Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

[Julio3000]

I'm not sure what lengths as we have no face or corroboration of the counter narrative.

Maybe wait this one out till it's real real?

"Nader’s account is considered key evidence — but not the only evidence — about what transpired in Seychelles, according to people familiar with the matter."

Sounds like there is some corroboration for the witness's story. It appears that it's Prince who is telling the fairytale.

Your skepticism about the import of it is quite reasonable, but your insistence on courtroom evidentiary standards for this--while you're otherwise pushing infowars stuff--is kinda funny.

 

[nsacpi]

"Nader’s account is considered key evidence — but not the only evidence — about what transpired in Seychelles, according to people familiar with the matter."

Sounds like there is some corroboration for the witness's story. It appears that it's Prince who is telling the fairytale.

Your skepticism about the import of it is quite reasonable, but your insistence on courtroom evidentiary standards for this--while you're otherwise pushing infowars stuff--is kinda funny.

The Seychelles back channel has been reported way before Nader's name surfaced. What Nader can provide is corroboration and additional details.

A back channel could be innocuous.

But there are reasons to believe it might not have been:

1) Erik Prince Superstar lying about what happened

2) Mueller's subpoena and subsequent questioning of Nader

3) The parties involved. The UAE has a lot of money. Many members of Trump's team appear to have had an interest in self-dealing and self-enrichment. So there is a financial angle that could explain 1 and 2 above

4) There is also the angle concerning the need for secretive communications with the Russians. There is an innocuous cover story (working together with respect to Syria and Iran). Maybe that is all. But given Prince's lies and all else we know about the Russians and the Trump campaign it might be nefarious rather than innocuous.

More than ever, there is a compelling public interest in having Mueller complete his work in a thorough and professional manner.

 

[thethe]

"Nader’s account is considered key evidence — but not the only evidence — about what transpired in Seychelles, according to people familiar with the matter."

Sounds like there is some corroboration for the witness's story. It appears that it's Prince who is telling the fairytale.

Your skepticism about the import of it is quite reasonable, but your insistence on courtroom evidentiary standards for this--while you're otherwise pushing infowars stuff--is kinda funny.

You are inferring that from context when in reality that statement is neutral and could corroboration for either side of the story.

I'm pushing the side of REAL evidence. It is clear who is in hypothetical land.

 

[thethe]

The Seychelles back channel has been reported way before Nader's name surfaced. What Nader can provide is corroboration and additional details.

A back channel could be innocuous.

But there are reasons to believe it might not have been:

1) Erik Prince Superstar lying about what happened

2) Mueller's subpoena and subsequent questioning of Nader

3) The parties involved. The UAE has a lot of money. Many members of Trump's team appear to have had an interest in self-dealing and self-enrichment. So there is a financial angle that could explain 1 and 2 above

4) There is also the angle concerning the need for secretive communications with the Russians. There is an innocuous cover story (working together with respect to Syria and Iran). Maybe that is all. But given Prince's lies and all else we know about the Russians and the Trump campaign it might be nefarious rather than innocuous.

More than ever, there is a compelling public interest in having Mueller complete his work in a thorough and professional manner.

More than ever because an incoming president was acting like a real president? This is absurd. An initial communication with a foreign power is a standard diplomatic move of an incoming president. I can't believe this is the next piece of 'big' news.

 

[nsacpi]

On another matter, looks like Elliot Broidy was hoping to get some help from Rachel Brand to make the 1MDB scandal investigation go away for his Malaysian friends.

 

[nsacpi]

More than ever because an incoming president was acting like a real president? This is absurd. An initial communication with a foreign power is a standard diplomatic move of an incoming president. I can't believe this is the next piece of 'big' news.

Not absurd at all. There is a chance it was all prim and proper. But I think not likely. We will find out in due course.

 

[Runnin]

More than ever because an incoming president was acting like a real president? This is absurd. An initial communication with a foreign power is a standard diplomatic move of an incoming president. I can't believe this is the next piece of 'big' news.

Standard diplomatic moves are done in a standard diplomat way and do not raise red flags.

 

[thethe]

Standard diplomatic moves are done in a standard diplomat way and do not raise red flags.

I'm sure the left and media (one in the same) would have accepted that at the time.

 

[Julio3000]

I'm still not sure why they needed a backchannel to communicate with the Kremlin, particularly just a week or so before Trump assumed office. What could be so sensitive that it couldn't be done through official channels, and couldn't wait until the transition was over? It's very much like Kushner's meeting the the VEB guy and his request to use the Russian embassy for a secure channel to the Kremlin. The idea that it was about cooperation against ISIS just doesn't sound credible in that context.

It's worth asking some questions about George Nader, too. When he was interviewed by the FBI, he was presented with a subpoena for testimony and warrants for his electronics. What's the implication of a warrant in this case?

 

[thethe]

I'm sure the reaction from the media would have been perfectly tame had communications with the Kremlin been announced. Business needed to get done to clean up the middle east that was reaching a boiling point. And based on where we are now those discussions were highly successful.

 

[Julio3000]

You are inferring that from context when in reality that statement is neutral and could corroboration for either side of the story.

I'm pushing the side of REAL evidence. It is clear who is in hypothetical land.

Could you explain to me how is it neutral?

 

[Runnin]

I'm sure the left and media (one in the same) would have accepted that at the time.

Yes, Trump is a disaster and it's all the liberal media's fault.

 

[thethe]

Could you explain to me how is it neutral?

You're the one who claimed it wasn't. Where is your explanation?

 

[thethe]

Yes, Trump is a disaster and it's all the liberal media's fault.

Such a disaster.

Booming economy with real job growth

Stabilization of the middle east

Denuclearization discussion with north Korea

Locking up criminal illegals

Man...what a disaster. I know, rachel maddow talks about how bad he is everyday. Results say otherwise.

 

[thethe]

Lol

I picture Runnin like the guy who made those Britney Spears videos. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!

 

[Julio3000]

You're the one who claimed it wasn't. Where is your explanation?

Well, per the article, investigators have witness testimony and corroborating evidence that the meeting was prearranged. You have Prince saying the meeting was happenstance. Both stories can't be true, can they?

 

[thethe]

Well, per the article, investigators have witness testimony and corroborating evidence that the meeting was prearranged. You have Prince saying the meeting was happenstance. Both stories can't be true, can they?

They just said the witness has testimony about what transpired. That could go in either direction. You inferring it's corroboration that prince lied is an inference.

 

[Julio3000]

They just said the witness has testimony about what transpired. That could go in either direction. You inferring it's corroboration that prince lied is an inference.

At this point I'm wondering if you bothered to read the article.

So "A witness cooperating with Mueller has told investigators the meeting was set up in advance" and "according to people familiar with the Seychelles meeting, [Prince] presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump" are neutral statements that do not contradict "Prince told lawmakers — and the news media — that his Seychelles meeting with Kirill Dmitriev, the head of a Russian government-controlled wealth fund, was an unplanned, unimportant encounter that came about by chance".

 

[thethe]

So as I mentioned to nsacpi, you're hanging your hat onto an unamed witness? Where have we seen this before. And if this unamed witness turns out to be bogus the story goes away but the impact of the story remains in that it further riles up the base for midterms and special elections.

 

[nsacpi]

They just said the witness has testimony about what transpired. That could go in either direction. You inferring it's corroboration that prince lied is an inference.

its possible that Mueller has questioned Nader multiple times so he can corroborate Erik Prince Superstar's account of an innocuous meeting with a Russian at a bar in the Seychelles....possible