CurseReversed

Did you read the article I quoted? I am referring to information that is right there. But of course feel free to try and invalidate all the things that I have said because you disagree with one particular statement I made, that is a lot easier then having to address them honestly. This is the level of logic that we have been reduced too. I have had to repeat the same basic facts over and over again and they are plain to see. I dont know how many different ways I can say that 2+2 does not equal 5 before It becomes obvious that it does not matter what the facts are.

semantic gymnastics. This is the first mandate given to mueller under the scope of the special investigation. "the investigation of any links or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of donald trump" Is this not collusion, what should we call it? Lets play the semantics game. You are stretching with manafort big time to justify this claim, but even so. If all Mueller has is manaforts conviction, that you believe falls under this scope, do you think that is enough? I keep asking the same question, maybe someone will answer. what if thats all he has? thank you. not yet. What if it doesnt happen? Seriously, if this is all we have will it change your opinion?

if anything Manaforts conviction implicates high level democrats as he was working with tony podesta at the times the crimes were committed. https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/14/manafort-ukraine-podesta/ if what you say is true then POTUS will be charged and the entire premise of my hypothetical is not applicable. Again I never said that this would not happen. I just asked what if it didnt? I did not dismiss all charges as process crimes, only some charges. Others are valid but offer no real evidence linking trump and russia. Almost everything you said is conjecture at this point. Again you are making the links of trump to russia based upon the information you have been given and the conclusions you have drawn. That is your opinion. It might turn out to accurate but It is not fact until someone can prove it. Everyone seems to think they know what happened and its beyond question, maybe this is the problem. How many times have we been told things by our trusted information providers that turned out to be false? Remember WMD's in iraq? “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”-mark twain Again, If all that you say is true then Mueller will have something more to show, right? If he doesnt, does that change anything? It seems that no matter how many times I ask the question about what will happen, people can only argue trump is already guilty based upon what they think happened. The question remains, what if mueller cannot prove any of this? What if he has nothing on trump? THen what???

Exactly, and of these mandates which one is the primary focus? I linked the Exact document, Its the first thing on the list. Is it not safe to say that "Any links or co-ordination between Russia and Trump campaign-linked individuals" or for short "trump russia collusion" has been the primary focus of the investigation, of news coverage, of our discussions, and of the security of entire country? yet no charges have been brought that really fit this category. nobody has been charged with collusion or whatever word you want to use for it. if nobody else is charged with anything specifically related to this mandate, is it not a an important distinction? Some might try and use semantics or some leaps of circumstances to support the claim that the arrests that have already been made fit this mandate. But its reaching. If Manaforts dealing with russians years ago is all they have to charge someone with Then SOmething big is missing. Dont we have to acknowledge it? Again, Manaforts dealings with russia from years ago, do not link trumps campaign to russia. THe primary mandate of the investigation is not vindicated with this arrest. Neither has cohens or anybody elses. IF you want to keep pushing this arrest as proof of the primary charge of trump russia collusion its a huge stretch, and you KNOW it.

Nobody suggested that he or the people around him are completely innocent. As of right now there has been nobody charged with a crime that fits the primary scope of the investigation. lets repeat it again. The prosecutor was tasked with , first and foremost" "the investigation of any links or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of donald trump" Manafort's dealings with russia years ago do not qualify. None of the current indictments qualify. That does not mean that everyone is innocent, or that the investigation has yielded zero results. I am not even saying that there are no arrests that fall under the scope of the investigation. I am saying that there are no arrests that fall under its primary scope. This is an important distinction. We can play semantics with this, but it would be intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge that if Mueller does not charge anybody with collusion, or any charge linking trump to russia for the purpose of stealing the election, that it is not an important revelation regarding what we have all been led to believe. I am not making these decision people. Mueller is. While it is certainly possible that those arrests are coming, it is possible that they wont. what then?

thanks, good answer. If trumps son can be proved to have colluded with the russians then he should be indicted. At first glance this seems very suspicious but I bet there is a lot more to the story, I hope we get to the bottom of it.

You have never even tried to answer the question i have asked multiple time in multiple ways. no wonder its not going anywhere.

