From the premise that "collusion" is not a legal term and is not something examined by Mueller. And, that "conspiracy" is a crime and is what Mueller investigated. It sounds like "conspiracy" was not established because Trump & company did not coordinate efforts with the Russians and vice-versa. However, collusion is all over the place. Trump was willingly taking the assistance from the Russians and lying about it. There was shared information and shared goals. At the same time, Trump was lying about his business dealings with Russia. It's about as unpatriotic a thing as we've seen since Benedict Arnold.

I was against impeachment before but I support it now for Obstruction of Justice. I still think impeachment is a political loser for Democrats but as a matter of respecting the Constitution, the Congress must move to impeach this President. And the Attorney General.

Chris Wallace on Fox (source: Mediaite):

"I would have to say, reading this report, that there's a lot of stuff in here that is damaging to the president, politically embarrassing to the president," Wallace said, adding that Trump "blows very hot at points in the investigation and directs various to interfere and try to stop the Mueller investigation, but it never actually happens."

But Wallace went on to say that he doesn't think Democrats will impeach because "You had Nancy Pelosi say repeatedly this cannot be a purely partisan investigation, there has to be Republican buy-in."

"I don't see the kind of damaging new smoking-gun information to get a lot of Republicans to jump ship and say, you know, this is so far over the line, we'll support an impeachment against the president," Wallace said.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Chris Wallace on Fox (source: Mediaite):

"I don't see the kind of damaging new smoking-gun information to get a lot of Republicans to jump ship and say, you know, this is so far over the line, we'll support an impeachment against the president," Wallace said.

---

I agree with that. It seems that's long been the case.
It's just that his behavior is so disgusting that he needs to be gone.

Wallace's finding SHOULD NOT bolster republicans into thinking everything is okay. The presidency is currently a disaster, and everyone needs to vote him (and all those who have supported him, cough cough, McConnell, et al) out.

I don't generally watch cable news during the day. (I actually stopped watching cable news after the Mueller Report's original findings last month.)

And so I'm tuned in to Cal alum Nicolle Wallace's show and she has New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt on as a guest at the top of the hour.



And I can't help thinking of this recent article:

More like us both, if we are always back and forth here, which we are.

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T

---

But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.

---

And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?

---

By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.

To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.

By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.

By handing information to Russian agents.

By creating back channel communication with Russians.

Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.

---

You realized this has all been debunked, right?

---

Yeah, no. Are you reading the report? Let's grab one example. Page 28--how is that not collusion with IRA?

---

Where is Trump campaign mentioned on page 28?

---

"multiple members of the Trump campaign"

I often disagree with your posts but thought you were reasonable, if not inflammatory and extreme. You are losing credibility with these recent posts.

---

Promoted tweets, is that the one? And I'm losing credibility. This from the guy with the sealed indictments coming down on Kushner and the super duper secret Mueller reports

---

Okay. We can be done. Your tone and where you are coming from is not about what is best for the country. I don't know what you are trying to win or be right about, but I'm not down with it.

You said no mention of Trump campaign, there was. You said no evidence of colluding with Russians, I pointed to one. There are a lot more and way worse ones. That was just an early clear connection in the report. I haven't read the whole thing yet. You are being dishonest and aggressive.

---

Read and tell me who is dishonest You've been peddling nothing but crackpot conspiracy theories here.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

With regard to Facebook ads and Twitter posts from the Russia-based Internet Research Agency, for example, Mueller could not have been more blunt: "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA's interference operation" (emphasis added). Note that this exoneration includes not only Trump campaign officials but all Americans:


To get a further sense for how definitive the Report's rejection is of the key elements of the alleged conspiracy theory, consider Mueller's discussion of efforts by George Papadopoulos, Joseph Misfud and and "two Russian nationals" whereby they tried "to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian officials" to talk about how the two sides could work together to disseminate information about Hillary Clinton. As Mueller puts it: "No meeting took place."

And on, and on..

Anarchistbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

blungld said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

You should be happy. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the elections. T

---

But there DOES seem to be conspiracy. It's mincing legalities and fudging definitions of collusion and who is Russian. This was illegal and unethical **** from day one.

---

And you know this how? By your prosecutorial expertise? Or your bias?

---

By Trump's team connections to Wiki which is conduit to Russia.

To quid pro actions with sanctions and election interference.

By meetings and lies about those meetings with Russian agents and oligarchs.

