Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 154
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Also Obama directly attempted to coordinate with the Russians ob his hot mic. Saying lay off so I can have more flexibility to lighten sanctions after elections. ... But I don't recall any counter intelligence investigation or similar criminal investigation.
    That's not what happened at all and the NATO missile system was launched.

    ---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Rather, the FBI, devoid of any knowledge that a specific crime occurred, is investigating Trump officials in the hope of finding that a crime had been committed. Kind of backwards. No?
    No. They had warrants enough to investigate.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    @ cowboy the point is coordinating Russian actions to influence elections.
    To serve man.

  3. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thumbs down Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That's not what happened at all and the NATO missile system was launched.

    ---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------



    No. They had warrants enough to investigate.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  4. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
    But, if Ford provided you with the article, you'd probably agree that you and Ford, where in some way, colluding. No? At the very least, if your information on the truck came exclusively from Ford, you'd acknowledge that your article probably isn't objective and be open to whatever spin Ford was trying to publish.
    It depends. If someone else wrote it, then that would be plagerism and Ford would really be the one producing the article. But lets say I base my article on the specs that Ford provides for its vehicles. That is perfectly normal, and is not a case of Ford paying for my article. Everyone gets car specs from the car manufacturer. If you want dirt on the russian govenrment you talk to spies and diplomats connected to the russian government. But they are not coordinating the activity and they are not paying for it.

    Objectivity is not required by law either. You can be as biased as the day is long, it doesn't matter in this case. All that matters is who is paying the bill. If Americans pay, its legal, if other countries pay or do it for free as a favor it is illegal.

    Well, yes, but no one serious believes we could actually prosecute any of the Russians involved. It isn't like they are going to extradite suspects, right? That's why this investigation was a counter-intelligence operation, not a criminal investigation.
    There are indictments against russian companies and individuals participating in these activities. So yes, they will actually be prosecuted. They probably won't be extradited. That doesn't stop crimes from being prosecuted.

    In truth, it is probably a misapplication of a special investigator who was told to go investigate crimes without having any real evidence that a crime existed.
    No, there is quite a bit of evidence that crimes were commited. And there was quite a lot of evidence that Trump campaign officials had contact with russian spies and diplomates before and during the election. That is enough evidence to create an investigation. Whether they will be able to prove collusion or not remains to be seen, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest at least some members of the Trump campaign may have been aware of the Russian opperations and were cooperating in those efforts knowingly.

    That's not how criminal investigations are supposed to work in the U.S. For example, would you find it appropriate if the police demanded to enter your house and search for evidence that you did something illegal even if they have no idea that a crime was committed?
    What if there was lots of evidence a crime may have been commited, like I was seen in the company of drug dealers many times, talked to them on the phone, and had strangers visiting my house at unusual hours. They don't know I commited a crime, but they could probably get a judge to issue a search warrant.

    Members of the Trump campaign, Manaford specifically, were talking directly with Russian secret service agents leading up to the election. And he was in contact with them after the election. We don't know what he said to them, but we know he was talking to them. And he was in the Trump campaign, and the russian secret service was opperating ops to influence the election. He was also 17 million in debt to russians linked to the government. That is not a hard puzzle to look at and suspect there may be a problem happening. It isn't proof, but it is evidence, strong evidence in fact.

    The indictmens, warrants, and authorization for investigations all require a legal process where multiple people and groups must hear the contentions and decide if it warrants action of some kind. People may have biased judgement for one reason or another, but we are not talking about a Boyscrout troop we are investigating. These are people with long histories of shady political and business dealings, often closely tied to the russian government or to individuals in russia with strong ties to the russian government who are all also involved wiht the Trump campaign which the Russians are activilely running espianage opps to influence. Its really ****ing suspicious. And the more they have dug into it, the more lies they dig out, and the more shady connections they find.

