The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Shofercia]

Not every country. I've never seen Nauru, Tuvalu, Palau, Micronesia, Dominica, St. Kitts, St. Vincent, Grenada intervene in the affairs of other countries... and I could keep on going, but there are countries that don't do it. They have standards. (They also have very few people, and lack power to do anything substantial )

Plus who wants to meddle in other countries' affairs when you can instead sit on the beach and drink all day, every day?

And compete half naked in the Winter Olympics...

Weren't they already at war?

It's like the Napoleonic Wars, things will quiet down for a bit and then Something Big Happens_TM.

The Napoleonic Wars is a damn good analogy. You don't mind if I borrow it, do you?

Well, hey that financial machinations is something good to find?

Problem is that Mueller was fishing for a marlin but ended up catching some plain old flounder, you can find that stuff going on in both parties.

Yep.

Breaking news: popcorn prices spike 1000%

Good thing I stocked up!

Damn it! So that's where all the popcorn went! I ordered some from Quasiland Traders, but they've yet to arrive.

[Seangoli]

Were we? You were talking about Trump and his associates being tried.

Tried for what?

Trump didn't do anything.

And, interestingly, in spite of all the illegal shit you claim they did Mueller didn't indict any of them for anything collusion-related.

That starting a criminal investigation here was stupid.

You do understand an investigation right?

Even I suspected there wouldn't be an impeachment. You see in Nixon's time, both demos and members of the GOP wanted him gone. Fast forward; you will not see the party of trump moving against him.

You see, in Bizarro Trump world you can only investigate potential crimes if you have 100% absolute evidemce that said investigation will turn out criminal convictions. Under no circumstances can you investigate potential crimes unless younknow, for certain, that said person absolutely 100% is guilty of said crimes.

And if it turns out an investigation may not yield indicents against said individual, you are a horrible person who wasted everyone's time because you can only investigate clearly guilty people.

Duh.

[Forsher]

That's not important.

It's rather crucial. If during his 1996 reelection bid, Bill Clinton invited Boris Yeltsin to come to the White House and extol his virtues - is that election interference? If in 2003 Bush asked Putin to not veto the Iraq Invasion, after telling Putin that the war will help Bush win in 2004 - is that election interference? If Putin captured American instructors in Georgia in August of 2008, and paraded them in Moscow in November of 2008, is that election interference? Every time RT points out how Neoliberals/Neoconservatives waste American Taxpayer Dollars on missions abroad, is that election interference? It's hard NOT to interfere in elections.

Either clarify the rules to make these things not count as interference or, yes, they should be investigated. It's really this simple.

This claim here was focusing on Russian hackers allegedly airing Clinton's dirty laundry to other hackers, who aired it to Wikileaks, who leaked it. There's no proof that actually happened, but even if it did, it's just a cog in a chain of events. The dirty laundry had to exist, it had to be hackable, others had to be interested in it, and Wikileaks had to publish it. None of those factors were under Russia's control.

Not important.

If you try to eavesdrop on a top secret meeting and only hear the introductions and small talk before you're caught, you committed the exact same crime as if you heard the top secret stuff. If you also managed to share the top secret stuff then you committed an additional crime too.

If you shoot me and I die, it's a problem right? You're probably going to get done for murder. Or, at least, society generally hopes so.

It depends. Are you in my house with a firearm? If you are, and the firearm is real, and I shoot you, and you die, I hope I don't go to jail. That'd be fucked up.

Obviously not part of the example.

However, what if you shot me but I was (a) already dying and (b) what actually killed me was having been chopped in half by, I don't know, something that chops people in half? Hell, maybe you just shot some kind of gut that was spilling out or whatever. Should you be arrested for my murder? Probably not, right? I mean, you might be but really you just committed assault, right?

The point is, we shouldn't let you slide in either situation because something bad is still happening regardless.

The type of shooting your describing is a murder. Most people don't go around committing murders. Most powerful countries do attempt to exert some kind of electoral influence. Bad analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.

What I have described is not murder... not in a moral sense. Just as you go to the first part, "That'd be fucked up" what I'm telling you is that murder should be about (a) killing people and (b) actually being the cause of the killing. We shouldn't arrest, charge and try people for murder for locking people on balconies and being inside as they drunkenly fall to their death. That's a real example. The person was acquitted.

You are missing the point both times. The analogy is about the causal consequences, not the frequency. If, do you know what it means? Here it means, "This situation is happening, regardless of how common it is".