By handing information to Russian agents.

By creating back channel communication with Russians.

Trump was put in office by Russian action and team Trump knew and accepted and has paid back.

---

You realized this has all been debunked, right?

---

Yeah, no. Are you reading the report? Let's grab one example. Page 28--how is that not collusion with IRA?

---

Where is Trump campaign mentioned on page 28?

---

"multiple members of the Trump campaign"

I often disagree with your posts but thought you were reasonable, if not inflammatory and extreme. You are losing credibility with these recent posts.

---

Promoted tweets, is that the one? And I'm losing credibility. This from the guy with the sealed indictments coming down on Kushner and the super duper secret Mueller reports

---

Okay. We can be done. Your tone and where you are coming from is not about what is best for the country. I don't know what you are trying to win or be right about, but I'm not down with it.

You said no mention of Trump campaign, there was. You said no evidence of colluding with Russians, I pointed to one. There are a lot more and way worse ones. That was just an early clear connection in the report. I haven't read the whole thing yet. You are being dishonest and aggressive.

---

Read and tell me who is dishonest You've been peddling nothing but crackpot conspiracy theories here.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

With regard to Facebook ads and Twitter posts from the Russia-based Internet Research Agency, for example, Mueller could not have been more blunt: "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA's interference operation" (emphasis added). Note that this exoneration includes not only Trump campaign officials but all Americans:


To get a further sense for how definitive the Report's rejection is of the key elements of the alleged conspiracy theory, consider Mueller's discussion of efforts by George Papadopoulos, Joseph Misfud and and "two Russian nationals" whereby they tried "to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian officials" to talk about how the two sides could work together to disseminate information about Hillary Clinton. As Mueller puts it: "No meeting took place."

And on, and on..

---

That story is by Glenn Greenwald, by the way, one of the staunchest anti-Russigate pro-Trump guys out there and close friend of Wikileaks.

Of course he's going to write this article. He basically tweeted this article out before the Mueller Report was released.

Did you read it? Refute his points which are mostly excerpts from Mueller's report written by Mueller

Who else laughs when they hear that Trump leaned back in his chair, and said,
"oh my god. This is the end of my presidency. I'm f*cked!"

dajo9 said:

---

I was against impeachment before but I support it now for Obstruction of Justice. I still think impeachment is a political loser for Democrats but as a matter of respecting the Constitution, the Congress must move to impeach this President. And the Attorney General.

---

Second this.


But I agree with the other posters that the Russia-collusion-cooperation-conspiracy angle is a dead-end and should be put to rest.

Calcupcakes said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I was against impeachment before but I support it now for Obstruction of Justice. I still think impeachment is a political loser for Democrats but as a matter of respecting the Constitution, the Congress must move to impeach this President. And the Attorney General.

---

Second this.


But I agree with the other posters that the Russia-collusion-cooperation-conspiracy angle is a dead-end and should be put to rest.

---

He never should have won the GOP nomination.
He never should have won the election.
If he were successfully impeached and booted, WONDERFUL.

But the senate is controlled by a GOP bloc which refuses to do anything other than go along with this horrible party leader. Therefore, unless public opinion abandons Trump and allows this bloc to break up and withdraw their support, no impeachment effort is going to be successful, and thus, the democrats should not proceed with an effort that could allow trump an opportunity to say "You are wrong, I win." Because we all need to vote him out in 2020, and the current terrible PR and True News should do the trick.

People are so pathetically ignorant and maleable.

When this is all over, and trump is gone and written down in history as the worst president ever, he will make some arrogant statement,

"oh yeah? Well I DID become President, and because of everything I did as President, NOW I AM a Billionaire. So, my final words to you all is this: *****Off, Suckers!"

And with that, he will sail off into the sunset with his yacht full of Eastern European models.

concordtom said:

---

..And with that, he will sail off into the sunset with his yacht full of Eastern European models.

---

...and when he jumps off the yacht for a swim they can urinate on his jellyfish stings.

Maybe James Bond will be awaiting him underwater and shoot him through the heart with a spear fishing gun.



Instead of our, "Lafayette, nous voila," it will be something like, "Right back at you, Ike."

concordtom said:

---

Calcupcakes said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I was against impeachment before but I support it now for Obstruction of Justice. I still think impeachment is a political loser for Democrats but as a matter of respecting the Constitution, the Congress must move to impeach this President. And the Attorney General.