    ---------- Post added at 07:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ sig. The dossier is a report about what the Russians said they have on Trump. They got the information from a foreign intelligence agent(ex) because he had access to Russian assets.
    It's not like the information came from a random blog. It is Russian info from Russia agents.
    That it does or does not actually exist is not the point as you said it is who is paying and it is clear that the Russians paid for that information to be created and available even if false.
    Dude. Steele is not a Russian agent. He talked to Russians, but he is not a Russian. Nor does he work for Russians. Nor did the Russians pay a dime for his report. It was paid for by Americans who hired a brit to do the investigations.

    I could start a campaign, and I could pay money to a Russian company to make campaign adds for me. That would be 100% legal. So long as I am paying, then its A-OK. The moment they do work for free, or they pay me back in some way, its illegal. Same goes for Brits. I can pay them, but they can't do it for free or pay themselves.

    So I don't see that a destination exists.
    Because you don't want to. Dang it MT it's super simple. Clear your mind and read the following.

    If foreigners pay, it is illegal. If Americans pay, it is legal.

    In response to you not thinking I have looked into the FBI investigation. I admit that I don't understand everything hence my questions. However your distinctions as offered are not consistent or valid as far as I can tell.
    Read up on it my man. Grab some articles and dive deep. Pick some sources you trust not to take a conservitive or liberal bent on things and dig into the facts and the law surrounding the investigation.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Sig you misunderstand

    I know steel was not Russian. But he spoke to Russians and Russian operatives nd gathered Russian intelligence material that the Russians payed for and that the Russians gave to him.

    The point is the Russians payed for things that were in the report.

    Your trying to build some kind of wall between who is paying for what. It just isn't any different then what Trump is being accused of.
    It's like saying but Trump payee the guy to talk to wiki leaks. The problem is that Russia payed to steal info. It wouldn't make it any better for Trump if it was an ex British intelligence officer to speak to wiki leaks for an " investigation report".

    Where you stop considering payment is arbitrary.and is not equally applied to both trump and the dossier.

    As to diving deep. It looks pretty shallow man and it smells fishy. And given the spectacular lack of results in the way of evidence for such a crime as you describe... Is enough to warrant dis interest.

    Bottom line.
    Russia payed to steal Dem emails.
    Russia payed to spy on Trump.
    Dems tried to get the spy material and Trump tried to get the emails.
    They are either both crimes due to Russia paying money or they are not crimes because it is o.k. to get opposition research.
    The distinction you are making is that Russia payed for the email theft, but the money the Russians payed for the Trump spying doesn't count.
    To serve man.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ cowboy the point is coordinating Russian actions to influence elections.
    Are you saying the Russians helped Obama, you'll have to support that {challenge thingy}. And even if they did Obama went ahead with the missile defense system anyway. So it'd look like he played them but good.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    @ cowboy. I am actually interested in sigs take on what I am about to say to you. See sigs point is that if Russia payed anything is the inportant point. So, for sake of argunent, Obama could have coordinated with Russia just as he was asking, but unless Russia spent actual money.. then it isn't a problem. So I am not sure you are asking the relevant questions.
    Like we know that Obama didn't go ahead with the same missile deal after his hot Mike. .. but did Russia spend money?

    So sig does it matter if Russia acted at Obama's direction to influence an election, if Russia didn't spend money?
    I am guessing it doesn't?
    To serve man.

  8. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Dems tried to get the spy material
    When did this happen?

    Also, you'll have to support that the Russians helped Obama in the election as I previously challenged.

    ---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    When did this happen?

    Also, you'll have to support that the Russians helped Obama in the election as I previously challenged.
    Also, was anything the Russians did in developing Trump as an asset (i.e., recording the pee tape) illegal?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It depends. If someone else wrote it, then that would be plagerism and Ford would really be the one producing the article. But lets say I base my article on the specs that Ford provides for its vehicles. That is perfectly normal, and is not a case of Ford paying for my article. Everyone gets car specs from the car manufacturer. If you want dirt on the russian govenrment you talk to spies and diplomats connected to the russian government. But they are not coordinating the activity and they are not paying for it.