The failure to have caused the harm people are complaining about doesn't excuse the behaviour. Nor does the frequency of the behaviour.

Like, you're not even right about why Clinton lost... the explanation is pretty obviously James Comey and his disregard for usual procedures. Before that moment everything else looked like it was going to be water off the duck's back... as irrelevant as all the mud thrown at Trump or all the many and varied things that Teflon John got away with.

Are you aware of this thing called voter turnout? If there wasn't widespread rural anger, there wouldn't be high rural voter turnout, no matter what Comey did.

So what?

There was going to be high voter turnout with or without Comey. That's my point.

Now... if an investigation into collusion finds nothing more than interference, then that's better than finding both, isn't it? If the investigation into collusion finds collusion then that's the worst outcome. And if the investigation into collusion finds neither collusion nor interference... well, now, that's the only outcome that's bad for the Clinton Campaign (and possibly also the Democrats... although given the Clinton Campaign is over and lost possibly also not a problem)... but it's probably the best one overall. No crime is better than some crime, right?

It looks like they found interference but not collusion... plus a bunch of connected and extremely sketchy crimes. There was smoke. It didn't lead to a forest fire, but it did find a house fire.

There's a difference between a forest fire and a house fire. Most NSGers know that campaign financial laws are fucked up. That's why most of us support campaign finance reform. We know that there was a house fire. However, the issue is that the Democrats pitched the house fire as a forest fire. And that turned out not to be the case.

No, it's not.

The issue is whether or not there was smoke. There was.

That it turned out to be a house fire instead of a forest fire is a good thing. Speculating before this was ascertained that it was a forest fire? Totally fine. Suggesting that it was sawdust and not smoke at all? Irrational, stupid and not okay. Speculating that it was just bad cooking (think: false positive), fine too... so long as not linked to the argument "therefore, do nothing". Speculating that it was just a house fire all along? Completely fine. Added bonus, get to gloat about being right afterwards. Linking it to the argument of "therefore, do nothing"? Again, not okay.

[Forsher]

Yes, and I am sure there are people who believed OJ was going to be found guilty too.

The gloating isn't a problem per se... it's obnoxious but whatever... it's that what Aclion is doing is using an argument which justifies the response by MSNBC etc. a lot more than the one Aclion wants. Over-eagerness isn't a problem per se either... it's just obnoxious.

Aclion's arguments are really similar to those used by people to say the investigation shouldn't have happened. And there's a reason for that... Aclion's making that argument too: "but the fact that russia is meddling in our elections isn't justification for going after trump". The existence of the meddling implies doing something or becoming complicit, not doing nothing. That's what I'm saying. People can gloat as they wish... but not on the basis of this argument.

Difference was - OJ did it. He had the means, motive, and opportunity. Russia did not have the means to rig America's election, (that's like accusing a Calculus students of copying off of someone who just learned PEMDAS,) and because Russia lacked the means, Trump lacked the opportunity to collude. But hey, if the Democrats want to argue that during Obama's tenure American Democracy was weakened to the point of a Populist Democracy being able to rig America's Elections - go for it. Russia either had the means, or didn't.

There you go again... making the burden "rig the outcome"... that's not the burden.

Correctly identify the problem and you'll correctly identify the case. You're identifying the wrong problem and using it to criticise the case. That's not how it works. You can criticise the case with the right problem (e.g. maybe it's not important enough to investigate evidence of interference... although if you did make this specific argument you'd probably be asked why you don't value democracy). That's all I want you or anyone else to do. Horses for courses. Not hippos.

[Yusseria]

In Nixon's case there was actual evidence of him doing illegal shit.

Not so much here, though.

You have an advance copy of the report?

Do you? You seem quite convinced earlier that there was collusion.

Present evidence.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Weren't they already at war?

It's like the Napoleonic Wars, things will quiet down for a bit and then Something Big Happens_TM.

Well, hey that financial machinations is something good to find?

Problem is that Mueller was fishing for a marlin but ended up catching some plain old flounder, you can find that stuff going on in both parties.

Breaking news: popcorn prices spike 1000%

Good thing I stocked up!

Yeah but its still kinda a good thing to point out.

