian in the book of Obama fanboys, who ignore any mention of the ethnic cleansing at Tawargha. They might actually edge out the Beliebers in that regard. I've stated, repeatedly, that Ukraine was not a part of Russia at the time - a fact. I've stated, repeatedly, that I was specifically talking about Manafort's ties to Russia as it relates to interference in the US Election.

And yet you somehow think that I'm trying to hide this, by repeatedly stating it. You do you Rogue Hyperpower, you do you. And now you've found out something that everyone else paying attention to already knew, and you're trying to parade it, much to nearly everyone's amusement. As WRA clearly pointed out several days ago:

Everyone already knew Manafort worked with eastern European oligarchs though, this was public record... Sure Mueller got some indictments but it was nothing earth shattering by any means and already confirmed things we pretty much knew. Yeah, Trump and friends are shady and skirt the bounds of the law, but there was no collusion...

It appears that when you, Rogue Hyperpower, ask others to have an informed opinion, you are once again, heroically, projecting.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

You claimed Manafort had no ties to Russia. Manafort's ties to Russia landed him in prison.

Do you have any informed opinions?

Ah, I see the problem, you seem to have failed Reading Comprehension 101. Of course you won't actual find a single post of me claiming that, since you deal in fiction rather than facts, at least according to your posts in this thread, but let's take a look at what I actually said about Manafort, in actual reality, that we live in, not in your mind, Rogue Hyperpower:

No more indictments, no direct links showing collusion, bunch of hearsay, and quite a bit of financial machinations... Financial machinations are great to find! I never said that the report was all negative. However, what's to stop Manafort from exposing Podesta's financial machinations in Civil Court? The US desperately needs campaign finance reform, but we already knew that.

Paul Manafort: tax fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, obstruction...

1. Someone working for the Trump Campaign
2. Related to the Trump Campaign (i.e. does not include Ukrainian financial machinations)
3. Not related to lying, obstruction, or witness tampering, and could've been avoided by Pleading the Fifth
4. Excluding Cohen's breach of Fiduciary Duty

Paul Manafort: Prosecutors accused Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman, of laundering over $30 million in overseas income, using a network of companies to mask millions he earned as a political consultant and lobbyist for Ukrainian politicians. The charges were not connected to Manafort’s work for Trump. Manafort pleaded guilty and a jury convicted him on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. In March 2019, a federal judge sentenced Manafort to four years in prison and then a separate federal judge sentenced Manafort to 3 1/2 years related to secret foreign lobbying and witness tampering.

Manafort also is facing a 16-count indictment in New York. The indictment alleges Manafort lied on mortgage loan applications. That indictment, too, is unrelated to Manafort’s specific dealings with Trump and the Trump campaign.

I would've rather hand Sanders win the nomination, and the presidency, but that didn't actually happen. I've also seen the charges, and most of them were procedural charges, that wouldn't have taken place had the people asked questions actually plead the Fifth instead of lying, whereas Manafort was charged with financial machinations regarding Ukraine. At the time, Ukraine was not a part of Russia...There is evidence that Manafort helped Ukraine set some financial machinations in place, but at the time Ukraine wasn't a part of Russia.

Then there's the issue of the Ukrainian Peace Plan - but that has nothing to do with the election. Would the Russians have acted any differently if Trump rejected the peace plan? I doubt it. I think that it was wrong for Kilimnik and Manafort to even consider it, and that any peace plan regarding Ukraine should be publicly discussed, but the mere presentation of a peace plan is again, not evidence of collusion/conspiracy. What we have here is zero times a thousand. That's still zero. And that's my point.

That said, let's take a look at the other case - Manafort... That looks like Ukraine. And more of Ukraine. And even more of Ukraine. You do realize that Ukraine was not Russia at the time, right? I know that those Eastern European countries can be very confusing to some, but Ukraine wasn't Russia at the time. It just wasn't. And then there was money laundering.

I've stated, repeatedly, that Manafort had ties to Yanukovich - something that you've alleged I've hidden. In other threads I've stated that Yanukovich wanted a decent relationship with Russia, which makes him pro-Russian in the book of Obama fanboys, who ignore any mention of the ethnic cleansing at Tawargha. They might actually edge out the Beliebers in that regard. I've stated, repeatedly, that Ukraine was not a part of Russia at the time - a fact. I've stated, repeatedly, that I was specifically talking about Manafort's ties to Russia as it relates to interference in the US Election.