    Objectivity is not required by law either. You can be as biased as the day is long, it doesn't matter in this case. All that matters is who is paying the bill. If Americans pay, its legal, if other countries pay or do it for free as a favor it is illegal.



    There are indictments against russian companies and individuals participating in these activities. So yes, they will actually be prosecuted. They probably won't be extradited. That doesn't stop crimes from being prosecuted.



    No, there is quite a bit of evidence that crimes were commited. And there was quite a lot of evidence that Trump campaign officials had contact with russian spies and diplomates before and during the election. That is enough evidence to create an investigation. Whether they will be able to prove collusion or not remains to be seen, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest at least some members of the Trump campaign may have been aware of the Russian opperations and were cooperating in those efforts knowingly.



    What if there was lots of evidence a crime may have been commited, like I was seen in the company of drug dealers many times, talked to them on the phone, and had strangers visiting my house at unusual hours. They don't know I commited a crime, but they could probably get a judge to issue a search warrant.

    Members of the Trump campaign, Manaford specifically, were talking directly with Russian secret service agents leading up to the election. And he was in contact with them after the election. We don't know what he said to them, but we know he was talking to them. And he was in the Trump campaign, and the russian secret service was opperating ops to influence the election. He was also 17 million in debt to russians linked to the government. That is not a hard puzzle to look at and suspect there may be a problem happening. It isn't proof, but it is evidence, strong evidence in fact.

    The indictmens, warrants, and authorization for investigations all require a legal process where multiple people and groups must hear the contentions and decide if it warrants action of some kind. People may have biased judgement for one reason or another, but we are not talking about a Boyscrout troop we are investigating. These are people with long histories of shady political and business dealings, often closely tied to the russian government or to individuals in russia with strong ties to the russian government who are all also involved wiht the Trump campaign which the Russians are activilely running espianage opps to influence. Its really ****ing suspicious. And the more they have dug into it, the more lies they dig out, and the more shady connections they find.

    ---------- Post added at 07:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------
    I think you are taking the analogy too far. We know Steele was hired by Glenn Simpson's group which was hired by some Clinton associate. Ok fine. However, we also knew Steele used Russian contacts to acquire the information and we know some of these contacts have associations with the Russian government.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017...stopher-steele
    How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with Simpson: Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Source B was “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” And both of these insiders, after “speaking to a trusted compatriot,” would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.

    Again, to be clear, I am NOT arguing that Clinton was engaged in an illegal form of collusion. The key to illegal collusion, as opposed to just collusion which is quite legal, is whether there was collusion to do something actually illegal. So, Clinton, Simpson, Steele, et al, were using Steele's contacts to dig up dirt on Trump. Sleezy. Immoral. Not illegal. And the idea that money changing hands is in any way essential is simply incorrect. It would not have mattered who paid whom. Now, here is where you COULD make an argument for illegal collusion. This is just a hypothetical and I am not proposing this happened. If the Clinton campaigned arranged for the Russians to slander Trump in an attempt to defame his character, and they used Simpson and Steele as intermediaries to transfer the supposed information, then you could make a case that illegal collusion occurred since defamation is illegal. Again, I just want to be crystal clear here, I am not insinuating any such thing occurred.

    Now, to provide a comparison between Clinton's actions and the Trump campaign's actions, it was really quite similar except Clinton's campaign was clearly more experienced and organized. They clearly understood how this whole system worked. I mean both campaigns were essentially doing the same thing. Trump was looking to get dirt on Hillary and Hillary was looking to get dirt on Trump. Both were, in all likelihood, being used by the Russians to foment unrest and instability in the election. I think the Clinton campaign was probably more aware of this based on the trouble they went to in covering their tracks. However, both sides made a calculated gamble that being used by the Russians was a trade-off in order to hurt their political opponent. And before you tell me that Trump worked with the Russians, as of right now there is absolutely zero evidence that the Trump campaign and the Russians colluded to do something illegal. Yes, the Russians illegally acquired DNC emails and leaked them via Wikileaks, but there is zero evidence that the Trump campaign had any influence on the Russians, let alone that they colluded with the Russians to help them. And based on Mueller's indictments so far, it looks unlikely Trump's campaign will be accused of collusion with the Russians. Consider the recent indictment of Stone. From the transcripts of his emails, it was clear he had zero idea what Wikileaks had and had zero idea when Wikileaks was planning on releasing the stolen emails. Think about that. If Trump's campaign colluded with Russia, which means they worked with the Russians to do something illegal, and yet had no idea what the Russians had done... well, doesn't exactly sound like collusion. You have noted that the digging has led to lies. True. However, to date, not one lie has actually uncovered the supposed collusion that Mueller is ostensibly investigating. We know guys like Manafort and Stone are shady as hell. Are we now going after everyone in politics who is shady? Good luck with that. We don't have enough prisons.