[Shofercia]

It's rather crucial. If during his 1996 reelection bid, Bill Clinton invited Boris Yeltsin to come to the White House and extol his virtues - is that election interference? If in 2003 Bush asked Putin to not veto the Iraq Invasion, after telling Putin that the war will help Bush win in 2004 - is that election interference? If Putin captured American instructors in Georgia in August of 2008, and paraded them in Moscow in November of 2008, is that election interference? Every time RT points out how Neoliberals/Neoconservatives waste American Taxpayer Dollars on missions abroad, is that election interference? It's hard NOT to interfere in elections.

Either clarify the rules to make these things not count as interference or, yes, they should be investigated. It's really this simple.

You can investigate it, and should investigate it, but you shouldn't treat it like it's a rare occurrence. In California the speed limit is 65 mph, but people drive 75 mph, as it's culturally acceptable. If you suddenly decide to ticket every single person going 75 mph, and utilize a military helicopter to hand out the tickets, you'll be looked at as an idiot. What Russia did has been done every election cycle, by any major power. So the real question to ask is whether or not it had any effect. Most likely - it didn't.

This claim here was focusing on Russian hackers allegedly airing Clinton's dirty laundry to other hackers, who aired it to Wikileaks, who leaked it. There's no proof that actually happened, but even if it did, it's just a cog in a chain of events. The dirty laundry had to exist, it had to be hackable, others had to be interested in it, and Wikileaks had to publish it. None of those factors were under Russia's control.

Not important.

If you try to eavesdrop on a top secret meeting and only hear the introductions and small talk before you're caught, you committed the exact same crime as if you heard the top secret stuff. If you also managed to share the top secret stuff then you committed an additional crime too.

So if Putin and Medvedev decide to have a secret meeting in a public restaurant where anyone can enter and eavesdrop, you're saying that the foreign spies shouldn't do that, because they'd be committing a crime?

It depends. Are you in my house with a firearm? If you are, and the firearm is real, and I shoot you, and you die, I hope I don't go to jail. That'd be fucked up.

Obviously not part of the example.

Again, the odds of people murdering each other - rare. The odds of countries spying on each other - quite common. Your comparison is bad, and you should feel bad.

The type of shooting your describing is a murder. Most people don't go around committing murders. Most powerful countries do attempt to exert some kind of electoral influence. Bad analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.

What I have described is not murder... not in a moral sense. Just as you go to the first part, "That'd be fucked up" what I'm telling you is that murder should be about (a) killing people and (b) actually being the cause of the killing. We shouldn't arrest, charge and try people for murder for locking people on balconies and being inside as they drunkenly fall to their death. That's a real example. The person was acquitted.

You are missing the point both times. The analogy is about the causal consequences, not the frequency. If, do you know what it means? Here it means, "This situation is happening, regardless of how common it is".

The failure to have caused the harm people are complaining about doesn't excuse the behaviour. Nor does the frequency of the behaviour.

You're using a rare occurrence to justify faux outrage over a common event. People generally don't shoot other people, unless we're talking about Chicago. If I am in a boxing ring with someone else, and I lose my balance and accidentally knee that person in the crotch, am I responsible for all of the medical bills, even though he didn't keep proper distance and didn't wear a cup? I'm not excusing the behavior - I'm pointing out that the behavior is equivalent to a house fire, whereas you're trying to present it as a forest fire.

Are you aware of this thing called voter turnout? If there wasn't widespread rural anger, there wouldn't be high rural voter turnout, no matter what Comey did.

So what?

There was going to be high voter turnout with or without Comey. That's my point.

You attempted to blame Clinton's loss on Comey. Now you're backpedaling.

There's a difference between a forest fire and a house fire. Most NSGers know that campaign financial laws are fucked up. That's why most of us support campaign finance reform. We know that there was a house fire. However, the issue is that the Democrats pitched the house fire as a forest fire. And that turned out not to be the case.

No, it's not.

The issue is whether or not there was smoke. There was.

That it turned out to be a house fire instead of a forest fire is a good thing. Speculating before this was ascertained that it was a forest fire? Totally fine. Suggesting that it was sawdust and not smoke at all? Irrational, stupid and not okay. Speculating that it was just bad cooking (think: false positive), fine too... so long as not linked to the argument "therefore, do nothing". Speculating that it was just a house fire all along? Completely fine. Added bonus, get to gloat about being right afterwards. Linking it to the argument of "therefore, do nothing"? Again, not okay.