How is it a silly question? People this is crazy. I asked a simple question, based upon a simple premise. You all want to make me out as an idiot for not believing what you have been led to believe. You all say that the evidence is obvious and that I am stupid for even suggesting otherwise. But, It does not even matter what I believe! I am not the investigator. I am asking a question based upon what Muller believes. My question is based upon simple, verifiable facts. attacking me changes nothing. The prosecutor was tasked with , first and foremost" "the investigation of any links or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of donald trump" To this point Nobody has been indicted on this charge. What if nobody is? Will you be satisfied with this? Its not me that makes the decision folks, it is Mueller. Yes people have been indicted and charged with crimes, but if there is no indictments for collusion, this is a BIG DEAL. This was the primary purpose of the investigation, its in writing, I didnt invent it. How can we pretend its not relevant if nobody is charged with it? He will either find evidence of collusion or he wont. You all act like im some whacko for suggesting the possibility that he wont. But this is a possibility isnt it? The fact that seemingly noone can even address this question without twisting the premise or attacking me like Its me making the decision, is extremely telling. Its not that complicated. I understand the frustration. But lets at least be honest about the situation. We all have our opinions. Can anyone answer the question? what if, despite the fact that many are absolutely sure that there was collusion, there is nobody charged with it? Will anyone change there minds? Will there be any accountability? Will everyone just forget and move on? This is a VITAL question because this is a distinct possibility and this subject has had more people invested then any other in recent memory. Instead of focusing on how much we hate the people who we disagree with lets talk about what we can agree on. FInally getting some answers from an official source should be a way to bring us back together no matter which way it goes.

THey have lied before. The are professional liars, go figure. But then again I am not disputing that there were russian attacks... Again My original question is a hypothetical based up on the possibility that nobody will be charged with collusion. but people seem to only want to convince me of what they have already been convinced of. Im not here to debate that nor did i say that definitively that there would be none. I asked what if there was none. Besides if it is so obvious then mueller will have no problem proving it right? Everyone is so sure but seems to have no confidence in mueller...weird. I could debate the proof of collusion and maybe I will after the mueller report but for now the proof will be in the pudding. WIll you answer the questions i posed in my first post? What if there is no proven collusion?

One last thing I think should be referenced here as it seems like its in some dispute.theres some confusion on the issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Appointment_of_Special_Counsel_to_Investigate_Russian_Interference_with_the_2016_Presidential_Election_and_Related_Matters.pdf THe first item specified as the purpose of the investigation is literally "the investigation of any links or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of donald trump" So lets not pretend its not important. also just for fun a link on the russian trolls that mueller indicted. Guess what, they didnt just not show up like they were expected to. Some of them are taking him to court. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/04/mueller-russia-interference-election-case-delay-570627 There are better articles but they are all sources that you would consider fake news...the irony. I picked one that sounded mainstream.

Are you already claiming that the mueller report will be rigged? sounds like conspiracy... do you really think that mueller and his staff that have worked for 2 years on this are going to have proof of collusion and then just let trump or barr sweep it under the rug? You are reaching here... ANd it hasn't even come out yet!! Come on trumps crimes were so obvious everyone knows hes in bed with the russians. right? SUrely mueller will have some proof right? If he doesnt somethings up. Obviously you will not be convinced. That is fine at least you answered my question.

So you are saying that there was no investigation into collusion? are you also implying that there was no collusion, trump made it up? He accused himself of collusion... ok gotcha. Mental gymnastics. So if mueller ends the investigation with no collusion charges for anybody, all is well? Remember if all these crimes that trump comitted are so obvious then mueller should have no problem making them stick. person attacks ok. my question was simple what will you think if there is no collusion? It has not been refuted. I will let mueller determine lies from fiction. And news flash they are all known liars. You still cant answer the question as i posed it . And yes until these 30 russians indicted by mueller are convicted that is NOT proven either. But I am not even talking about that. It would not suprised me if russians tried to meddle. I am sure a lot of countries tried to meddle. But trump colluding with them is a whole different story. That is the major issue.

I am going to bed now. Even though we had disagreements I appreciate that many of you engaged me in a civil manner, even though most did not really address the actual question I proposed. Trump russia collusion has been the primary narrative pushed from so many different sources it would be impossible to calculate. THose words have literally been said over a million times in the last two years by every major news outlet. It was The primary purpose of the mueller investigation. The majority of the posts in this thread has been focused on it. Its even in the title of the the thread for gods sake. and to this point nobody has been indicted for it. IF at the end of all this there is no collusion it is a big deal.. Yes there have been other crimes that have been involved but that was not relevant to my original question. Who knows what will happen, maybe mueller has the goods. If not there are some serious questions that need to be asked. It will take some serious mental gymastics to avoid it. It seems like people are already limbering up for the routine. I still would like to hear what people will think if there is no collusion and how they will process it. I know that it might not be a pleasant scenario but lets be honest about what happened, if it occurs. Again nobody has been indicted or convicted for anything to do with trump russia collusion. My question still stands.

none of these indictment have any link to trump or as far as I know anyone close to him. hence not related to collusion. They might fall under the umbrella of the special investigation but they do not fall under the umbrella of my original statement or the hypothetical question I proposed in my original post reagrding collusion if russians did anything illegal im all for them getting investigated. Just as a side not though. None of them will be convicted IMO. They are already in court and it doesnt look good for the prosecution. Sorry I have link for this. There have been russians indicted but not convicted yet. Thats all i was saying. It has not been proven, but if they are guilty they should be convicted . I heard they are fighting in court. I dont have a link and I do not care to argue about this. My question was about collusion.