    The Mueller investigation is still open, so there is the possibility he'll drop a bombshell and indict someone in Trump's campaign for actually colluding with the Russians in an illegal manner. Thus far there is nothing.

    This brings us back to the beginning. Why did an investigation get started anyhow? In your example, you offered that if neighbors saw people coming and going from your house at all hours and witnessed a drug deal, it would be a cause for suspicion and could be followed by an investigation. Again, in this case, the police would be investigating you for selling drugs. They wouldn't be investigating you for tax fraud or adultery, right? Most important, there would be a crime associated with the investigation. There would be some cause for this investigation. They wouldn't just show up and start investigating for whatever they could find. In the Mueller investigation, what was the cause? From what we know, the Steele Dossier played a significant role in starting this investigation and without it, the FBI probably couldn't have justified wire tapping Trump campaign officials. Even with the Steele Dossier, it is unclear what crime they were investigating. Even up to the point of Mueller's appointment of special counsel, it is unclear what crime(s) he is investigating. Why is he indicting Manafort for lying to FBI investigators in a case that had long since been closed? He got Flynn for lying to the FBI when Flynn tried to cover activity which wasn't even illegal. Had he had access to his lawyer at the time (remember Comey's end run around the Trump admin), would he have made such a mistake?

    Here is where I think the FBI and Justice Dept have lost some legitimacy in all this. Had they gone after Clinton and Obama officials with the same fervor that we have seen them go after Trump and his associates, then most people would shrug and figure that is how those departments operate. In fact, most Americans would probably be happy to know the political elite are being held accountable for their actions. However, when we see these departments behave in such overt political manners, then it throws the whole system into question. Look, I want to know the truth. If Trump's campaign illegally colluded with the Russians, I want to know and I want everyone responsible in jail. However, if we are just throwing investigations out there without a clear crime being committed, is that the system we want? Ask yourself, do we know that Russia colluded to interfere with our election? We know they stole some emails. We know they tried to influence Americans via social media. Is there any evidence or reason to believe that any American campaign was colluding with Russia for these ends? Based on what we know, the FBI invented evidence based on a source they knew was unreliable and, itself, politically motivated (the dossier). I want to know the truth, but I also do not want our federal law enforcement agencies inventing evidence to go hunting for crimes for political purposes.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  11. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I know steel was not Russian. But he spoke to Russians and Russian operatives nd gathered Russian intelligence material that the Russians payed for and that the Russians gave to him.
    That doesn't matter in the slightest. He's investigating, and likely paying people for information. If a criminal tips off a cop, the criminal is not paying for the criminal investigation. If Ford provides stats on a truck, they aren't paying for the article I'm writing. No russian was sitting around saying, AHA, I'm supporting the Hillary campaign for president by talking to this dude.

    The core of the law is that foreing governments can not actively participate in our elections by spending money or helping campaigns with money or services. They have to be actively doing this. Then if Americans help them or coordinate with that effort, then they are also culpable under the law.

    The point is the Russians payed for things that were in the report.
    They didn't. The didn't pay for one word in the report. They created information that Steel discovered and wrote down. That is not the same as paying for the report. If the Washington times prints an article, and I quote it in a campaign add, the Washington Times is not a campaign contributor. I have fair use of the quote, for free, just like anyone else on the planet.