And yet you somehow think that I'm trying to hide this, by repeatedly stating it. You do you Rogue Hyperpower, you do you. And now you've found out something that everyone else paying attention to already knew, and you're trying to parade it, much to nearly everyone's amusement. As WRA clearly pointed out several days ago:

Everyone already knew Manafort worked with eastern European oligarchs though, this was public record... Sure Mueller got some indictments but it was nothing earth shattering by any means and already confirmed things we pretty much knew. Yeah, Trump and friends are shady and skirt the bounds of the law, but there was no collusion...

It appears that when you, Rogue Hyperpower, ask others to have an informed opinion, you are once again, heroically, projecting.

I'm fairly certain repeatedly insulting me and my reading skills breaks some forum rule here. But what it does not do is negate the 108 pages Mueller devoted in volume 1 of his report to documenting the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russians. Mueller even explains the difference between collusion and criminal conspiracy. Volume 1 also documents the obstruction (lying to FBI investigators is obstruction) that made the investigation unable to show that the collusion it found rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. The obstruction itself leaves that question open. Collusion by itself is not a crime. But it is an impeachable offense. Which is why Trump and his sycophants keep screeching "no collusion" despite collusion itself not being a crime, and in direct contradiction to the collusion Mueller's team found and documented in his report.

Which turns us back to the question you refuse to answer: if there's "nothing" in the Mueller Report, why doesn't Trump have it uncensored. It was not a counter-intelligence probe, so your fantasies of endangering the lives of sooper-secret agents behind enemy lines (or friendly lines... do please make up your soupy mind) are without merit.

We're back to my original formulation. The Mueller Report demonstrates Trump campaign collusion with Russian interference in the 2016 election, and demonstrates Trump administration obstruction of Mueller's investigation made it impossible to establish that collusion with Russia rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. Trump staffers definitely thwarted some known efforts to conspire with the Russians. I don't think it's out of the realm of probability that obstruction intentionally blocked Mueller from elevating the collusion found to the criminal conspiracy he didn't establish (insomuch as he could establish criminality being barred by law from charging the President with a crime.)

Change my mind. Tripping over your self-defeating statements to try to insult me isn't working.

""Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked." - words of an innocent man, or motive to obstruct a criminal investigation?

[Shofercia]

Ah, I see the problem, you seem to have failed Reading Comprehension 101. Of course you won't actual find a single post of me claiming that, since you deal in fiction rather than facts, at least according to your posts in this thread, but let's take a look at what I actually said about Manafort, in actual reality, that we live in, not in your mind, Rogue Hyperpower:

I've stated, repeatedly, that Manafort had ties to Yanukovich - something that you've alleged I've hidden. In other threads I've stated that Yanukovich wanted a decent relationship with Russia, which makes him pro-Russian in the book of Obama fanboys, who ignore any mention of the ethnic cleansing at Tawargha. They might actually edge out the Beliebers in that regard. I've stated, repeatedly, that Ukraine was not a part of Russia at the time - a fact. I've stated, repeatedly, that I was specifically talking about Manafort's ties to Russia as it relates to interference in the US Election.

And yet you somehow think that I'm trying to hide this, by repeatedly stating it. You do you Rogue Hyperpower, you do you. And now you've found out something that everyone else paying attention to already knew, and you're trying to parade it, much to nearly everyone's amusement. As WRA clearly pointed out several days ago:



It appears that when you, Rogue Hyperpower, ask others to have an informed opinion, you are once again, heroically, projecting.

I'm fairly certain repeatedly insulting me and my reading skills breaks some forum rule here. But what it does not do is negate the 108 pages Mueller devoted in volume 1 of his report to documenting the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russians. Mueller even explains the difference between collusion and criminal conspiracy. Volume 1 also documents the obstruction (lying to FBI investigators is obstruction) that made the investigation unable to show that the collusion it found rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. The obstruction itself leaves that question open. Collusion by itself is not a crime. But it is an impeachable offense. Which is why Trump and his sycophants keep screeching "no collusion" despite collusion itself not being a crime, and in direct contradiction to the collusion Mueller's team found and documented in his report.

Which turns us back to the question you refuse to answer: if there's "nothing" in the Mueller Report, why doesn't Trump have it uncensored. It was not a counter-intelligence probe, so your fantasies of endangering the lives of sooper-secret agents behind enemy lines (or friendly lines... do please make up your soupy mind) are without merit.