Are you going to dismiss the collusion narrative so easily? Are you really going to pretend that the last two years did not exist? We havent even got the verdict yet and your already trying to blame him for accusing himself. haha. So if there is no collusion, no big deal?

why are you so keen on forgetting what the narrative has been for the past two years? Please answer the question. IF nobody is indicted for collusion will you still believe it happened? Even if russia is proven to have attacked during the election(it hasnt) this is a separate issue from the POTUS being part of it. A BIG distinction.

How far can one interpret related matters? Is a process crime a related matter? I am not going to argue the semantics with you. I will just repeat my original question in a simpler form. If nobody is indicted for collusion, what would be your response be? How will it change your opinion? will you claim that the investigation was justified and that the entire trump russia narrative was no bs, because a few people who arent trump get charged for related matters?

Goal posts are definitely being moved here. but by whom? There are have been two straight years of TRUMP RUSSIA COLLUSION being shouted from nearly every major news outlet. This narrative has been force fed to every person with eyes and ears. There was a special council investigation that had a specific purpose. It does not mean that there are not other crimes, it means that this was the crime that justified the investigation in the first place. Is it not important if there turns out to be not a single person indicted for it? This is not complicated.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer. I understand why many people think that and why the evidence seems so overwhelming. I could get into a debate as to the merits of that evidence but that was not my point here. Maybe after the mueller report comes out we will have to take a closer look at what really happened. Keep in mind how much resources were poured into this. How many voices chanted it from every corner. Many people were EXTREMELY invested in finding something and had all the resources to do so, if they cant come up with anything, after all this time, something stinks. We will see. As of right now its all hypothetical.

Not even close. That only answers the question of whether you think he is guilty. What will happen if nobody is charged with collusion? WIll you just assume hes guilty anyway? Honestly im curious reread the hypothetical.

Everything I Said is still true. Notice I did not claim that trump was innocent. I could and might argue the finer points of that but as far as my hypothetical goes, its irrelevant at this point. Mueller is either going to be able to charge someone for the crime he was tasked to investigate or he isnt. So far nobody else has been charged with this crime either. MY question is about the possibility that he isnt, and nobody else is either. I appreciate the answer that you would be shocked but was hoping for some more elaboration.

As we get close to the end of this mueller investigation, I want to propose a hypothetical question to many of you that have been following this closely. I am genuinely curious as to how people will respond because this has been front page news with major implications going on two years, and people are very emotionally involved. Mueller was appointed special council to investigate trump russia collusion. He has been granted immense power to investigate these crimes, not even beholden to the recused AG. He has been given ample time, 2 years and counting. He has spent millions of dollars, used vast resources, and indicted people for crimes that would not have even happened, had he not been investigating. During the Muller investigation, we have had the words trump, russia, collusion, repeated thousands of times by almost every major news outlet. Most of them seemingly confident that trump was guilty in some way of these crimes. Yet with all this, So far, nobody has been indicted or convicted for colluding with the russians. If this trend continues and the mueller report comes out, and is shown in full, and there is no evidence of trump colluding with russia, what effect will it have? Before you assume that I am just trying to poke the hornets nest, this hypothetical scenario is a distinct possibility. Already there has been a noticable change in many of the narratives, from trump russia collusion, to investigating trump for other crimes, and many big names have hinted that the report might not have the evidence that many have been waiting for. Would any of you change your mind? Would you hold anyone accountable? Would you just move on to the next investigation? This is a follow up hypothetical question, and please try and be honest. If you knew for a 100 percent fact that there was no collusion between trump and russia but you also knew that the crime could be pinned on him without any problems, and that this would get him impeached, would you still want them to do it? If the answer is yes, and maybe this does not need an answer, but what else could be justified, and how far could it go?

The investigation will continue. https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiffting-to-phase-2-of-collusion-11550794762

As a redskin fan, you can almost instinctively chalk up one heartbreaking loss this year from this new rule being used to call a penalty against us in a crucial moment. I would not even be surprised if it was week 1. As they look to make an example early.