Have you heard of chicken little? What about the boy who cried wolf? If there's smoke, you can say that there's smoke, and that you should investigate. You can even say that there might be forest fire. But screaming that you're 100% certain that there's forest fire, when all you're seeing is smoke, makes you look dumb if there's no actual forest fire. If the DNC said "we really hope it's not true, and we think it's not, but the President-Elect might have colluded with a foreign power, so we just want to launch the investigation to ensure that's not the case" - fine. But that's not what happened. Some were screaming "TRUMP IZ RUSHAN SPY!" at the top of their lungs. I think they were the same ones who fell for the Jussie Smollet hoax. Awkward. For them. Funny for the rest of us.

[Shofercia]

Difference was - OJ did it. He had the means, motive, and opportunity. Russia did not have the means to rig America's election, (that's like accusing a Calculus students of copying off of someone who just learned PEMDAS,) and because Russia lacked the means, Trump lacked the opportunity to collude. But hey, if the Democrats want to argue that during Obama's tenure American Democracy was weakened to the point of a Populist Democracy being able to rig America's Elections - go for it. Russia either had the means, or didn't.

There you go again... making the burden "rig the outcome"... that's not the burden.

Correctly identify the problem and you'll correctly identify the case. You're identifying the wrong problem and using it to criticise the case. That's not how it works. You can criticise the case with the right problem (e.g. maybe it's not important enough to investigate evidence of interference... although if you did make this specific argument you'd probably be asked why you don't value democracy). That's all I want you or anyone else to do. Horses for courses. Not hippos.

You have two choices. You can either figure out that Russia didn't have the means, or you can concede that Obama made America so weak, that Russia now had the means. Russia either had the means, or didn't have the means. It's just that simple.

People either carry rope and bleach in cold temperature, while having the ability to recognize an actor from a show they don't watch, in the middle of the night, all the while chanting "this is slogan country" - or they don't. It's just that simple.

[Tobleste]

There you go again... making the burden "rig the outcome"... that's not the burden.

Correctly identify the problem and you'll correctly identify the case. You're identifying the wrong problem and using it to criticise the case. That's not how it works. You can criticise the case with the right problem (e.g. maybe it's not important enough to investigate evidence of interference... although if you did make this specific argument you'd probably be asked why you don't value democracy). That's all I want you or anyone else to do. Horses for courses. Not hippos.

You have two choices. You can either figure out that Russia didn't have the means, or you can concede that Obama made America so weak, that Russia now had the means. Russia either had the means, or didn't have the means. It's just that simple.

People either carry rope and bleach in cold temperature, while having the ability to recognize an actor from a show they don't watch, in the middle of the night, all the while chanting "this is slogan country" - or they don't. It's just that simple.

And you can either figure out that Russia does have the means to, at the very least, make a good attempt at influencing the debate in other countries (as it has in many others) and that is different from rigging the election or you can carry on arguing against what noone has said.

[Seangoli]

Yes, and I am sure there are people who believed OJ was going to be found guilty too.

The gloating isn't a problem per se... it's obnoxious but whatever... it's that what Aclion is doing is using an argument which justifies the response by MSNBC etc. a lot more than the one Aclion wants. Over-eagerness isn't a problem per se either... it's just obnoxious.

Aclion's arguments are really similar to those used by people to say the investigation shouldn't have happened. And there's a reason for that... Aclion's making that argument too: "but the fact that russia is meddling in our elections isn't justification for going after trump". The existence of the meddling implies doing something or becoming complicit, not doing nothing. That's what I'm saying. People can gloat as they wish... but not on the basis of this argument.

Difference was - OJ did it. He had the means, motive, and opportunity. Russia did not have the means to rig America's election, (that's like accusing a Calculus students of copying off of someone who just learned PEMDAS,) and because Russia lacked the means, Trump lacked the opportunity to collude. But hey, if the Democrats want to argue that during Obama's tenure American Democracy was weakened to the point of a Populist Democracy being able to rig America's Elections - go for it. Russia either had the means, or didn't.

What Russia did was commit illegal activity to gain information through fraud. Regardless of anything else, thisnis illegal.

The entire reason why Trump was being investigated was because there were obvious and clear attempts to be involved with this illegal activity in some form or fashion. This indicates, at the very least, that there is a possibility that Trump's team might have been complicit in various cyber crimes.

Turns out that it seems that his campaign never actually got so far as to be involved with it, but there was plenty of evidence and indication to throw up warning bells and ultimately warrant an investigation into the matter.

