Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

[Hawk]

Wrongdoing, with specificity? Two guilty pleas.

I thought you weren’t prepared to prosecute.

So you feel comfortable going with two instances of (as of now) tangential perjury. Ok.

[Julio3000]

I thought you weren’t prepared to prosecute.

So you feel comfortable going with two instances of (as of now) tangential perjury. Ok.

You asked, I answered. That's what's there now, in an investigation that is ongoing . . . versus the one at issue, which is over. So, please continue to bark up that tree in hopes that the varmint will mysteriously reappear.

[Hawk]

You asked, I answered. That's what's there now, in an investigation that is ongoing . . . versus the one at issue, which is over. So, please continue to bark up that tree in hopes that the varmint will mysteriously reappear.

My entire interest in engaging you on issues related to Trump and Russian collusion has been to taper expectations that the varmint is indeed a rabid opossum and not just a house cat. You've seen red eyes and foam around the mouth from the get go.

[Julio3000]

My stated belief is and has been that there is more than adequate grounds to warrant an investigation If, ultimately, I'm wrong about that, so be it. I'll own it.

How about you?

[Julio3000]

I’m pretty sure that the entire premise of thethe’s argument is that the FBI investigation was corrupt, thereby negating it entirely. No?

Sure, which argument he's done absolutely zero to advance.

[Hawk]

Sure, which argument he's done absolutely zero to advance.

I think he's pointed out instances which could (arguably) serve as adequate grounds to warrant additional investigation, or at the very least an independent investigation of the FBI's general practices.

[Hawk]

My stated belief is and has been that there is more than adequate grounds to warrant an investigation If, ultimately, I'm wrong about that, so be it. I'll own it.

How about you?

As I've said before, we have different interpretations of the scope of adequate grounds. Are there adequate grounds to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election? Yes. Are there adequate grounds to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election as it relates to direct collusion with the Trump campaign (proper)? I don't see as natural of an intersection here as you do. There are 'dots' (to borrow from nscapi) and if they connect ... then, yes, I concur with your "so be it" sentiment. But they better be damn good dots and not peripheral acquaintances.

[Julio3000]

Sure, but I'm not sure how one finds out where those dots may lead if one doesn't scrutinize them.

[bravesnumberone]

Here's the latest on the hoax.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/politi...ng0359PMVODtop

[goldfly]

it makes zero sense that people keep lying and pleading to crimes for it to be about nothing at all

[bravesnumberone]

No comments on this one? What did home boy think was so eerie related to the news of the DNC being hacked? Must have been some kind of discussion about adoptions.

[bravesnumberone]

it makes zero sense that people keep lying and pleading to crimes for it to be about nothing at all

Well thethe told us the other day it was just because they're incompetent.

[Julio3000]

Well thethe told us the other day it was just because they're incompetent.

This is actually the exculpatory theory I find most plausible.

[cajunrevenge]

[57Brave]

[nsacpi]

This is actually the exculpatory theory I find most plausible.

There is something weirdly haphazard about the nature of some of the contacts revealed so far. As I've posted before what seems to have happened is more in the nature of an elaborate dance in which the lead dancer switched back and forth, but over the course of the dance the parties established that they had a mutual interest in working together. It does not appear to have been a business-like deal with a memorandum of understanding or anything of the sort.

Whatever the real nature of the collaboration a full investigation is in the public interest.

And I think the pre-history (before Trump became a candidate) of financial links between him and Russian entities needs to be looked at. The question of whether he developed a financial dependency (as Manafort did) on Russians or Russian entities needs to be investigated. Deutsche's 300M loan in 2010 to a guy with his track record and who just a couple years earlier had experienced difficulty with the same bank just does not pass the smell test. Ditto for some of the more recent loans to Kushner.

[57Brave]

I find the level of haphazard incompetance equal if not more troubling.

That is/was Trump's history.
He did afterall run a gambling casino into the ground

[57Brave]

Knowing that, people still voted for hom and to this day still defend him

[thethe]

Oh cnn

[thethe]

Sure, which argument he's done absolutely zero to advance.

Once you qualified mills/abedins lies I knew nothing I could show would make a difference. This is obviously on party lines and you're not only comfortable with it but happy that partisan leftists are prosecting this fake scandal.