Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

[The Chosen One]

agreed,


I see maybe 2 or 3 (R) defection.
Tim Scott
Ben Sasse

are solid maybes

Losing Nelson seat to Rick Scott really hurt.

Gardner may defect since he's up for re-election in Colorado. But then again, Doug Jones seat in AL is pretty much going to go back to (R). So I think he's going to stay away from impeachment talk unless it really really really really reaaaaaaally becomes obvious. He also may just do it because it's the right thing and he locked up KKK guys. If he knows he's not gonna win re-election in Alabama because it's too much of an uphill climb and Trump is still popular there he may just go out guns a blazing with middle fingers up.

[sturg33]

the Tower project is one element of a quid pro quo

other elements

1) hacking and disseminating stolen emails
2) changes to GOP platform on Ukraine
3) promises of changes to sanctions policy
4) coordination with WikiLeaks to weaponise the stolen emails

there is new information in Cohen's plea agreement about the nature of the financial quid pro quo

and of course there are quite a few leads to be followed, such as the money Peter W Smith raised to pay the "Russian students"

I guess we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes "evidence"

But if you're gonna roll with #2 and #3, surely you'll also add the negative policies imposed on Russia since Trump

Now feel free to call me obtuse again

[nsacpi]

I guess we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes "evidence"

But if you're gonna roll with #2 and #3, surely you'll also add the negative policies imposed on Russia since Trump

Now feel free to call me obtuse again

yes...it is out there that Trump's aides basically tricked him into choosing a more severe set of sanctions and that he was upset about it afterwards

and i am calling you willfully obtuse...which you should take as a compliment...there are other posters who are just plain old obtuse and not really worth my time...but you i have a glimmer of hope for...just a glimmer mind you

[The Chosen One]

For the record, I don't believe McConnell will even call an impeachment vote to the floor if the House even does move forward with it.

[The Chosen One]

yes...it is out there that Trump's aides basically tricked him into choosing a more severe set of sanctions and that he was upset about it afterwards

"Totally unfair!"

[sturg33]

I think it's pretty obvious Dems will try to impeachment in early 2020 to have that overhang before the election

[57Brave]

I guess we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes "evidence"

But if you're gonna roll with #2 and #3, surely you'll also add the negative policies imposed on Russia since Trump

Now feel free to call me obtuse again

I thanked you last week for pointing me to Freakonomics. At that time an interview with one of the Koch Brothers - remember ?

A Pulitzer is being discussed in earnest for Rachel Maddow for her work the past 2 plus years on this Russia business.

Her program from last night connects many , if not all of the dots.

Please take half an hour
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/msn...l-maddow-audio

d

[nsacpi]

I think it's pretty obvious Dems will try to impeachment in early 2020 to have that overhang before the election

impeachment is not the smartest political move...the Benghazi treatment is what I would recommend...just hold an infinite set of public hearings...it is a target rich environment

[Runnin]

and

3) Trump and others in the campaign were briefed by the FBI starting at the lastest in August 2016 about Russian efforts to penetrate their campaign and influence the elections and chose not to share the information they had about those efforts with the FBI.

It's necessary to keep reminding people of this. Trump knew it wasn't "a witch hunt" from this briefing.

[Runnin]

As it stands, from a results perspective, he's done laps around Obama and Bush... But I won't be voting for him in 2020 if you cared to know

I'm curious what you specifically mean by doing "laps around Obama and Bush".

[sturg33]

I'm curious what you specifically mean by doing "laps around Obama and Bush".

I've highlighted the specifics in previous days

[nsacpi]

A couple of days later, according to copies of emails reviewed by The Times, Mr. Sater emailed Mr. Cohen with an urgent request. He said that he had Mr. Shmykov on the phone, and that he needed passport information for Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump so they could receive visas. Mr. Sater explained that the Kremlin could not issue them for diplomatic reasons, and that they would instead come from VTB bank as part of “a business meeting not political.”

The chairman of VTB, one of the largest state-owned banks in Russia, has denied that his bank was involved in the project.

Mr. Sater later testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the tone of his emails reflected overeagerness on his part, and that he did not really have serious ties to the Kremlin. He said his suggestion that the tower deal could help Mr. Trump get elected simply meant that he believed it would generate positive publicity for the campaign.