[Yusseria]

Difference was - OJ did it. He had the means, motive, and opportunity. Russia did not have the means to rig America's election, (that's like accusing a Calculus students of copying off of someone who just learned PEMDAS,) and because Russia lacked the means, Trump lacked the opportunity to collude. But hey, if the Democrats want to argue that during Obama's tenure American Democracy was weakened to the point of a Populist Democracy being able to rig America's Elections - go for it. Russia either had the means, or didn't.

What Russia did was commit illegal activity to gain information through fraud. Regardless of anything else, thisnis illegal.

The entire reason why Trump was being investigated was because there were obvious and clear attempts to be involved with this illegal activity in some form or fashion. This indicates, at the very least, that there is a possibility that Trump's team might have been complicit in various cyber crimes.

Turns out that it seems that his campaign never actually got so far as to be involved with it, but there was plenty of evidence and indication to throw up warning bells and ultimately warrant an investigation into the matter.

Then why did Mueller not reccomend any further indictments?

[The Two Jerseys]

Plus who wants to meddle in other countries' affairs when you can instead sit on the beach and drink all day, every day?

And compete half naked in the Winter Olympics...

Tonga knows how to make an entrance.

It's like the Napoleonic Wars, things will quiet down for a bit and then Something Big Happens_TM.

The Napoleonic Wars is a damn good analogy. You don't mind if I borrow it, do you?

Be my guest.

It's like the Napoleonic Wars, things will quiet down for a bit and then Something Big Happens_TM.

Problem is that Mueller was fishing for a marlin but ended up catching some plain old flounder, you can find that stuff going on in both parties.

Good thing I stocked up!

Yeah but its still kinda a good thing to point out.

It is a good thing, but like I said, Democrats are hardly saints either when it comes to run-of-the-mill corruption, so it's far from being damning evidence against Trump.

[Seangoli]

What Russia did was commit illegal activity to gain information through fraud. Regardless of anything else, thisnis illegal.

The entire reason why Trump was being investigated was because there were obvious and clear attempts to be involved with this illegal activity in some form or fashion. This indicates, at the very least, that there is a possibility that Trump's team might have been complicit in various cyber crimes.

Turns out that it seems that his campaign never actually got so far as to be involved with it, but there was plenty of evidence and indication to throw up warning bells and ultimately warrant an investigation into the matter.

Then why did Mueller not reccomend any further indictments?

...

Because, as I said, the Trump campaign appeared to have been trying to commit a crime (or more accurately being involved with a crime), however wasn't, even though people surrounding him tried their damndest to be involved with said crime.

Let me put it like this:

What Trump ended up doing was like going into a store, stuffing something in his pocket, and then walking out the door. A cop sees this all happen in plain view, stops Trumps, empties his pockets only to find out that Trump stuffed a bunch of garbage in his pocket and not any merchandise.

Can you blame the cop for having a reason to suspect that Trump shoplifted, which warranted further investigation?

Yeah, Trump appears to likely not have been involved with illegal activity. At the time, however, there was quite a bit of ecidence to suspect he was, as there active attempts to try to be involved with actual illegal activity. Fortunately for the President, his people were too damn stupid to actually break the law while actively trying to.

The investigation, even though it turned up no indictments involved with potential illegal activity from collusion, was warranted because at the time it was begun there was a lot of signs that it was the case.

Sometimes, investigations don't turn anything up. It happens often. Doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted.

[Yusseria]

Then why did Mueller not reccomend any further indictments?

...

Because, as I said, the Trump campaign appeared to have been trying to commit a crime (or more accurately being involved with a crime), however wasn't, even though people surrounding him tried their damndest to be involved with said crime.

Let me put it like this:

What Trump ended up doing was like going into a store, stuffing something in his pocket, and then walking out the door. A cop sees this all happen in plain view, stops Trumps, empties his pockets only to find out that Trump stuffed a bunch of garbage in his pocket and not any merchandise.

Can you blame the cop for having a reason to suspect that Trump shoplifted, which warranted further investigation?

Yeah, Trump appears to likely not have been involved with illegal activity. At the time, however, there was quite a bit of ecidence to suspect he was, as there active attempts to try to be involved with actual illegal activity. Fortunately for the President, his people were too damn stupid to actually break the law while actively trying to.

The investigation, even though it turned up no indictments involved with potential illegal activity from collusion, was warranted because at the time it was begun there was a lot of signs that it was the case.