    Your trying to build some kind of wall between who is paying for what. It just isn't any different then what Trump is being accused of.
    Its not a wall, its how the law works MT.

    It's like saying but Trump payee the guy to talk to wiki leaks. The problem is that Russia payed to steal info. It wouldn't make it any better for Trump if it was an ex British intelligence officer to speak to wiki leaks for an " investigation report".
    Again, you don't understand the allegations.
    It is not saying that trump paid for Wikileaks or Russian Hackers. We suspect Russian Hackers did this, and provided that info to Wikileaks. Trump and his gang are only culpable if it can be shown that they coordinated with the Russian agents about that information knowing full well it was provided by Russia and to be used intentionally as a campaign tactic. At that point, they would be compplicit in a crime (the hacking, and a foreign power working to influence an election). Right now, the most we know is that Trump's associates were talking to Wikileaks about the information they had. That is not a crime, you have to show they talked to the Russians about this information, knew it was stolen, and coordinated with them on its release. We don't have hard evidence of that, only the fact they lied that they were talking to wikileaks about this data.

    Where you stop considering payment is arbitrary.and is not equally applied to both trump and the dossier.
    Payment is not arbitrary, it is the basis of the legal statute in question.

    Bottom line.
    Russia paid to steal Dem emails. -Likely correct
    Russia payed to spy on Trump. -Probably but we don't have strong evidence of this
    Dems tried to get the spy material and Trump tried to get the emails. -Incorrect
    They are either both crimes due to Russia paying money or they are not crimes because it is o.k. to get opposition research. -Incorrect
    The distinction you are making is that Russia payed for the email theft, but the money the Russians payed for the Trump spying doesn't count. -Incorrect

    The statute is about foreign nationals intentionally manipulating a US election
    A key point is they have to pay for this interference or actively be working on it with this intent
    For an American to be indicted under this law, they must be knowingly and actively participating in this effort to change the outcome of the campaign with the full knowledge they are working with foreigners

    So for the Steel dossier you need to prove.
    1. This was an intentionall effort by Russians to impact the US election
    2. That they paid for this effort and/or directed it
    3. That Hillary's campaign was aware of this effort and complicit in it

    For the email hack
    1. This was an intentionall effort by Russians to impact the US election
    2. That they paid for this effort and/or directed it
    3. That Trump's campaign was aware of this effort and complicit in it

    For Social Media Advertising
    1. This was an intentionall effort by Russians to impact the US election
    2. That they paid for this effort and/or directed it
    3. That Trump's campaign was aware of this effort and complicit in it

    ---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think you are taking the analogy too far. We know Steele was hired by Glenn Simpson's group which was hired by some Clinton associate. Ok fine. However, we also knew Steele used Russian contacts to acquire the information and we know some of these contacts have associations with the Russian government.
    And that is 100% legal.

    We know what Hillary did, she hired a private investigator to learn dirt on Trump. We know this is legal. It doesn't matter who Steele talked to to get that information.

    We don't know yet what contacts or arrangements Trump's campaign made with Russians. They claim none. But we also know many of those claims were lies. We have hard evidence they were talking to russian opperatives and representatives. What they talked about, we don't know with much certainty. That is what Meuler is investigating. With Hillary, its pretty well out in the open what happened. Wtih Trump, they are lyig about what they were doing and covering things up. What they are covering up, we don't exactly know. It might be illegal, it might not be.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  13. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    And that is 100% legal.

    We know what Hillary did, she hired a private investigator to learn dirt on Trump. We know this is legal. It doesn't matter who Steele talked to to get that information.

    We don't know yet what contacts or arrangements Trump's campaign made with Russians. They claim none. But we also know many of those claims were lies. We have hard evidence they were talking to russian opperatives and representatives. What they talked about, we don't know with much certainty. That is what Meuler is investigating. With Hillary, its pretty well out in the open what happened. Wtih Trump, they are lyig about what they were doing and covering things up. What they are covering up, we don't exactly know. It might be illegal, it might not be.
    I never claimed what Hillary did was illegal.

