Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

16,981 Views | 217 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Kyle
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

codyorr said:

I'll go first. I think Trump is innocent of collusion but guilty of obstruction.

If Mueller provides evidence that the Trump campaign accepted or proposed an explicit quid pro quo with the Russian government in exchange for information on Clinton / interference in the election, I would change my mind. Seeking negative information on Clinton doesn't equate to collusion in my book.

If Mueller testifies that, had his understanding NOT been that a sitting President cannot be convicted of obstruction, and if there were no issues of executive privilege, he STILL would not have recommended obstruction charges, I would change my mind.
Pretty closes to my feelings. And nobody else seems to care to discuss what evidence would change their minds.

Nice try though.
Not going to lie, I've assumed from the beginning this was all just a politically motivated witch hunt intended by the Left to discredit Republicans and/or Trump as much as possible with no real connection to truth or justice in the traditional sense of those words. Simply a will to power exercise played by those who deep down really don't believe in such dated notions as right and wrong, being thoroughly deconstructed post-modernists (and/or woke B$tches).

With those assumptions as a starting point, I find it hard to view this sort of spectacle as anything other than noise and the sort of semantic gamesmanship that only those in the legal profession might enjoy. In simple terms, can anyone explain to me (as a simple fellow) how there can truly be obstruction in any real way if there was never any collusion? It makes sense to me that one should resist the crap the Left pushes with all one's ability, knowing they are only at it to score political points. What am I missing?



At House intel hearing, Robert Mueller begins by correcting earlier statement by Ted Lieu clarifying that the OLC memo was NOT the reason he did not recommend indicting Trump for obstruction of justice: "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

Now we get to hear lying Schiff who spread lies for 2 years lead this committee. He's one of the most corrupt politicians I've ever seen and lies daily yet he is in charge for Dems? Crazy
I want to hear from the Squad. They should hold a press conference, then divide up and make speeches in battleground states.

https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-unveils-2020-campaign-strategy-of-just-letting-democrats-speak-freely

Trump 2020 Campaign To Simply Air Unedited Footage Of Democrats Talking

WASHINGTON, D.C.The Trump campaign has unveiled its 2020 campaign strategy of airing unedited footage of speeches and press conferences by far-left Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and that other one.

GOP commercials will air the footage around the clock. The speeches will not be edited in any way. Rather than pushing their own policy proposals, Republicans will just remind the nation of just who it is they're running against.
"We were pretty concerned when Trump was tweeting those racially charged things the other day," said one campaign strategist. "But now we're in the clear again. I mean, he'll say something problematic again soon. But we don't even have to defend it. We just have to show people the Dems tripping over themselves to say something even crazier."
"Frankly, when we saw that wild press conference after Trump's tweets, we took a moment and thanked the Lord above for His blessings," he added.




riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oops. Mueller has to correct the record on the OLC from this morning. Sorry guys. That one glimmer of hope from today also failed.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

codyorr said:

I'll go first. I think Trump is innocent of collusion but guilty of obstruction.

If Mueller provides evidence that the Trump campaign accepted or proposed an explicit quid pro quo with the Russian government in exchange for information on Clinton / interference in the election, I would change my mind. Seeking negative information on Clinton doesn't equate to collusion in my book.

If Mueller testifies that, had his understanding NOT been that a sitting President cannot be convicted of obstruction, and if there were no issues of executive privilege, he STILL would not have recommended obstruction charges, I would change my mind.
Pretty closes to my feelings. And nobody else seems to care to discuss what evidence would change their minds.

Nice try though.
Not going to lie, I've assumed from the beginning this was all just a politically motivated witch hunt intended by the Left to discredit Republicans and/or Trump as much as possible with no real connection to truth or justice in the traditional sense of those words. Simply a will to power exercise played by those who deep down really don't believe in such dated notions as right and wrong, being thoroughly deconstructed post-modernists (and/or woke B$tches).

With those assumptions as a starting point, I find it hard to view this sort of spectacle as anything other than noise and the sort of semantic gamesmanship that only those in the legal profession might enjoy. In simple terms, can anyone explain to me (as a simple fellow) how there can truly be obstruction in any real way if there was never any collusion? It makes sense to me that one should resist the crap the Left pushes with all one's ability, knowing they are only at it to score political points. What am I missing?