---

Second this.


But I agree with the other posters that the Russia-collusion-cooperation-conspiracy angle is a dead-end and should be put to rest.

---

He never should have won the GOP nomination.
He never should have won the election.
If he were successfully impeached and booted, WONDERFUL.

But the senate is controlled by a GOP bloc which refuses to do anything other than go along with this horrible party leader. Therefore, unless public opinion abandons Trump and allows this bloc to break up and withdraw their support, no impeachment effort is going to be successful, and thus, the democrats should not proceed with an effort that could allow trump an opportunity to say "You are wrong, I win." Because we all need to vote him out in 2020, and the current terrible PR and True News should do the trick.

People are so pathetically ignorant and maleable.

---

It's as if you have no idea how party politics works at all. Naivete.

Party politics is tribal. The goal is to win. And it's not unique to one party.

Now, the constituents don't have the same incentives to be sycophants. So I'm wondering what your excuse is. I mean you think proximity to an ocean apparently has some correlation on IQ and stupidity. Laughable.

If your political priorities line up with Trump, why would you vote for a Dem because of this. Vice versa, if your political priorities line up with the Dem nominee, why would you vote for a Rep just because he bangs hookers or took bribers 10 years ago?

Anarchistbear said:

---

Read and tell me who is dishonest You've been peddling nothing but crackpot conspiracy theories here.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

With regard to Facebook ads and Twitter posts from the Russia-based Internet Research Agency, for example, Mueller could not have been more blunt: "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA's interference operation" (emphasis added). Note that this exoneration includes not only Trump campaign officials but all Americans:


To get a further sense for how definitive the Report's rejection is of the key elements of the alleged conspiracy theory, consider Mueller's discussion of efforts by George Papadopoulos, Joseph Misfud and and "two Russian nationals" whereby they tried "to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian officials" to talk about how the two sides could work together to disseminate information about Hillary Clinton. As Mueller puts it: "No meeting took place."

And on, and on..

---

Exactly. The Dems have egg all over their faces and are now really making fools of themselves by continuing to preach the collusion and obstruction narrative. Nadler, Schumer, and Pelosi, especially, made completely absurd statements today. Sooner or later they have to realize that this incessant beating of the collusion/conspiracy drums is turning off all but the most fervent Trump haters. The Mueller report, which they were anxiously waiting for during the past 2 years, is now public and conclusively concludes no criminal activity was undertaken by the President. It's fine to dislike Trump, his personality, his demeanor, and even his policies. But they need to start singing a new tune. It's time for them to concede that he is, indeed, President of the United States and start working with him on really important issues, such as immigration reform, healthcare reform, infrastructure repair and enhancement, etc.

Calcupcakes said:

---

But I agree with the other posters that the Russia-collusion-cooperation-conspiracy angle is a dead-end and should be put to rest.

---

I agree. All the Dems are doing by continuing to hammer the collusion/obstruction message is to virtually assure Trump's re-election in 2020. They need to start developing policy proposals for the future that aren't just Bernie-style pie-in-the sky socialist garbage.

Golden One said:

---

The Mueller report, which they were anxiously waiting for during the past 2 years, is now public and conclusively concludes no criminal activity was undertaken by the President.

---

It definitely does not.

Golden One said:

---

The Dems have egg all over their faces and are now really making fools of themselves by continuing to preach the collusion and obstruction narrative.

---

Just to be clear, you think the obstruction is a narrative? As in a made up story? That there were no acts of obstruction and that the report does not list acts of obstruction? And that we should have no issue with any of the president's actions and you endorse those actions entirely? That people who are offended and concerned by Trump's actions and want there to be consequences are instead being foolish with egg on their face?

Is that it, or do you just side with Trump and against Liberals no matter what the facts are or how bad things get?

Golden One said:

---

Calcupcakes said:

---

But I agree with the other posters that the Russia-collusion-cooperation-conspiracy angle is a dead-end and should be put to rest.

---

I agree. All the Dems are doing by continuing to hammer the collusion/obstruction message is to virtually assure Trump's re-election in 2020. They need to start developing policy proposals for the future that aren't just Bernie-style pie-in-the sky socialist garbage.

---

Wait til GoldenOne figures out what calcupcakes thinks of the obstruction issue

oski003 said:

---

Mueller Time is over. Time to pay the Barr tab?