    Let me ask you a very simple question. At least, it should be simple. What crime is Trump suspected of committing, what crime, specifically, is Mueller investigating?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    @SIG, I think there is a major confusion as to what my point is.
    My point is about the information we actually have, and drawing a parallel to the steel dossier.
    I'm not saying that one is legal or illegal, I'm saying that we know the same and whatever spin one puts on one, can be equally put on the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    The statute is about foreign nationals intentionally manipulating a US election
    A key point is they have to pay for this interference or actively be working on it with this intent
    For an American to be indicted under this law, they must be knowingly and actively participating in this effort to change the outcome of the campaign with the full knowledge they are working with foreigners

    So for the Steel dossier you need to prove.
    1. This was an intentionall effort by Russians to impact the US election
    2. That they paid for this effort and/or directed it
    3. That Hillary's campaign was aware of this effort and complicit in it

    For the email hack
    1. This was an intentionall effort by Russians to impact the US election
    2. That they paid for this effort and/or directed it
    3. That Trump's campaign was aware of this effort and complicit in it

    For Social Media Advertising
    1. This was an intentionall effort by Russians to impact the US election
    2. That they paid for this effort and/or directed it
    3. That Trump's campaign was aware of this effort and complicit in it
    So my only point is that the hillary campaign was more complicit in actually delivering information for the russians(knowingly or not) to the us system then trump campaign was for just asking "when is this going to come out".

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    That doesn't matter in the slightest. He's investigating, and likely paying people for information. If a criminal tips off a cop, the criminal is not paying for the criminal investigation. If Ford provides stats on a truck, they aren't paying for the article I'm writing. No russian was sitting around saying, AHA, I'm supporting the Hillary campaign for president by talking to this dude.

    The core of the law is that foreing governments can not actively participate in our elections by spending money or helping campaigns with money or services. They have to be actively doing this. Then if Americans help them or coordinate with that effort, then they are also culpable under the law.
    So spying is not a service? Russia isn't helping by a campaign by providing intelligence?
    Then neither is it helping trump by giving his campaign dem emails. Or just telling him when they are going to be released.
    Also your assertion of "no russian" is an assumption on your part. If you assume the opposite then it turns criminal, and there should be an investigation to find out. So as long as we are going to assume criminality away for one side.. lets just do it for both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    They didn't. The didn't pay for one word in the report. They created information that Steel discovered and wrote down. That is not the same as paying for the report. If the Washington times prints an article, and I quote it in a campaign add, the Washington Times is not a campaign contributor. I have fair use of the quote, for free, just like anyone else on the planet.
    Yea, and Wiki leaks didn't pay to receive any stolen emails and just "discovered" them on their own investigation powers.
    So.. yay. no money spent by Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Its not a wall, its how the law works MT.
    The problem is how the law is applied, specifically in the assumptions on takes.
    Like assuming steel is just investigating and "discovering" info on his own.. but wiki leaks is not doing the same.
    Only thing is.. Hillary paid steel and trump didn't pay Wikileaks. Yet both were injecting Russian intelligence material into the election.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Again, you don't understand the allegations.
    It is not saying that trump paid for Wikileaks or Russian Hackers. We suspect Russian Hackers did this, and provided that info to Wikileaks. Trump and his gang are only culpable if it can be shown that they coordinated with the Russian agents about that information knowing full well it was provided by Russia and to be used intentionally as a campaign tactic. At that point, they would be compplicit in a crime (the hacking, and a foreign power working to influence an election). Right now, the most we know is that Trump's associates were talking to Wikileaks about the information they had. That is not a crime, you have to show they talked to the Russians about this information, knew it was stolen, and coordinated with them on its release. We don't have hard evidence of that, only the fact they lied that they were talking to wikileaks about this data.
    why would I have to show that? I'm not arguing for it being a crime. I am arguing for equal criminality in the actions. so if one is legal, then the other is legal.
    I am arguing that an unbalanced approach was taken in prosecuting those who were known to be in contact with Russia to effect the election.