Well.... so, see... this is basically my point. My reading comprehension is at least good enough to understand the tweets you shared, but they are perfect examples of the type of thing that I find to be just legalistic bullflop that exists for no apparent reason other than to be weaponized. I mean, someone makes up a bunch of lies about me in order to undermine my efforts and I should just take it up the... in the shorts and be ok with that?
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Doc Holliday said:

HuMcK said:

ATL Bear said:

HuMcK said:

Doc Holliday said:

So Humck, Manafort's "Russian contact" was actually a State Department asset and the Mueller Report makes no mention of this and Mueller claims he did not know this? How could he not?

Perjury trap #2.
Again, play the idiot if you want, but nothing about Kilimnik feeding info to State (which is in the report, actually, part of how Mueller knew Manafort lied was because of something Kilimnik emailed to a person in the Dept. of State) precludes him from working as an agent for Oleg Deripaska (which he was). That's how spy-craft works, you play all sides for an advantage.
We've been played like a Stradivarius violin, or maybe a Gibson at a death metal concert. Not because Trump is or ever was a threat to give up the family secrets to the Russians, but the discord they were able to sew in the US thanks to the emotionally and politically interested opposition to his election. Today's spectacle is likely warming the cockles of the Russian disinformation apparatus. With the rising popularity of so outside the mainstream political ideologies thanks to this insanity, the damage may be even more severe than we could have imagined.

Every day that Trump is POTUS is a good day for Russia, because it destabilizes US society. Absolutely I believe Russia sponsors elements of the so called Left (Bernie, Gabbard, probably more), but there simply is no better mouthpiece for Russian destabilization narratives than the modern far-Right. It's the same set of techniques and strategies Russia has been caught employing in Italy (Salvini), The UK (Farage and Arron Banks), France (Le Pen), etc. And it won't stop with Trump either, or just be employed in the future by Russia alone.
So it's in Russia's best interests for the US to have a thriving historical economy, no war, stock market records, best unemployment in history etc?

It's in Russia's long-term interest for the US to seperate from our Atlantic allies (for the West to destabilize generally, courtesy of your heroes Salvini and Farage plus Brexit), and for our society to tear itself apart over racial grievances (i.e. Trump's bread and butter issues). I don't think Russia minds mostly avoiding any kind of real retaliation for what they did in 2016 either.
Re our society tearing itself apart over racial grievances and being "Trump's bread and butter issues": I suspect you are confusing cause and effect. The President is merely willing to speak the obvious truth about issues that predate his election and that were not caused by him or his policies. He is the result -- much like Salvini, Farage, Johnson, Orban, La Pen, et al. I'm a big fan of Orban, btw.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

ATL Bear said:

HuMcK said:

Doc Holliday said:

So Humck, Manafort's "Russian contact" was actually a State Department asset and the Mueller Report makes no mention of this and Mueller claims he did not know this? How could he not?

Perjury trap #2.
Again, play the idiot if you want, but nothing about Kilimnik feeding info to State (which is in the report, actually, part of how Mueller knew Manafort lied was because of something Kilimnik emailed to a person in the Dept. of State) precludes him from working as an agent for Oleg Deripaska (which he was). That's how spy-craft works, you play all sides for an advantage.
We've been played like a Stradivarius violin, or maybe a Gibson at a death metal concert. Not because Trump is or ever was a threat to give up the family secrets to the Russians, but the discord they were able to sew in the US thanks to the emotionally and politically interested opposition to his election. Today's spectacle is likely warming the cockles of the Russian disinformation apparatus. With the rising popularity of so outside the mainstream political ideologies thanks to this insanity, the damage may be even more severe than we could have imagined.

Every day that Trump is POTUS is a good day for Russia, because it destabilizes US society. Absolutely I believe Russia sponsors elements of the so called Left (Bernie, Gabbard, probably more), but there simply is no better mouthpiece for Russian destabilization narratives than the modern far-Right. It's the same set of techniques and strategies Russia has been caught employing in Italy (Salvini), The UK (Farage and Arron Banks), France (Le Pen), etc. And it won't stop with Trump either, or just be employed in the future by Russia alone.
Trump isn't the one destabilizing US society. The reactionaries to Trump are the ones destabilizing it, not to mention distracting heavily from any constructive legislative agenda. While the left tilts at emotional windmills like faux racism and white supremacy, angry tweets from the President, etc., we are literally watching the spectacle of a likely illegal but clearly unjustified attempt to overturn a US election. That's how you destabilize democracy. And just for fun, we've now got populist legislators pushing serious socialism, not just the watered down type we've let creep in for decades in the US.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I just want to remind everyone that their tax dollars are paying for this while infrastructure, healthcare, education, border security, immigration reform, and other important issues are ignored. AND that congress is going on recess soon, having accomplished **** all.
ValhallaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Really doesn't get any less ambiguous than that.

whoops
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is another laughable part that the Dems pushed for 2 years that the Trump Tower meeting was 'IT'.