---

LOL at you declaring victory earlier in the day. That's the damn funniest thing I've read all year.

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

The Mueller report, which they were anxiously waiting for during the past 2 years, is now public and conclusively concludes no criminal activity was undertaken by the President.

---

It definitely does not.

---

That sentence could only be written by a person who has not read the report and instead relied only on Trump?Barr?FOX explanation of what it contains. Willful ignorance is ugly and completely antithetical to the number one public university in the world.

blungld said:

---

Golden One said:

---

The Dems have egg all over their faces and are now really making fools of themselves by continuing to preach the collusion and obstruction narrative.

---

Just to be clear, you think the obstruction is a narrative? As in a made up story? That there were no acts of obstruction and that the report does not list acts of obstruction? And that we should have no issue with any of the president's actions and you endorse those actions entirely? That people who are offended and concerned by Trump's actions and want there to be consequences are instead being foolish with egg on their face?

Is that it, or do you just side with Trump and against Liberals no matter what the facts are or how bad things get?

---

I think he means that, given it's been speculation along party lines from the get-go, the moral signaling about it is disingenuous, which is to say the outrage is not in good faith.

That being said, it's perfectly reasonable for Dems -- no, everybody -- to advocate for tangible legal recourse to an obstruction charge should there be a sufficient case for it. Law is the law. If there's evidence it's been broken, respond accordingly.

Some Dems on this board claim that's a losing strategy for Dems. I don't think they score any points taking the higher ground here, and I don't think they risk losing any points by carrying this out (impeachment). It will naturally come off as partisan to Republicans but who cares. That ship has sailed.

Golden One said:

---

Calcupcakes said:

---

But I agree with the other posters that the Russia-collusion-cooperation-conspiracy angle is a dead-end and should be put to rest.

---

I agree. All the Dems are doing by continuing to hammer the collusion/obstruction message is to virtually assure Trump's re-election in 2020. They need to start developing policy proposals for the future that aren't just Bernie-style pie-in-the sky socialist garbage.

---

The reason America is in this mess is that the people in the flyovers got left behind by the New Economy and they are angry and afraid. tRump, being a predator, smelled blood in the water and exploited them for his own gain just like the unfortunates that lost their money at tRump University. They are angry and gleeful that their standard bearer is destroying the country that they feel left them behind and betrayed them.

bearister said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Calcupcakes said:

---

But I agree with the other posters that the Russia-collusion-cooperation-conspiracy angle is a dead-end and should be put to rest.

---

I agree. All the Dems are doing by continuing to hammer the collusion/obstruction message is to virtually assure Trump's re-election in 2020. They need to start developing policy proposals for the future that aren't just Bernie-style pie-in-the sky socialist garbage.

---

The reason America is in this mess is that the people in the flyovers got left behind by the New Economy and they are angry and afraid. tRump, being a predator, smelled blood in the water and exploited them for his own gain just like the unfortunates that lost their money at tRump University. They are angry and gleeful that their standard bearer is destroying the country that they feel left them behind and betrayed them.

---

The demographic you're talking about is voting for any Rep over Shillary, or pretty much any Dem for that matter.

And what "mess" are you talking about? The scandals you mean? Most Americans of all races and ideologies don't give a shiiit about the scandals because it doesn't affect their lives (which is pretty damn smart IMO). They care about jobs, unemployment, economy, taxes, immigration, health care, housing, stock market, 1st and 2nd amendments etc.

Yogi Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Mueller Time is over. Time to pay the Barr tab?

---

LOL at you declaring victory earlier in the day. That's the damn funniest thing I've read all year.

---

Mueller Time is over. Time to pay the Barr tab?

blungld said:

---

Golden One said:

---

The Dems have egg all over their faces and are now really making fools of themselves by continuing to preach the collusion and obstruction narrative.

---

Just to be clear, you think the obstruction is a narrative? As in a made up story? That there were no acts of obstruction and that the report does not list acts of obstruction? And that we should have no issue with any of the president's actions and you endorse those actions entirely? That people who are offended and concerned by Trump's actions and want there to be consequences are instead being foolish with egg on their face?

Is that it, or do you just side with Trump and against Liberals no matter what the facts are or how bad things get?

---

The last sentence.

Please list point by point how tRump is accomplishing those things for "most Americans." The mess I refer to is a game show host and his Crime Family at the helm of the most powerful country in the world.

What nature of crime would have to take place for each party's congress to turn on their own party's President by going ahead with impeachment proceeding?

It would have to virtually be politically unpalatable to NOT proceed because a party will avoid impeachment of its own at all costs -- unless not doing so puts their own seats and reputations in jeopardy

Anarchistbear said:

---

Indulge me. Cut and paste what your example is into this thread. What I saw had nothing to do with any evidence of a conspiracy. And I didn't see it on page 28

---

You're trying to have an argument and you are not being particularly pleasant so I don't know why I am even responding.

There are many articles outlining all the connections better than I can. And I have still not finished reading the report and the PDF is blocked from cut and paste. But here is a pretty good summary article. It states:

"Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was "no collusion" in his press conference before the report's release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of "collusion." This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation.

"Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law," Mueller writes. "For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law."

So when Mueller concludes that he "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," he is not saying that there is no evidence of "collusion" at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton's emails.

But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that's the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes."

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484965/mueller-report-trump-no-collusion


You have seemingly used the word "debunked" in place of not-prosecuted or proven to criminal standard, but there is much discussion about what the appropriate standard is and to what standard Mueller was working. Many many questionable and still being investigated contacts (that were in turn covered up by lies for what reason?) between Trump/associates and Russia are described.

You have called out my sharing rumors I heard that I fully disclaimed and asterisked. I didn't say they were true, I made it clear they were rumors that I wasn't sure if they were accurate. Should I not have shared? And furthermore, they still may be in play. We have another 14 (?) investigations still ongoing with redactions that point to the very things I claimed about a potential sealed indictment of Trump children (I don't think I said Kushner).

Furthermore, the collusion question may still have more to follow that is revealed in other investigations and potential impeachment proceeding. Consider that ongoing cases could yet prove collusion with Russia as defined today by Barr. If an American were the liaison between Stone, Wikileaks, and Russia to steal/hack those emails, then according to Barr collusion occurred and any dissemination/promotion of the stolen emails is illegal.

We can go round and round in cute play with what is collusion and what was "agreed to" and who is an official Russian, but the pattern of action and pattern of cover up and the pattern of beneficiary adds up to Russia wanting Trump in office; taking actions to make that happen with both the active and passive desires and assistance of Trump's team; and then erratic unethical behavior to hide these action from public and investigators; and followed by distinctly pro-Russian policy shifts, departures from pro-Nato policy, and business pursuits for profit of Trump and oligarchs...it's a mess of corruption that has compromised this president and the country and needs to be rectified & punished immediately. There are literally over a hundred acts in the report that would have undone any other presidency by that one act, and yet he persists on the blind loyalty of his supporters, the animus of Liberals, the dereliction of the GOP, and the detached defenses of people like you who are smart enough to know and do better.

To quote agent Starling: "You see a lot don't you AnarchistBear? Why don't you turn that high-powered perception at yourself and tell us what you see, or, maybe you're afraid to."

GBear4Life said:

---

What nature of crime would have to take place for each party's congress to turn on their own party's President by going ahead with impeachment proceeding?

It would have to virtually be politically unpalatable to NOT proceed because a party will avoid impeachment of its own at all costs -- unless not doing so puts their own seats and reputations in jeopardy

---

You mean like when more noble Republicans turned on Nixon because it was the right thing to do and they cared about law and the country? You are just a rambling defense of horrible things.

blungld said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

What nature of crime would have to take place for each party's congress to turn on their own party's President by going ahead with impeachment proceeding?

It would have to virtually be politically unpalatable to NOT proceed because a party will avoid impeachment of its own at all costs -- unless not doing so puts their own seats and reputations in jeopardy

---

You mean like when more noble Republicans turned on Nixon because it was the right thing to do and they cared about law and the country? You are just a rambling defense of horrible things.

---

Do you even read posts you respond to? I wasn't defending or supporting anything. I was taking a poll

Republicans didn't "turn" on Nixon because it was the "right" thing to do.

Quote:

---

During Watergate, most Republicans in Congress supported Mr. Nixon until the tapes provided undeniable evidence that he had obstructed justice. It remains to be seen whether current party leaders will support Mr. Trump no matter what evidence Mr. Mueller's investigation unearths about the conduct of the president and his aides. Such behavior might be unwarranted, but it won't be unprecedented.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/opinion/watergate-republican-party.html