Sometimes, investigations don't turn anything up. It happens often. Doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted.

Trying to commit a crime is still a crime.

Like, if you try and kill someone but fail you don't get to go free. You get charged with attempted murder.

So, again, why no further indictments?

[Seangoli]

...

Because, as I said, the Trump campaign appeared to have been trying to commit a crime (or more accurately being involved with a crime), however wasn't, even though people surrounding him tried their damndest to be involved with said crime.

Let me put it like this:

What Trump ended up doing was like going into a store, stuffing something in his pocket, and then walking out the door. A cop sees this all happen in plain view, stops Trumps, empties his pockets only to find out that Trump stuffed a bunch of garbage in his pocket and not any merchandise.

Can you blame the cop for having a reason to suspect that Trump shoplifted, which warranted further investigation?

Yeah, Trump appears to likely not have been involved with illegal activity. At the time, however, there was quite a bit of ecidence to suspect he was, as there active attempts to try to be involved with actual illegal activity. Fortunately for the President, his people were too damn stupid to actually break the law while actively trying to.

The investigation, even though it turned up no indictments involved with potential illegal activity from collusion, was warranted because at the time it was begun there was a lot of signs that it was the case.

Sometimes, investigations don't turn anything up. It happens often. Doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted.

Trying to commit a crime is still a crime.

Like, if you try and kill someone but fail you don't get to go free. You get charged with attempted murder.

So, again, why no further indictments?

Because Attempt doesn't apply to other Inchoate crimes, particularly Conspiracy which would have been the crime that would have been committed had Trump's folks succeeded in what they were trying. You can't charge someone with attempted Conspiracy, even if they intended to.

Meanwhile, there was no Conspiracy as well, as it is apparent that they failed at doing so.

Basically, they fail at committing criminal conspiracy, even though they intended to, and Atrempt does not apply to criminal conspiracy.

In other words, you cannot charge someone with Attempted Criminal Conspiracy at all. It is literally not against the law. It certainly appeared that the Trump campaign was involved with Criminal Conspiracy. Turns out they were only trying to be, which by a matter of law is not a criminal offense.

[Yusseria]

Trying to commit a crime is still a crime.

Like, if you try and kill someone but fail you don't get to go free. You get charged with attempted murder.

So, again, why no further indictments?

Because Attempt doesn't apply to other Inchoate crimes, particularly Conspiracy which would have been the crime that would have been committed had Trump's folks succeeded in what they were trying. You can't charge someone with attempted Conspiracy, even if they intended to.

Meanwhile, there was no Conspiracy as well, as it is apparent that they failed at doing so.

Basically, they fail at committing criminal conspiracy, even though they intended to, and Atrempt does not apply to criminal conspiracy.

Wrong.

Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

[Seangoli]

Because Attempt doesn't apply to other Inchoate crimes, particularly Conspiracy which would have been the crime that would have been committed had Trump's folks succeeded in what they were trying. You can't charge someone with attempted Conspiracy, even if they intended to.

Meanwhile, there was no Conspiracy as well, as it is apparent that they failed at doing so.

Basically, they fail at committing criminal conspiracy, even though they intended to, and Atrempt does not apply to criminal conspiracy.

Wrong.

Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

Why don't you reread that a couple times and get get back to me. It doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

[Yusseria]

Wrong.

Why don't you reread that a couple times and get get back to me. It doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Nah, I'm pretty sure it does.

[Seangoli]

Why don't you reread that a couple times and get get back to me. It doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Nah, I'm pretty sure it does.

Pretty sure it doesn't.

It is stating that both atrempt and conspiring to commit the crime are illegal. It does not say that attempting to conspire is illegal. See that little "or" there? It indicates that the statute is js dealing with two different offenses, not applying one offense to the other.

It is not stating anything on attempting to conspire, which is not illegal as attempt does not apply to inchoate crimes as a matter of legal fact.

[Shofercia]

You have two choices. You can either figure out that Russia didn't have the means, or you can concede that Obama made America so weak, that Russia now had the means. Russia either had the means, or didn't have the means. It's just that simple.

People either carry rope and bleach in cold temperature, while having the ability to recognize an actor from a show they don't watch, in the middle of the night, all the while chanting "this is slogan country" - or they don't. It's just that simple.

And you can either figure out that Russia does have the means to, at the very least, make a good attempt at influencing the debate in other countries (as it has in many others) and that is different from rigging the election or you can carry on arguing against what noone has said.