    I am actually with you, I don't see any criminality in the actions of the dems. But I also don't see any evident criminality on the actions of the rep either.
    So there is a problem with how knowledge of both are portrait in the media (where the not legal meaning of "collusion" is thrown around as mud). This "collusion" clearly occurred on the dems side as well, but is ignored.
    Meanwhile the legal implications are completely ignored by the media. There is literally no one on T.V. making the clear distinctions you have made here. Not because you are wrong, you are absolutely right as far as I can tell.
    It's just that it would then follow that Trump isn't guilty of that definition and that there is no evidence to show that he is.. and that isn't that narrative that is desired.
    To serve man.

  15. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I never claimed what Hillary did was illegal.

    Let me ask you a very simple question. At least, it should be simple. What crime is Trump suspected of committing, what crime, specifically, is Mueller investigating?
    This is the crime
    http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?r...edition=prelim

    This is the statute that makes participating in such a crime a criminal act
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

    So if Donald Trump conspired with or aided the Russians in their election interference he would be in violation of the law.

    But keep in mind that the investigation was into Trump's campaign, not Trump specifically. Though certainly, Trump is a member of Trump's campaign so he'd be part of that scope. Trump is not, however, the one on whom the most suspicion falls. Manaford is the dirtiest of the members of the campaign we've seen so far and who has the most public evidence suggesting he may hae been working with russians involved in the eletion interference.

    ---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @SIG, I think there is a major confusion as to what my point is.
    My point is about the information we actually have, and drawing a parallel to the steel dossier.
    I'm not saying that one is legal or illegal, I'm saying that we know the same and whatever spin one puts on one, can be equally put on the other.
    Dude, look at the title of the thread. What are the Russia Collusion Charges?
    You understand those are legal charges and this is a legal topic right?

    If you are not making a legal argument, you are not really discussing the topic in a meaningful way. If you don't have a meaningful argument on the topic, I'm just going to disregard it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  17. #54
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post

    Dude, look at the title of the thread. What are the Russia Collusion Charges?
    You understand those are legal charges and this is a legal topic right?

    If you are not making a legal argument, you are not really discussing the topic in a meaningful way. If you don't have a meaningful argument on the topic, I'm just going to disregard it.

    I'm going to step in here to say that you are just flat wrong on the above, Sig.

    The title of the thread is "Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?" because none have been filed, against anyone, despite the breathless anticipation and predictions coming from Democrats and their conspirators in the media for the past two years.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. Thanks Sigfried thanked for this post
  19. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    This is the crime
    http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?r...edition=prelim

    This is the statute that makes participating in such a crime a criminal act
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

    So if Donald Trump conspired with or aided the Russians in their election interference he would be in violation of the law.

    But keep in mind that the investigation was into Trump's campaign, not Trump specifically. Though certainly, Trump is a member of Trump's campaign so he'd be part of that scope. Trump is not, however, the one on whom the most suspicion falls. Manaford is the dirtiest of the members of the campaign we've seen so far and who has the most public evidence suggesting he may hae been working with russians involved in the eletion interference.


    Well, that was a nice guess. Not exactly though

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7a47fd3b65af
    The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
    (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
    (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
    (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

    So, again, what is the exact crime being investigated? What evidence did they have to make them suspect that members of the Trump campaign were coordinating with the Russians? And, as we went through earlier, having a link to the Russian government (or even some coordination) isn't exactly a crime unless such links and coordination were in an effort to support a crime. However, such a crime isn't actually stated here, is it? Kinda like, hey Sig, we noticed you had a conversation with a known drug dealer so we are going to investigate you for having links and or coordination with that drug dealer and we'll investigate any thing else about you which we happen to stumble upon and, of course, we will investigate any efforts you made to obstruct us in this investigation. Now, maybe you and the drug dealer have some common friends and were discussing having a weekly poker game. Some money changes hands at the game which is technically illegal, but not something people normally get shafted for. Maybe you lied on a tax form a few years back. And you may have lied about knowing certain people because you have a business and didn't want to scare away customers when the news hit the papers. These are the kinds of political investigation we see in third world countries, not typically the U.S.