They failed to report that the very person working w/ the Democrats met w/ their informants the day before and the day after she went to Trump tower to set them up.

Of course Mueller lies and says this isn't relevant to include yet the actual meeting was, and the person setting them up was Russian. Wasn't this all about Russian collusion?

ValhallaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Proof positive that sunlight is the best disinfectant

Jim Jordan's line of questioning about Joseph Mifsud was devastating
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gotta respect CNN, when the ship is sinking they aren't jumping. Gotta hold out hope...

Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

riflebear said:

Hilarious how Gohmert asks Mueller if he wrote his 9 minute press conf and he says he can't say. LOL - maybe Mueller was good 10-20yrs ago but right now he deserves to be sipping on soup and jello in the old folks home.
He's clearly shook.

Mueller isn't senile or frail. Here is an interview of Mueller for Aaron Harbor a year ago. This is an act. He didn't want to be questioned today- he's burning his trail so Dems stop dragging him into the spotlight. All this further illuminates his involvement in corruption.



Yea Mueller is smart.

He wants out of this deep state created mess.

He gave the Dems enough chickenfeed so that they never have to drop the ridiculous "MUH RUSSIA" nonsense.

But he knows Trump had nothing to do with it.

Now he just wants to be out of the media spot light and take his fat federal pension and go straight into private practice as an adviser to bigger law firms for $6000hr.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

They are so desperate, they are going to try and spin this so many different ways it's going to be laughable.


How many Benghazi hearings were held before you said "OK, that's enough." Or was seven insufficient?
Well considering it was a coverup and everyone lied you have your answer. .Could you imagine if there was a special counsel of partisan Republicans investigating Hillary and having access to her server e-mails and Obama's Administration? The Democrats would be wiped off the map they would all be in jail.

Nice try though
So Trey Gowdy, a talented prosecutor, couldn't get anybody for perjury? You have a funny way of looking at the world.
W/ Obama's AG? LOL - what fantasy land do you live in?
They were too busy coming up w/ a plan to take down Trump.
I have a higher regard for our civic institutions than you do. And I don't believe every headline I read on OANN.

Again, how many Benghazi investigations would it take to reach a conclusion?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ValhallaBear said:

Proof positive that sunlight is the best disinfectant

Jim Jordan's line of questioning about Joseph Mifsud was devastating
You're watching the movie?? Didn't you read the book? Much better...
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Nothing more fun than to read evangelicals throw away their values based on politics.

Oldbear83 rides Trump like a porn star after being a mile up Lying Ted's rear. I love reading his posts on R&P.
Well said.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

I have a higher regard for our civic institutions than you do. And I don't believe every headline I read on OANN.

Again, how many Benghazi investigations would it take to reach a conclusion?
Whataboutism?
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

quash said:

I have a higher regard for our civic institutions than you do. And I don't believe every headline I read on OANN.

Again, how many Benghazi investigations would it take to reach a conclusion?
Whataboutism?
Fair enough.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

xiledinok said:

Nothing more fun than to read evangelicals throw away their values based on politics.

Oldbear83 rides Trump like a porn star after being a mile up Lying Ted's rear. I love reading his posts on R&P.
Well said.
You know what is really 'well said'?

President Trump Re-elected

On headlines next November.

Get your psychiatrist appointments scheduled now, beat the other snowflakes before it's too late!
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

Certainly nothing I saw or heard today.
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Midnight Rider said:

I am willing to presume that Trump is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law which follows the rules of evidence.


I believe a sitting president can't be put on trial. So by default, he'll always be innocent unless impeached and then tried. Even then, he'd be pardoned by his VP, so he will always be innocent.

Seems like our forefathers missed something pretty big in our constitution. I don't think Trump is guilty of any collusion. But when a sitting president does commit a crime someday, I'd like to think justice will be served. Under the current system, it won't.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

Certainly nothing I saw or heard today.

As Reason called it. Today was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
57Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Malbec said:

Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

Certainly nothing I saw or heard today.

As Reason called it. Today was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias.
So it's safe to say that today's testimony confirmed your bias.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Malbec said:

Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

Certainly nothing I saw or heard today.

As Reason called it. Today was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias.
Not really, we saw a person testify who was fully incompetent about his own written report.

That is more than confirmation bias. It was a sad affair.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Democrat tears today, across our great nation
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?



Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ValhallaBear said:

This is abuse of the elderly and infirmed


I was thinking about this.

Did they put a man with dementia or just well aged as the figurehead? Someone whose totally cooked and wouldn't really run the operation other than small advice here and there. Someone they could take advantage of.

Mueller was surrounded by extremely biased political prosecutors. Every last one of them. We even got a glimpse with Strzok. All 18! That can't be an accident. They all leaked!

When it all boils down, this was one giant smear piece and campaign purchase for Democrats who squeezed it as much as they could. It was a character assassination piece.

A 450 page report only containing damning information directed at the target. They knew he wasn't going to be charged from the beginning.

It was smear to impeach if they were lucky and something Democrats could use it to campaign on.

Maybe they're finally getting busted!
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mueller was caught off guard by the most obvious trap, the question about the OLC opinion. He had to go back and change his answer to avoid perjury. It's ridiculous. If he wasn't taking the proceedings seriously, why should anyone?
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
57Bear said:

quash said:

Malbec said:

Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

Certainly nothing I saw or heard today.

As Reason called it. Today was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias.
So it's safe to say that today's testimony confirmed your bias.

What testimony? I read the book and listened to Mueller's presser. He wasn't going to add anything today. Appears that he didn't. Shock.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Malbec said:

Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

Certainly nothing I saw or heard today.

As Reason called it. Today was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias.
Maybe the Dems should have spent more time indoctrinating Mueller on their narrative instead of keeping him out of the loop of his own "investigation." They could have at least let him read some of the newspapers that they leaked to. Then maybe he would have known as much as the rest of America knew about the "Mueller Report."


Getting Mueller's Washington Post ready for his morning coffee

curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

57Bear said:

quash said:

Malbec said:

Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

Certainly nothing I saw or heard today.

As Reason called it. Today was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias.
So it's safe to say that today's testimony confirmed your bias.

What testimony? I read the book and listened to Mueller's presser. He wasn't going to add anything today. Appears that he didn't. Shock.
I didn't read the report and have no interest in it. I did have Mueller's testimony on, but found it difficult to pay attention and attempt to actually work at the same time. My pre-determined position all along has been that whatever it is the Russians may have done or attempted to do to influence our election had little to no effect on the actual outcome. Further, I seriously doubt the President had any dealings with Russians or their agents. With those two underlying assumptions, I had long since determined that whatever it is that Mueller and his group are doing amounted to a classic witch hunt devoid of any true search for actual wrong doing (and I use "actual" as opposed to a more literal "letter of the law" construct). That's all a probably confusing preamble to asking you if you think there were ever any efforts by the President to gain the help of Russians to help him win the election? I would be very unhappy to discover that, but, considering Hillary as the alternative, I don't really much care about that in all honesty.

I ask you this because, even though I often disagree with what you say, I generally find your responses reasoned and knowledgeable and believe you will give a straight answer. FWIW, given my declared assumptions about the witch hunt aspects of this investigation, I couldn't care less about "obstruction" regardless of whatever legal(istic) statutes may apply. I consider it justifiable self-defense against the Left's dirty tricks.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

quash said:

57Bear said:

quash said:

Malbec said:

Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

Certainly nothing I saw or heard today.

As Reason called it. Today was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias.
So it's safe to say that today's testimony confirmed your bias.

What testimony? I read the book and listened to Mueller's presser. He wasn't going to add anything today. Appears that he didn't. Shock.
I didn't read the report and have no interest in it. I did have Mueller's testimony on, but found it difficult to pay attention and attempt to actually work at the same time. My pre-determined position all along has been that whatever it is the Russians may have done or attempted to do to influence our election had little to no effect on the actual outcome. Further, I seriously doubt the President had any dealings with Russians or their agents. With those two underlying assumptions, I had long since determined that whatever it is that Mueller and his group are doing amounted to a classic witch hunt devoid of any true search for actual wrong doing (and I use "actual" as opposed to a more literal "letter of the law" construct). That's all a probably confusing preamble to asking you if you think there were ever any efforts by the President to gain the help of Russians to help him win the election? I would be very unhappy to discover that, but, considering Hillary as the alternative, I don't really much care about that in all honesty.

I ask you this because, even though I often disagree with what you say, I generally find your responses reasoned and knowledgeable and believe you will give a straight answer. FWIW, given my declared assumptions about the witch hunt aspects of this investigation, I couldn't care less about "obstruction" regardless of whatever legal(istic) statutes may apply. I consider it justifiable self-defense against the Left's dirty tricks.