We're back to my original formulation. The Mueller Report demonstrates Trump campaign collusion with Russian interference in the 2016 election, and demonstrates Trump administration obstruction of Mueller's investigation made it impossible to establish that collusion with Russia rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. Trump staffers definitely thwarted some known efforts to conspire with the Russians. I don't think it's out of the realm of probability that obstruction intentionally blocked Mueller from elevating the collusion found to the criminal conspiracy he didn't establish (insomuch as he could establish criminality being barred by law from charging the President with a crime.)

Change my mind. Tripping over your self-defeating statements to try to insult me isn't working.

""Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked." - words of an innocent man, or motive to obstruct a criminal investigation?

If you believe that I broke a rule, feel free to report me. But when you accused me of saying something that I've never said, it does seem like you have failed Reading Comprehension 101. Otherwise that would seem like you're flaming, right after being warned for it, so I decided to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt.

I've asked you to show, specifically how President Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election, considering that collusion is defined as a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others and I pointed out that not a single one of Mueller's indictments was for collusion with the Russians as it relates to the US Election.

Mueller stated, while summarizing his report, that there is no criminal conspiracy. His words, not mine. If President Trump was to be indicted, it would be on the charge of obstruction. There's a certain parallel here, about how the coverup was worse than the crime, something about Monica Lewinski comes to mind, oh the irony, the beautiful, beautiful, beautiful irony. Anyways, since there's nothing about criminal conspiracy, why do you want to see the entire thing? I know why President Putin would want to see it all - methods of US intelligence gathering, that'd be a gold mine.

First SecState Clinton generously takes her emails to an unsecured server and makes them hackable, now, because of her incompetence as a candidate, and post election bitching, some Democrats are demanding that the entire Mueller Report be made public - is she an amazing Russian Agent or what? Hmm, maybe President Putin intervened in the US Election because he wanted a challenge, and was bored of playing against the Bushes and Clintons, you know, like when you do to increase the level of your opponent while playing NFL Madden, but IRL.

Anyway, you keep on equating the nonexistent charge of Collusion, with the semi-existent charge of Obstruction, which continues to be quite hilarious, but the one thing you don't quote, is the actual Mueller Report:

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Collusion is defined as: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy especially in order to cheat or deceive others

And you know you're desperate when you're using what President Trump said as your last line of defense. Have you not seen the man's Twitter account? Oi covfefe!

[Rogue Hyperpower]

I'm fairly certain repeatedly insulting me and my reading skills breaks some forum rule here. But what it does not do is negate the 108 pages Mueller devoted in volume 1 of his report to documenting the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russians. Mueller even explains the difference between collusion and criminal conspiracy. Volume 1 also documents the obstruction (lying to FBI investigators is obstruction) that made the investigation unable to show that the collusion it found rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. The obstruction itself leaves that question open. Collusion by itself is not a crime. But it is an impeachable offense. Which is why Trump and his sycophants keep screeching "no collusion" despite collusion itself not being a crime, and in direct contradiction to the collusion Mueller's team found and documented in his report.

Which turns us back to the question you refuse to answer: if there's "nothing" in the Mueller Report, why doesn't Trump have it uncensored. It was not a counter-intelligence probe, so your fantasies of endangering the lives of sooper-secret agents behind enemy lines (or friendly lines... do please make up your soupy mind) are without merit.

We're back to my original formulation. The Mueller Report demonstrates Trump campaign collusion with Russian interference in the 2016 election, and demonstrates Trump administration obstruction of Mueller's investigation made it impossible to establish that collusion with Russia rose to the level of criminal conspiracy. Trump staffers definitely thwarted some known efforts to conspire with the Russians. I don't think it's out of the realm of probability that obstruction intentionally blocked Mueller from elevating the collusion found to the criminal conspiracy he didn't establish (insomuch as he could establish criminality being barred by law from charging the President with a crime.)

Change my mind. Tripping over your self-defeating statements to try to insult me isn't working.

""Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked." - words of an innocent man, or motive to obstruct a criminal investigation?

If you believe that I broke a rule, feel free to report me. But when you accused me of saying something that I've never said, it does seem like you have failed Reading Comprehension 101. Otherwise that would seem like you're flaming, right after being warned for it, so I decided to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt.

I've asked you to show, specifically how President Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election, considering that collusion is defined as a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others and I pointed out that not a single one of Mueller's indictments was for collusion with the Russians as it relates to the US Election.

Mueller stated, while summarizing his report, that there is no criminal conspiracy. His words, not mine. If President Trump was to be indicted, it would be on the charge of obstruction. There's a certain parallel here, about how the coverup was worse than the crime, something about Monica Lewinski comes to mind, oh the irony, the beautiful, beautiful, beautiful irony. Anyways, since there's nothing about criminal conspiracy, why do you want to see the entire thing? I know why President Putin would want to see it all - methods of US intelligence gathering, that'd be a gold mine.

First SecState Clinton generously takes her emails to an unsecured server and makes them hackable, now, because of her incompetence as a candidate, and post election bitching, some Democrats are demanding that the entire Mueller Report be made public - is she an amazing Russian Agent or what? Hmm, maybe President Putin intervened in the US Election because he wanted a challenge, and was bored of playing against the Bushes and Clintons, you know, like when you do to increase the level of your opponent while playing NFL Madden, but IRL.

Anyway, you keep on equating the nonexistent charge of Collusion, with the semi-existent charge of Obstruction, which continues to be quite hilarious, but the one thing you don't quote, is the actual Mueller Report:

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Collusion is defined as: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy especially in order to cheat or deceive others

And you know you're desperate when you're using what President Trump said as your last line of defense. Have you not seen the man's Twitter account? Oi covfefe!

I'm not desperate at all. For a good definition of desperate... witness Trump's ongoing efforts to stop his people from testifying in various Congressional oversight hearings. The case for impeachment is practically writing itself.

Personally I hope Trump can clear himself by being honest. The idea that he's one disobeyed command from Putin away from all the details of his likely criminal business deals in Moscow real estate being revealed is rather uncomfortable.

[Fahran]

I'm not desperate at all. For a good definition of desperate... witness Trump's ongoing efforts to stop his people from testifying in various Congressional oversight hearings. The case for impeachment is practically writing itself.

Exercising executive privilege or any other legal power of the presidency cannot rightfully be called obstruction, unless we factor motivation into such charges, because exercising legal powers of the presidency isn't an illegal/criminal act under any conventional understanding. Trump's exercise of presidential powers isn't quite reminiscent of Nixon at the moment. We can surmise from Clinton's actions in the midst of the Whitewater Scandal that Trump may yet lose out if a legal challenge occurs, but, at the moment, we have no grounds for believing that the current proceedings will lead to impeachment beyond the desire of the opposition to impeach if it becomes politically viable.

Personally I hope Trump can clear himself by being honest. The idea that he's one disobeyed command from Putin away from all the details of his likely criminal business deals in Moscow real estate being revealed is rather uncomfortable.

That's idle speculation at best. The presence of weasel words such as "likely" doesn't bolster the argument much either. Nor does the fact that Russia's geopolitical goal is to sew as much chaos as possible and to delegitimize the American political process to cripple any of our foreign policy initiatives. That said, I do applaud Trump for revitalizing the more hawkish tendencies of the DNC. Maybe they won't run away from wars they voted for after five years when they see the glint of some political advantage.

[Old Tyrannia]

Which turns us back to the question you refuse to answer: if there's "nothing" in the Mueller Report, why doesn't Trump have it uncensored. It was not a counter-intelligence probe, so your fantasies of endangering the lives of sooper-secret agents behind enemy lines (or friendly lines... do please make up your soupy mind) are without merit.

Rogue Hyperpower: *** 3 day ban for flamebait + history. *** Knock off the personal attacks (and that goes for both of you).

[Shofercia]

I'm not desperate at all. For a good definition of desperate... witness Trump's ongoing efforts to stop his people from testifying in various Congressional oversight hearings. The case for impeachment is practically writing itself.

Personally I hope Trump can clear himself by being honest. The idea that he's one disobeyed command from Putin away from all the details of his likely criminal business deals in Moscow real estate being revealed is rather uncomfortable.

President Trump is brash and hyperbolic. A brash and hyperbolic person making a brash and hyperbolic statement is not an admission of guilt. As for the testimony - did it ever occur to you that everyone, except for the most loyal of the Democrats and the Media, are getting sick and tired of this drama-llama? It's been going on and on and on and on and on, how long will it go?

If President Trump is reelected, are we looking at eight years of this drama-llama? And if Pence gets elected in 2024, and reelected in 2028 - are we going for sixteen years? This story has already been stretched beyond its breaking point. As far as the business deals in Moscow, I've yet to see any evidence that they were corrupt, and no, butthurt "intelligence" agent Steele is not a valid source. I trust Leslie Nielsen more, at least he knows where the Intruder Entrance's at.

[Vassenor]

Has anyone been tracking all the times Barr has committed perjury today?

[Shofercia]

Has anyone been tracking all the times Barr has committed perjury today?

Zero's a relatively easy number to keep track of.