Influencing the debate or effectively influencing election results? Because if we're talking about merely influencing the debate, then shit, all countries should instantly ban all media that is not Government approved, as such media influences the debate. Dare I quote what "no one" has said:

ADAM SCHIFF: I think there’s plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight

MAXINE WATERS: There’s more to be learned about it. I believe there has been collusion.

JOHN PODESTA: It's starting to smell more and more like collusion

NANCY PELOSI: We saw cold, hard evidence of the Trump campaign, the Trump family eagerly intending to collude possibly with Russia.

MARGARET HOOVER: At what point do you draw the line and not accuse the president of the United States without any evidence of being an agent of Russia?
SWALWELL: Yeah. He’s betrayed our country, and I don’t say that lightly. I worked as a prosecutor for 7 years
HOOVER: But betraying the country — by the way, we want evidence before you say that, but you said an agent of Russia.
SWALWELL: Yeah. He works on their behalf
HOOVER: But as a prosecutor that wouldn’t be evidence in court. You know the difference between hard evidence and circumstantial evidence I’m still not hearing evidence that he’s an agent of Russia.
SWALWELL: I think it’s pretty clear. It’s almost hiding in plain sight.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: McClatchy is reporting right now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has evidence that Trump’s personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen took a secret summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign according to two sources familiar with the matter. Confirmation of the trip would confirm part of the Steele Dossier.

To quote Jon Stewart: "don't they realize we're recording this stuff?"

Difference was - OJ did it. He had the means, motive, and opportunity. Russia did not have the means to rig America's election, (that's like accusing a Calculus students of copying off of someone who just learned PEMDAS,) and because Russia lacked the means, Trump lacked the opportunity to collude. But hey, if the Democrats want to argue that during Obama's tenure American Democracy was weakened to the point of a Populist Democracy being able to rig America's Elections - go for it. Russia either had the means, or didn't.

What Russia did was commit illegal activity to gain information through fraud. Regardless of anything else, thisnis illegal.

The entire reason why Trump was being investigated was because there were obvious and clear attempts to be involved with this illegal activity in some form or fashion. This indicates, at the very least, that there is a possibility that Trump's team might have been complicit in various cyber crimes.

Turns out that it seems that his campaign never actually got so far as to be involved with it, but there was plenty of evidence and indication to throw up warning bells and ultimately warrant an investigation into the matter.

Yes, countries spying on other countries is illegal. Duh! You know what else might've been illegal? Downloading classified files onto an unsecured server. This whole thing is hilarious, it's like Putin and Medvedev having a meeting at an open restaurant, and then whining that someone illegally recorded them, and used the recording against them. Of course spying is illegal.

Also, there were no obvious clear attempts that directly linked to Trump's campaign. There's the now discredited Steele Dossier, (and Steele is a foreign agent,) which was about as credible as Jussie Smollet's tale. I mean the hooker scene - seriously? I, too, yell "this is slogan country" at random strangers while carrying bleach and a rope in really cold temperature - it's the typical thing to do. There was some smoke that might've warranted a look. But here's the thing - the DNC didn't call that smoke. They called it a forest fire. Turns out there was no fire.

[Shofercia]

And compete half naked in the Winter Olympics...

(Image)

Tonga knows how to make an entrance.

He was winning a lot more than just hearts and minds of the female Olympians...

The Napoleonic Wars is a damn good analogy. You don't mind if I borrow it, do you?

Be my guest.

Thank you!

[Shofercia]

Then why did Mueller not reccomend any further indictments?

...

Because, as I said, the Trump campaign appeared to have been trying to commit a crime (or more accurately being involved with a crime), however wasn't, even though people surrounding him tried their damndest to be involved with said crime.

Let me put it like this:

What Trump ended up doing was like going into a store, stuffing something in his pocket, and then walking out the door. A cop sees this all happen in plain view, stops Trumps, empties his pockets only to find out that Trump stuffed a bunch of garbage in his pocket and not any merchandise.

Can you blame the cop for having a reason to suspect that Trump shoplifted, which warranted further investigation?

Yeah, Trump appears to likely not have been involved with illegal activity. At the time, however, there was quite a bit of ecidence to suspect he was, as there active attempts to try to be involved with actual illegal activity. Fortunately for the President, his people were too damn stupid to actually break the law while actively trying to.

The investigation, even though it turned up no indictments involved with potential illegal activity from collusion, was warranted because at the time it was begun there was a lot of signs that it was the case.

Sometimes, investigations don't turn anything up. It happens often. Doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted.

Except in this case the cop didn't just stop Trump; the cop proceeded to call Trump a liar, a traitor, a thief, a tax dodger, a womanizer; in short the cop made a scene. Or in this case the DNC. Can I blame the cop for stopping Trump prior to checking the cameras? Debatable. Can I blame the cop for making an unnecessary scene? You betcha!

[Seangoli]

...

Because, as I said, the Trump campaign appeared to have been trying to commit a crime (or more accurately being involved with a crime), however wasn't, even though people surrounding him tried their damndest to be involved with said crime.

Let me put it like this:

What Trump ended up doing was like going into a store, stuffing something in his pocket, and then walking out the door. A cop sees this all happen in plain view, stops Trumps, empties his pockets only to find out that Trump stuffed a bunch of garbage in his pocket and not any merchandise.

Can you blame the cop for having a reason to suspect that Trump shoplifted, which warranted further investigation?

Yeah, Trump appears to likely not have been involved with illegal activity. At the time, however, there was quite a bit of ecidence to suspect he was, as there active attempts to try to be involved with actual illegal activity. Fortunately for the President, his people were too damn stupid to actually break the law while actively trying to.

The investigation, even though it turned up no indictments involved with potential illegal activity from collusion, was warranted because at the time it was begun there was a lot of signs that it was the case.

Sometimes, investigations don't turn anything up. It happens often. Doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted.

Except in this case the cop didn't just stop Trump; the cop proceeded to call Trump a liar, a traitor, a thief, a tax dodger, a womanizer; in short the cop made a scene. Or in this case the DNC. Can I blame the cop for stopping Trump prior to checking the cameras? Debatable. Can I blame the cop for making an unnecessary scene? You betcha!

Hey now, I never said that people weren't being idiots about the investigation. They certainly were, and just about as big of ones as those who cried about it going on at all.

[Shofercia]

Except in this case the cop didn't just stop Trump; the cop proceeded to call Trump a liar, a traitor, a thief, a tax dodger, a womanizer; in short the cop made a scene. Or in this case the DNC. Can I blame the cop for stopping Trump prior to checking the cameras? Debatable. Can I blame the cop for making an unnecessary scene? You betcha!

Hey now, I never said that people weren't being idiots about the investigation. They certainly were, and just about as big of ones as those who cried about it going on at all.

The best alternative would've been to launch two investigations - one into meddling, another into the Steele Dossier, and to handle it calmly. As soon as that didn't happen, Republicans, cried foul about Trump's side being singled out. Democrats took that as proof that Trump is guilty, and intensified the investigation. The media aided the screeching. And now we're here.

We can stop this madness, and focus on critical issues, such as the failing infrastructure in rural America, (Obama's Reconstruction favored urban counties, and Trump's favors the wall,) adopt a compromise on the wall, https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/release ... R-2019.pdf force the corporations, (rather than wealthy Americans,) to pay their fair share, conduct campaign finance reform, etc.

Or we can continue to fight, squabble, engage in Court Packing schemes, pretend that Trump isn't president, randomly bomb countries to relieve pressure, and so on...

I prefer the wall:

The proposed FEWIEP has the potential to become a legacy for the US and Mexico and have a significant, long-lasting impact on energy, water, industry and education. It also has the potential to make the desert bloom—an almost 2,000 miles long oasis that would become host to enormous agricultural production, relieving foreseen food shortages, creating wealth for Mexico/US and reducing CO2 from the atmosphere. Leaders on both sides will receive accolades across the world for their contributions to the environment and economic growth of the region.

George and Wosnik (2019) estimated that a solar park of only five solar panels of 1-meter width (5.0 m/16 ft) along the entire border (3,200 km or 1,989 miles) can produce approximately 15.8 GWh/day.1 This energy production is on the same order of magnitude as the hydropower production along the US/Canada border, and approximately the same as that from a nuclear power plant.

[The Black Forrest]

You have an advance copy of the report?

Do you? You seem quite convinced earlier that there was collusion.

Present evidence.

*shrugs* I said I would have to read the report. As I said if the trump party is smart; they will release it as is though I suspect it will have many many sections blacked out. That is if we see the report at all.