First, I said after reading the report that I didn't see collusion. I'd have been surprised if they found that. Sorry, but yes I think there was obstructon. Nobody remembers the Nixon Rule: the cover up is worse than the crime.

I don't think the Russian goal was to elect Trump, I think their goal was to divide us. And I think they succeeded. Along the way, however, I think they assisted Cambridge Analytica with "the persuadables" by amplifying their message.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

57Bear said:

quash said:

Malbec said:

Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

Certainly nothing I saw or heard today.

As Reason called it. Today was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias.
So it's safe to say that today's testimony confirmed your bias.

What testimony? I read the book and listened to Mueller's presser. He wasn't going to add anything today. Appears that he didn't. Shock.
I didn't read the report and have no interest in it. I did have Mueller's testimony on, but found it difficult to pay attention and attempt to actually work at the same time. My pre-determined position all along has been that whatever it is the Russians may have done or attempted to do to influence our election had little to no effect on the actual outcome. Further, I seriously doubt the President had any dealings with Russians or their agents. With those two underlying assumptions, I had long since determined that whatever it is that Mueller and his group are doing amounted to a classic witch hunt devoid of any true search for actual wrong doing (and I use "actual" as opposed to a more literal "letter of the law" construct). That's all a probably confusing preamble to asking you if you think there were ever any efforts by the President to gain the help of Russians to help him win the election? I would be very unhappy to discover that, but, considering Hillary as the alternative, I don't really much care about that in all honesty.

I ask you this because, even though I often disagree with what you say, I generally find your responses reasoned and knowledgeable and believe you will give a straight answer. FWIW, given my declared assumptions about the witch hunt aspects of this investigation, I couldn't care less about "obstruction" regardless of whatever legal(istic) statutes may apply. I consider it justifiable self-defense against the Left's dirty tricks.

First, I said after reading the report that I didn't see collusion. I'd have been surprised if they found that. Sorry, but yes I think there was obstruction. Nobody remembers the Nixon Rule: the cover up is worse than the crime.

I don't think the Russian goal was to elect Trump, I think their goal was to divide us. And I think they succeeded. Along the way, however, I think they assisted Cambridge Analytica with "the persuadables" by amplifying their message.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

curtpenn said:

quash said:

57Bear said:

quash said:

Malbec said:

Mueller testimony: What would change your mind?

Certainly nothing I saw or heard today.

As Reason called it. Today was nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias.
So it's safe to say that today's testimony confirmed your bias.

What testimony? I read the book and listened to Mueller's presser. He wasn't going to add anything today. Appears that he didn't. Shock.
I didn't read the report and have no interest in it. I did have Mueller's testimony on, but found it difficult to pay attention and attempt to actually work at the same time. My pre-determined position all along has been that whatever it is the Russians may have done or attempted to do to influence our election had little to no effect on the actual outcome. Further, I seriously doubt the President had any dealings with Russians or their agents. With those two underlying assumptions, I had long since determined that whatever it is that Mueller and his group are doing amounted to a classic witch hunt devoid of any true search for actual wrong doing (and I use "actual" as opposed to a more literal "letter of the law" construct). That's all a probably confusing preamble to asking you if you think there were ever any efforts by the President to gain the help of Russians to help him win the election? I would be very unhappy to discover that, but, considering Hillary as the alternative, I don't really much care about that in all honesty.

I ask you this because, even though I often disagree with what you say, I generally find your responses reasoned and knowledgeable and believe you will give a straight answer. FWIW, given my declared assumptions about the witch hunt aspects of this investigation, I couldn't care less about "obstruction" regardless of whatever legal(istic) statutes may apply. I consider it justifiable self-defense against the Left's dirty tricks.

First, I said after reading the report that I didn't see collusion. I'd have been surprised if they found that. Sorry, but yes I think there was collusion. Nobody remembers the Nixon Rule: the cover up is worse than the crime.

I don't think the Russian goal was to elect Trump, I think their goal was to divide us. And I think they succeeded. Along the way, however, I think they assisted Cambridge Analytica with "the persuadables" by amplifying their message.
Thanks for the response. A disinformation campaign makes much more sense then trying to tip the election one way or the other. I'm old enough (64) to remember quite a bit about Watergate and I've thought for some time about the parallels with the current situation. I didn't think Nixon should have resigned then for pretty much the same reasons I don't think Trump should help with his own virtual lynching now. Trivia note: I was there in Chapel the day John Dean made an appearance and vividly recall his momentary look of panic when members of Noze showed up. Good times.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.