In their report on Russian interference in the election, committee Republicans accepted assertions by Mr. Cohen and Mr. Sater that the Trump Tower project was a business venture with no political overtones. The report — which makes no mention of Mr. Shmykov or his role — concluded that no “element of the Russian government was actually directly involved in the project.”

Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea on Thursday casts that conclusion in a new light. Among other things, Mr. Cohen now admits that he tried multiple times to reach Mr. Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, who had an aide contact Mr. Cohen to discuss the tower project. Mr. Cohen said he had a 20-minute conversation with the Kremlin aide in January 2016, who “asked detailed questions and took notes, stating that she would follow up with others in Russia.”

In a message to Mr. Cohen the next day, Mr. Sater mentioned Mr. Putin and said he had heard from someone about the project: “They called today.” Later, in May 2016, he told Mr. Cohen that a Russian official had invited the lawyer to an economic forum in St. Petersburg, where it was hoped he could meet Mr. Putin.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/u...gtype=Homepage

[smoltzie29]

TREASON

[The Chosen One]

TREASON

[Julio3000]

The thing you have to keep in mind with sturg is that he’s very invested in this proffered image of rationality and evidence-based opinions...but only to extent that he tells you he is. On the field, so to speak, the results are a little different. He chose to **** the Seth Rich chicken because there was “no evidence” that Russia was behind the email thefts. So advancing an obvious conspiracy theory with zero factual underpinning was enough to outweigh the opinions of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, to say nothing of common sense based on past actions, because of...Iraq, I guess? So when evidence was presented in Federal court sufficient to indict specific individuals from the GRU for the hacks, his response was just to mushmouth a bit and pivot to “well, there’s no evidence of collusion.”

Sturg’s got no real interest in evidence, he’s just dug in on a position that’s become less and less tenable as time passes, and “evidence” is just a canard that takes advantage of the still large swathes of details that are still unknowable to the public. The fact that Trump and company have lied consistently and provably throughout the process—to the public, to investigators, to Congress—is apparently not suggestive enough of wrongdoing to start digging out of that hole. He’s staked out a rather safe position: unless Vladimir Putin is personally running Trump as an intelligence asset, there’s nothing to see. Just like Russia couldn’t have influenced the election unless they actually changed vote totals. I mean, it’s tiresome to me, and it seems like a hard way to go through life, but that’s the path he’s chosen.

[The Chosen One]

Lest some of us have forgotten that the RNC emails were also hacked but never leaked like the DNC/Podesta ones. Nothing to see there.

[nsacpi]

Lest some of us have forgotten that the RNC emails were also hacked but never leaked like the DNC/Podesta ones. Nothing to see there.

it defies belief that in their many late night phone conversations Stone and Trump never discussed what WikiLeaks was doing with the emails

[nsacpi]

The thing you have to keep in mind with sturg is that he’s very invested in this proffered image of rationality and evidence-based opinions...but only to extent that he tells you he is. On the field, so to speak, the results are a little different. He chose to **** the Seth Rich chicken because there was “no evidence” that Russia was behind the email thefts. So advancing an obvious conspiracy theory with zero factual underpinning was enough to outweigh the opinions of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, to say nothing of common sense based on past actions, because of...Iraq, I guess? So when evidence was presented in Federal court sufficient to indict specific individuals from the GRU for the hacks, his response was just to mushmouth a bit and pivot to “well, there’s no evidence of collusion.”

Sturg’s got no real interest in evidence, he’s just dug in on a position that’s become less and less tenable as time passes, and “evidence” is just a canard that takes advantage of the still large swathes of details that are still unknowable to the public. The fact that Trump and company have lied consistently and provably throughout the process—to the public, to investigators, to Congress—is apparently not suggestive enough of wrongdoing to start digging out of that hole. He’s staked out a rather safe position: unless Vladimir Putin is personally running Trump as an intelligence asset, there’s nothing to see. Just like Russia couldn’t have influenced the election unless they actually changed vote totals. I mean, it’s tiresome to me, and it seems like a hard way to go through life, but that’s the path he’s chosen.

disingenuous in a word

[The Chosen One]

it defies belief that in their many late night phone conversations Stone and Trump never discussed what WikiLeaks was doing with the emails

You can't say Trump. Are you by any chance referring to Individual 1?

[nsacpi]

You can't say Trump. Are you by any chance referring to Individual 1?

person 1 and individual 1...I dont know why one is a person and the other an individual...but that's Mueller's lingo