    Manafort is a sleazebag. I won't argue that point. However, his crimes were all committed prior to the campaign.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ty/1051951002/
    "The case against Manafort grew from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, although Manafort was convicted of crimes that were not tied to the Trump campaign."

    So, if he's the dirtiest and he was not charged with crimes relating to the election, then, again, I ask, what crime is being investigated? Interrupting the presidency for two years running.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  21. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post

    Dude, look at the title of the thread. What are the Russia Collusion Charges?
    You understand those are legal charges and this is a legal topic right?

    If you are not making a legal argument, you are not really discussing the topic in a meaningful way. If you don't have a meaningful argument on the topic, I'm just going to disregard it.
    I don't have to argue in the positive to question the legal standard and how it is applied.
    Specifically, how is it they are super interested in one instance, but not in an identical in relevant points other instance only involving a different candidate.
    It is on topic. Though you are free to ignore whatever you like.
    To serve man.

  22. #57
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Interrupting the presidency for two years running.
    "The title of the thread is "Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?" because none have been filed, against anyone, despite the breathless anticipation and predictions coming from Democrats and their conspirators in the media for the past two years."


    Republicans complaining about the length of an investigation tastes like sweet nectar.


    Especially considering that this JUST happened after so much republican delay and obfuscation.
    Last edited by CowboyX; February 6th, 2019 at 09:35 PM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  23. #58
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I'm going to step in here to say that you are just flat wrong on the above, Sig.

    The title of the thread is "Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?" because none have been filed, against anyone, despite the breathless anticipation and predictions coming from Democrats and their conspirators in the media for the past two years.
    Doh, thanks for the reality check Evensaul. Sorry.

    The answer of course, is that they haven't made any yet. It is quite possible that an investigation is not successful in proving the charges they started investigating. But we shall see.

    ---------- Post added at 07:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Well, that was a nice guess. Not exactly though
    It's not a guess, it is the basis for the investigation. That is why first you saw indictments for Russian parties who violated the first law above as well as being non-registered foreign agents. They are still digging to see if there is a solid connection with the Trump campaign. That is the basis of the investigation. But, of course, lots of other stuff "arose" in investigating that.

    If you hire an exterminator to look for roaches in your house, and you find a lot of rats, termites, and ants. Well, you are probably going to have a go at them as well. The special investigation has the authority to go after any pests they find while looking for the roaches.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  24. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  25. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    On today's sworn testimony before the House of Representatives by the President's personal attorney.

    The 29 most consequential lines from Michael Cohen's congressional testimony


    Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

    Updated 5:22 PM ET, Wed February 27, 201


    15. "Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not."

    NO COLLUSION!
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  26. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    On today's sworn testimony before the House of Representatives by the President's personal attorney.

    The 29 most consequential lines from Michael Cohen's congressional testimony


    Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

    Updated 5:22 PM ET, Wed February 27, 201


    15. "Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not."

    NO COLLUSION!
    Two errors going on here:

    1. That Cohen didn't have any direct evidence doesn't mean that there isn't any, nor that he may suspect but can't prove collusion.
    2. The "no collusion" is masking the other scenario where is what Communists like to call "useful idiots", which is a more likely scenario, the more about how smart Trump isn't.

    Also, if there's nothing to hide then why did all his cronies lie about it all?

  27. Likes CowboyX liked this post
 

 
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Collusion!
    By CowboyX in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: July 31st, 2019, 06:53 AM
  2. Man defends home, possibly facing charges?
    By Someguy in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 6th, 2014, 11:39 AM
  3. Vicar admits child porn charges
    By pikatore in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: September 4th, 2008, 05:32 AM
  4. Charges in Haditha case are dropped!
    By Ivan in forum Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 28th, 2007, 03:50 PM
  5. Replies: 34
    Last Post: October 19th, 2005, 08:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •