The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Shofercia]

Can you provide an example?

I got it wrong I admit.

Huge Trove of Leaked Russian Documents Is Published by Transparency Advocates

They didn't catch-and-kill it, but they were given the documents along with similar groups but they were the only one to not publish them.

So in spite of the Wikileaks-Russia "connection" you cannot provide a single document that related to Russia that was killed by Wikileaks. I think I'm going to start colluding with the Brooklyn Bridge, just to give you some collusion to find, since you want it so badly.

The core files from the new collection, called “The Dark Side of the Kremlin,” included “hundreds of thousands of messages and files from Russian politicians, journalists, oligarchs, religious figures, and nationalists/terrorists in Ukraine,” said the group that posted it, Distributed Denial of Secrets, or DDoSecrets. The name is a play on the term for a common cyberattack known as a distributed denial of service.

The documents include a voluminous archive of material hacked from Russia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs that WikiLeaks had declined to publish in 2016, telling Foreign Policy magazine the next year that it “rejects all submissions that it cannot verify” or that it finds “insignificant.”

In fact Wikileaks was given the document dump in advance of the other groups but chose to sit on them.

And how do you know that Wikileaks was just sitting on them, rather than editing out names? When you leak something, you don't want that lead to someone's death, so sometimes you need to edit out the name, and/or warn that individual that their life might be in danger. You are, once again, successfully looking for collusion where none exists.

Ms. Best, 32, who has published at the investigative site MuckRock and elsewhere, noted that the Distributed Denial of Secrets site already hosts thousands of leaked documents from dozens of countries, the largest number from the United States.

The new site operates roughly on the model pioneered by WikiLeaks — inviting hackers and whistle-blowers to send confidential documents for posting. But Ms. Best has been quite critical of that site and its founder, Julian Assange, who played a central role in distributing the Democrats’ emails that Russians hacked in 2016. Distributed Denial of Secrets has posted a large archive of internal documents from WikiLeaks itself.

“Personally, I am disappointed by what I see as dishonest and egotistic behavior from Julian Assange and WikiLeaks,” Ms. Best said. But she added that she had made the Russian document collection available to WikiLeaks ahead of its public release on Friday, and had posted material favorable to Mr. Assange leaked from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he has lived for more than six years to avoid arrest.

And it doesn't help that Wikileaks- and founder Julian Assange specifically- has an uncomfortably close relationship with Russia.

So someone is criticizing Assange, and that's now proof? So if someone was to criticize Clinton, would that be proof too? Collusion! Next up: Russia colluded with Jussie Smollett to destroy the White Privilege narrative!

The WikiLeaks-Russia Connection

In January 2011, the Kremlin issued Mr. Assange a visa, and one Russian official suggested that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Then, in April 2012, with WikiLeaks’ funding drying up — under American pressure, Visa and MasterCard had stopped accepting donations — Russia Today began broadcasting a show called “The World Tomorrow” with Mr. Assange as the host.

How much he or WikiLeaks was paid for the 12 episodes remains unclear. In a written statement, Sunshine Press, which works as his spokesman, said Russia Today “was among a dozen broadcasters that purchased a broadcasting license for his show.”

A visa? Whoah, Russians issued a visa to a journalist with no criminal activity in Russia - far out man! You got 'em! And RT seized on a popular, yet controversial journalist douche-bag? Why RT would never do something like that without direct marching orders from Putin, who's colluding with the Brooklyn Bridge!

Gormwood doesn't quite grasp American Politics if he thinks that the Senate will impeach President Trump without concrete proof, none of which was found by Mueller. It takes only 34 Senators to block impeachment Gormwood, not 49.

Ahem.

Call it what you want, but I have a deep distrust of the Senate Republicans' willingness to convict Trump even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Ahem: or the Democrats control the Senate also

That is your statement. It's wrong. In order to control the Senate, Democrats need to win 49 seats. In order to impeach Trump, Democrats need to win over 60 seats. So your analysis was off by at least 11 Senate seats.

[Gormwood]

I got it wrong I admit.

Huge Trove of Leaked Russian Documents Is Published by Transparency Advocates

They didn't catch-and-kill it, but they were given the documents along with similar groups but they were the only one to not publish them.

So in spite of the Wikileaks-Russia "connection" you cannot provide a single document that related to Russia that was killed by Wikileaks. I think I'm going to start colluding with the Brooklyn Bridge, just to give you some collusion to find, since you want it so badly.

In fact Wikileaks was given the document dump in advance of the other groups but chose to sit on them.

And how do you know that Wikileaks was just sitting on them, rather than editing out names? When you leak something, you don't want that lead to someone's death, so sometimes you need to edit out the name, and/or warn that individual that their life might be in danger. You are, once again, successfully looking for collusion where none exists.

I was hoping you at least read the quoted excerpts.

The documents include a voluminous archive of material hacked from Russia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs that WikiLeaks had declined to publish in 2016, telling Foreign Policy magazine the next year that it “rejects all submissions that it cannot verify” or that it finds “insignificant.”

And it doesn't help that Wikileaks- and founder Julian Assange specifically- has an uncomfortably close relationship with Russia.

So someone is criticizing Assange, and that's now proof? So if someone was to criticize Clinton, would that be proof too? Collusion! Next up: Russia colluded with Jussie Smollett to destroy the White Privilege narrative!

The WikiLeaks-Russia Connection

A visa? Whoah, Russians issued a visa to a journalist with no criminal activity in Russia - far out man! You got 'em! And RT seized on a popular, yet controversial journalist douche-bag? Why RT would never do something like that without direct marching orders from Putin, who's colluding with the Brooklyn Bridge!

Somehow you don't think a leak group whose founder was in financial straits and was given money by an authoritarian government in the form of a program deal conducted through a media arm would be beholden to if not allied with said government. And far as I'm aware Wikileaks has not published any Russian documents.

Ahem.

Ahem: or the Democrats control the Senate also

That is your statement. It's wrong. In order to control the Senate, Democrats need to win 49 seats. In order to impeach Trump, Democrats need to win over 60 seats. So your analysis was off by at least 11 Senate seats.

The point being Republicans are so under Trump's grasp that the Democrats would need to control practically all the seats in order to get a conviction even if overwhelming evidence of Trump's criminal conduct was made public. But thank you for the civic lesson.

[Forsher]

So it's not relevant, but you just dedicated quite a bit of words to it? Forsher - stop embarrassing yourself.

Me:

>It's the Democrats (who Shof is fixating on as CNN... and/or insisting that it's just some Democrats) who are gloating.
>I shouldn't say gloating though because Shof's using it to describe the Republicans
>Emphasises that gloating Republicans has nothing to do with what I'm saying
>It's the raving (aka gloating) Democrats who Shof and I are talking about

Becomes:

>Why are you talking about the Republican gloating!

Non-sequitur. But the best bit is that Shof also says:

>The point is the hysterics (aka raving aka gloating) of CNN and some Democrats about impeachment

the actual words being

The main point was that you should perform a calm investigation, not a witch hunt

as though this something other than what is expressed by:

people were gloating (aka raving aka being hysterical witch hunters) and that's stupid

Just because it is preceded by a therefore Shof doesn't make it the main point... it just means it follows logically from earlier points. You know. Like a corollary.

[The Lone Alliance]

I'm really not surprised really.

I half think the real reason Trump complained and whined and made sure to deliberately derail the media into going "Russia Russia Russia" was cause he knew there wasn't any, or enough evidence, to actually nail him.

It wasn't the first time he tricked the media after all.

I'll also have to agree with some of the leftist writers who didn't jump on the Russia train and calling out the confirmation bias and how it can blow up in your face.

[Gormwood]

I'm really not surprised really.

I half think the real reason Trump complained and whined and made sure to deliberately derail the media into going "Russia Russia Russia" was cause he knew there wasn't any, or enough evidence, to actually nail him.

It wasn't the first time he tricked the media after all.

Trump has experience manipulating media, but to say he knew in advance there would be no evidence of collusion is giving him way too much credit.

[Mystic Warriors]

I'm really not surprised really.

I half think the real reason Trump complained and whined and made sure to deliberately derail the media into going "Russia Russia Russia" was cause he knew there wasn't any, or enough evidence, to actually nail him.

It wasn't the first time he tricked the media after all.

He knew there was evidence, that's why he sabotaged the investigation.

[The Lone Alliance]

I'm really not surprised really.

I half think the real reason Trump complained and whined and made sure to deliberately derail the media into going "Russia Russia Russia" was cause he knew there wasn't any, or enough evidence, to actually nail him.

It wasn't the first time he tricked the media after all.

Trump has experience manipulating media, but to say he knew in advance there would be no evidence of collusion is giving him way too much credit.

How would he not know?
It was his campaign after all.

It's more like, being the typical corporate type, he knew the lines and he played with them just enough so whatever he did couldn't be proven one way or another.

It's likely the full report will have a whole bunch of "We think he might have done it but there's no real proof for it" and it'll be vague enough that it'll confirm both side's preconceived biases.

[Shofercia]

So it's not relevant, but you just dedicated quite a bit of words to it? Forsher - stop embarrassing yourself.

Me:

>It's the Democrats (who Shof is fixating on as CNN... and/or insisting that it's just some Democrats) who are gloating.
>I shouldn't say gloating though because Shof's using it to describe the Republicans
>Emphasises that gloating Republicans has nothing to do with what I'm saying
>It's the raving (aka gloating) Democrats who Shof and I are talking about

Becomes:

>Why are you talking about the Republican gloating!

Non-sequitur. But the best bit is that Shof also says:

>The point is the hysterics (aka raving aka gloating) of CNN and some Democrats about impeachment

the actual words being

The main point was that you should perform a calm investigation, not a witch hunt

as though this something other than what is expressed by:

people were gloating (aka raving aka being hysterical witch hunters) and that's stupid

Just because it is preceded by a therefore Shof doesn't make it the main point... it just means it follows logically from earlier points. You know. Like a corollary.

Once again, Forsher, look at the actual quote, not the one you imagined, starting with your post:

If you know something is probably going on and don't investigate it, you're probably complicit. If you definitely know something is happening and don't do anything, you're definitely complicit. Why do you act like this is some insta-win point? Its logical conclusion is the complete opposite to the one you use it for...

Right there, your main point is about how it should be investigated. Naturally, a response to that will have investigation, rather than gloating, as the main point. Oh look, it does:

You can investigate it, but what the MSNBC, CNN, and several Congressmen did, is claim that there will be impeachment and clear collusion found, before the investigation was completed. That didn't happen, so now there's going to be gloating from the other camp.

That response is primarily pointing out that it's one thing to investigate it, and another to go on an impeachment hunt. The corollary to that merely states a fact of American Politics. That's why there are 29 words addressing the main point, and half as much merely stating what will happen. And here is the post that you were responding to:

That's great. But the fact that russia is meddling in our elections isn't justification for going after trump. And I think any reasonable person would assume Russia is meddling. Russia is Russia after all. What was sold to the people was that Trump colluded with russia to interfere in the elections, and it doesn't appear that the Mueller probe will support that claim. So now Democrats have a choice. they can walk back their claim, they can admit they lied or they can continue pushing a narrative that, at this point, goes in the same bin as 9/11 truthers. It looks like they're incapible of doing anything but the latter.

It carries a similar implication to my point, namely that it's ok to investigate, but it's not ok to go on an impeachment hunt before the facts are entered into the record. Now, with all of that in mind, here's how Forsher attempted to summarize the whole discussion, and like CNN, he's still trying to pretend that his summary was accurate, and he's not seeing even a hint of irony there:

people were gloating and that's stupid

I'm not even sure where I said that gloating was stupid in the above cited quote, but if you're going to imagine things like Forsher does - why not go all the way?

[Shofercia]

So in spite of the Wikileaks-Russia "connection" you cannot provide a single document that related to Russia that was killed by Wikileaks. I think I'm going to start colluding with the Brooklyn Bridge, just to give you some collusion to find, since you want it so badly.




And how do you know that Wikileaks was just sitting on them, rather than editing out names? When you leak something, you don't want that lead to someone's death, so sometimes you need to edit out the name, and/or warn that individual that their life might be in danger. You are, once again, successfully looking for collusion where none exists.

I was hoping you at least read the quoted excerpts.

The documents include a voluminous archive of material hacked from Russia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs that WikiLeaks had declined to publish in 2016, telling Foreign Policy magazine the next year that it “rejects all submissions that it cannot verify” or that it finds “insignificant.”

So WikiLeaks trying to verify the sources is proof of it being Russia's tool? In the tone that Obama used with Romney, I say: please, continue.

So someone is criticizing Assange, and that's now proof? So if someone was to criticize Clinton, would that be proof too? Collusion! Next up: Russia colluded with Jussie Smollett to destroy the White Privilege narrative!




A visa? Whoah, Russians issued a visa to a journalist with no criminal activity in Russia - far out man! You got 'em! And RT seized on a popular, yet controversial journalist douche-bag? Why RT would never do something like that without direct marching orders from Putin, who's colluding with the Brooklyn Bridge!

Somehow you don't think a leak group whose founder was in financial straits and was given money by an authoritarian government in the form of a program deal conducted through a media arm would be beholden to if not allied with said government. And far as I'm aware Wikileaks has not published any Russian documents.

Correct, as sometimes Governments back troublemakers of their adversaries to continue making trouble, without conditions. Are you familiar with the concept of proof?

Ahem: or the Democrats control the Senate also

That is your statement. It's wrong. In order to control the Senate, Democrats need to win 49 seats. In order to impeach Trump, Democrats need to win over 60 seats. So your analysis was off by at least 11 Senate seats.

The point being Republicans are so under Trump's grasp that the Democrats would need to control practically all the seats in order to get a conviction even if overwhelming evidence of Trump's criminal conduct was made public. But thank you for the civic lesson.

It might also be because the extreme majority of Republican voters find the "proof" offered by the press to be inconclusive, as do quite a bit of Independent voters, and that sort of matters in a Democracy. It actually matters quite a bit. Although at this point I'm expected Don Lemon to stand up and yell "WITCH!" when he sees President Trump.

[Gormwood]

Trump has experience manipulating media, but to say he knew in advance there would be no evidence of collusion is giving him way too much credit.

How would he not know?
It was his campaign after all.

It's more like, being the typical corporate type, he knew the lines and he played with them just enough so whatever he did couldn't be proven one way or another.

It's likely the full report will have a whole bunch of "We think he might have done it but there's no real proof for it" and it'll be vague enough that it'll confirm both side's preconceived biases.

Organized crime leaders are also great at playing the line, which along with the details revealed by Michael Cohen probably explains the buzz about SDNY considering a RICO investigation on the Trump Organization.

And hopefully the Mueller Report will be made public without 15-minute gaps all over it.

[Shofercia]

I'm really not surprised really.

I half think the real reason Trump complained and whined and made sure to deliberately derail the media into going "Russia Russia Russia" was cause he knew there wasn't any, or enough evidence, to actually nail him.

It wasn't the first time he tricked the media after all.

I'll also have to agree with some of the leftist writers who didn't jump on the Russia train and calling out the confirmation bias and how it can blow up in your face.

Wouldn't be the first time he pulled it off, and probably won't be the last. Best explanation thus far.

I'm really not surprised really.

I half think the real reason Trump complained and whined and made sure to deliberately derail the media into going "Russia Russia Russia" was cause he knew there wasn't any, or enough evidence, to actually nail him.

It wasn't the first time he tricked the media after all.

Trump has experience manipulating media, but to say he knew in advance there would be no evidence of collusion is giving him way too much credit.

Since he knew he didn't collude, he knew that there'd be no evidence of collusion, because he didn't collude. If I didn't shoot the deputy, and I trick the media into thinking that I shot the deputy, I know that they'll look like fools, because I know that I didn't shoot the deputy.

[WENDIP SHIPPER]

After 2 years and several people arrested, and the Muller investigation report says that 'trump didn't collude'? Are you kidding me? I had doubts with the CIA investigation to begin with, but this just proves that they don't really care about the president breaking the law and conspiring with forien governments.

[San Montalbano]

After 2 years and several people arrested, and the Muller investigation report says that 'trump didn't collude'? Are you kidding me? I had doubts with the CIA investigation to begin with, but this just proves that they don't really care about the president breaking the law and conspiring with forien governments.

to think Trump colluded with the Russians is tin-foil levels of nuts

it's as stupid as the people who said that Obama was a kenyan muslim.

[Farnhamia]

After 2 years and several people arrested, and the Muller investigation report says that 'trump didn't collude'? Are you kidding me? I had doubts with the CIA investigation to begin with, but this just proves that they don't really care about the president breaking the law and conspiring with forien governments.

It wasn't a CIA investigation, it was an investigation performed by the Department of Justice.

[WENDIP SHIPPER]

After 2 years and several people arrested, and the Muller investigation report says that 'trump didn't collude'? Are you kidding me? I had doubts with the CIA investigation to begin with, but this just proves that they don't really care about the president breaking the law and conspiring with forien governments.

to think Trump colluded with the Russians is tin-foil levels of nuts

it's as stupid as the people who said that Obama was a kenyan muslim.

Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he was born in Kenya it wouldn't have mattered at all. His mother was a US citizen, which would make Obama a US citizen no matter what. Which is why Ted Cruz was able to run despite being born in Canada.

As for the Russian collusion being a 'tin foil hat conspiracy', that's not true. There are multiple people in Trump's inner circle that have pleaded guilty to wrongdoings, including Manafront and Flynn and Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos.

If anything, denying the collusion is the real conspiracy

[WENDIP SHIPPER]

After 2 years and several people arrested, and the Muller investigation report says that 'trump didn't collude'? Are you kidding me? I had doubts with the CIA investigation to begin with, but this just proves that they don't really care about the president breaking the law and conspiring with forien governments.

It wasn't a CIA investigation, it was an investigation performed by the Department of Justice.

Either way my point still stands.

[San Montalbano]

to think Trump colluded with the Russians is tin-foil levels of nuts

it's as stupid as the people who said that Obama was a kenyan muslim.

Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he was born in Kenya it wouldn't have mattered at all. His mother was a US citizen, which would make Obama a US citizen no matter what. Which is why Ted Cruz was able to run despite being born in Canada.

As for the Russian collusion being a 'tin foil hat conspiracy', that's not true. There are multiple people in Trump's inner circle that have pleaded guilty to wrongdoings, including Manafront and Flynn and Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos.

If anything, denying the collusion is the real conspiracy

those are not linked to collusion with russia

for instance, Flynn was talking to Turkey about something as far as I know, most of the indictments are for crimes UNRELATED

[San Montalbano]

It wasn't a CIA investigation, it was an investigation performed by the Department of Justice.

Either way my point still stands.

No it dosn't because you do not have proof of anything other than CNN talking points.

[Gormwood]

The lack of concern at the numerous financial and political crimes committed by Trump associates and staffers as well as Trump's likelihood of committing financial crimes merely because Trump's personal collusion could not conclusively be proven strikes me as bizaare.

[WENDIP SHIPPER]

Either way my point still stands.

No it dosn't because you do not have proof of anything other than CNN talking points.

I like how you completely ignored my other comment, aka the one which actually responded to yours:

The lack of concern at the numerous financial and political crimes committed by Trump associates and staffers as well as Trump's likelihood of committing financial crimes merely because Trump's personal collusion could not conclusively be proven strikes me as bizaare.

I am certain that Muller is somehow involved in this cover up.

[San Montalbano]

No it dosn't because you do not have proof of anything other than CNN talking points.

I like how you completely ignored my other comment, aka the one which actually responded to yours

The lack of concern at the numerous financial and political crimes committed by Trump associates and staffers as well as Trump's likelihood of committing financial crimes merely because Trump's personal collusion could not conclusively be proven strikes me as bizaare.

I am certain that Muller is somehow involved in this cover up.

you referring to the incidents which have nothing to do with Trump collusion? those points?

[Cannot think of a name]

Either way my point still stands.

No it dosn't because you do not have proof of anything other than CNN talking points.

Mr. Schiff, would you like to take this?

[San Montalbano]

No it dosn't because you do not have proof of anything other than CNN talking points.

Mr. Schiff, would you like to take this?

yeah I heard that dumb rant which didn't offer any real evidence, but it sounded good I will give it that.

[WENDIP SHIPPER]

I like how you completely ignored my other comment, aka the one which actually responded to yours


I am certain that Muller is somehow involved in this cover up.

you referring to the incidents which have nothing to do with Trump collusion? those points?

to think Trump colluded with the Russians is tin-foil levels of nuts

it's as stupid as the people who said that Obama was a kenyan muslim.

Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he was born in Kenya it wouldn't have mattered at all. His mother was a US citizen, which would make Obama a US citizen no matter what. Which is why Ted Cruz was able to run despite being born in Canada.

As for the Russian collusion being a 'tin foil hat conspiracy', that's not true. There are multiple people in Trump's inner circle that have pleaded guilty to wrongdoings, including Manafront and Flynn and Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos.

If anything, denying the collusion is the real conspiracy

I told you that there were people involved in Trump's campaign that pleaded guilty. That is not propaganda.

[Cannot think of a name]

Mr. Schiff, would you like to take this?

yeah I heard that dumb rant which didn't offer any real evidence, but it sounded good I will give it that.

Cool. None of those things he said are actually in dispute, but you do you.