Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?


Jumbo

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

I'd like to request everyone attempt to keep their correcting of incorrect people on the internet during waking hours (EST) so I too can participate.

 

I missed the whole thing while I was zonked out on the east coast.

As a dog of war you need to understand... the fight for truth doesn’t have a bedtime. 

 

It it does however like hot cocoa. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

I'd like to request everyone attempt to keep their correcting of incorrect people on the internet during waking hours (EST) so I too can participate.

 

I missed the whole thing while I was zonked out on the east coast.

Word. This combined with NZ had me & my first cup of coffee in "COME AT ME, BRO!" mode.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Burgold said:

Well, this is relatively easy. If no evidence is found then nothing proceeds.

 

The problem is that it's a pretty silly question. Again, all you have to do is read Donald Trump Junior's emails and know the meeting took place to know that collusion did happen.

We already have seen fruit from the Mueller investigation. There are multiple people in jail due to the Mueller investigation. Moreover, we have seen evidence with our own eyes that came directly from the emails of these people and from their own lips that there were crimes committed. They have plead guilty to crimes. So, the hypothetical, "What if the sky is not blue, water is not wet, and humans don't need oxygen to survive?" is a nonstarter for most of us. 

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. 

 

Edited by CurseReversed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CurseReversed said:

THey have lied before. The are professional liars, go figure.  

 

And trump chose to hang around him them, what does that say about him?

 

5 hours ago, CurseReversed said:

 

But then again I am not disputing that there were russian attacks..

 

undeniably true.

 

5 hours ago, CurseReversed said:

 

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.

 

Trump says collusion isn’t a crime. If it’s not it should be,  but right now, what do you charge him for... there isn’t a. “collusion law” so it would have to be treason or some of,process crime.

 

Quote

 

Everyone is so sure but seems to have no confidence in mueller...weird.

 

Well, once it began to look like mueller wasn’t going file charges everyone switched from “mueller is a gonna i him down, in mueller we trust”  to “you can’t count on mueller, trump is going to block his report anyway”, instead of accepting the possibility that there wasn’t convictable evidence that trump was guilty of not just collusion, but any crime... So dems didn’t get what they wanted, and now there are more motivated investigations.  If he is guilty imp want him convicted, but mueller has spent 2 years on it folks. 

 

The idea that that trump can just sweep the findings of muellers campaign under the rug is ludicrous and desperate.

 

And this is what is going to help trump get re-elected.

 

Quote

 

What if there is no proven collusion?

 

Trumps son held a meeting with russian operatives, then lied about it.  Not proven collusion... but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, visionary said:

Ugh, this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.  I'd advise folks not to waste their time from here on out.   

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

And trump chose to hang around him them, what does that say about him?

 

 

 

undeniably true.

 

 

Trump says collusion isn’t a crime. If it’s not it should be,  but right now, what do you charge him for... there isn’t a. “collusion law” so it would have to be treason or some of,process crime.

 

 

Well, once it began to look like mueller wasn’t going file charges everyone switched from “mueller is a gonna i him down, in mueller we trust”  to “you can’t count on mueller, trump is going to block his report anyway”, instead of accepting the possibility that there wasn’t convictable evidence that trump was guilty of not just collusion, but any crime... So dems didn’t get what they wanted, and now there are more motivated investigations.  If he is guilty imp want him convicted, but mueller has spent 2 years on it folks. 

 

The idea that that trump can just sweep the findings of muellers campaign under the rug is ludicrous and desperate.

 

And this is what is going to help trump get re-elected.

 

 

Trumps son held a meeting with russian operatives, then lied about it.  Not proven collusion... but...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

How is it a silly question?

Because of the evidence we have seen with our own eyes. Because of the words they have spoken which we have heard. Because there are people sitting in jail. Because we know that the people Trump wanted to head his National Security plead guilty and lied about his work with Russia, that Manafort lied about his work with Russia, that... and it goes thirty people deep. Not piddling people on the side, but his big guns and his family.


For absolutely everyone to be involved and lie about it in a way that breaks the law (they lied repeatedly on their security forms) beggars the benefit of the doubt you want to extend.

 

So, the idea that he and those around him are completely innocent is silly.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in 2020 these ****s will be arguing why Trump can indeed suspend the constitution and name himself President until the emergency of people wanting to vote against a fascist traitor passes.

 

They will also argue in favor of violence to protect him.

 

Bet on it. 

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Special Counsel was created to investigate the below. 

 

  • The Russian government's efforts to interfere in the election
  • Any links or co-ordination between Russia and Trump campaign-linked individuals
  • Any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

 

Show me where he has done anything else. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Because of the evidence we have seen with our own eyes. Because of the words they have spoken which we have heard. Because there are people sitting in jail. Because we know that the people Trump wanted to head his National Security plead guilty and lied about his work with Russia, that Manafort lied about his work with Russia, that... and it goes thirty people deep. Not piddling people on the side, but his big guns and his family.


For absolutely everyone to be involved and lie about it in a way that breaks the law (they lied repeatedly on their security forms) beggars the benefit of the doubt you want to extend.

 

So, the idea that he and those around him are completely innocent is silly.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

"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. 

 

Uh, hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure that at least one person, Paul Manafort, has been convicted and sentenced as a result of his ties to Russia.  

 

Pretty sure that Michael Cohen is headed for jail because he's been convicted of lying under oath about Trump's ties to Russia. (Or maybe he's just publicly admitted to it. These people confess to crimes so often that it's hard to keep up). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

Something worth clarifying, collusion is not the correct criminal term.

 

Conspiracy is.

 

The difference is subtle but important.

 

 

 

And people have been charged/pleaded guilty to that correct? Rick Gates comes to mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Llevron said:

The Special Counsel was created to investigate the below. 

 

  • The Russian government's efforts to interfere in the election
  • Any links or co-ordination between Russia and Trump campaign-linked individuals
  • Any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

 

Show me where he has done anything else. 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

  

20 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Uh, hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure that at least one person, Paul Manafort, has been convicted and sentenced as a result of his ties to Russia.  

 

Pretty sure that Michael Cohen is headed for jail because he's been convicted of lying under oath about Trump's ties to Russia. (Or maybe he's just publicly admitted to it. These people confess to crimes so often that it's hard to keep up). 

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.

Edited by CurseReversed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

As of right now there has been nobody charged with a crime that fits the primary scope of the investigation.

 

This is untrue, but also irrelevant even if it were true because in an investigation like this, you wouldn't charge others with a crime that implicates POTUS until you are ready to charge POTUS. Charging campaign staff with the totality of the investigation's results now will only allow discovery of the evidence to other parties. the SC may not want that if they are still working leads and sources and following up on trails etc. 

 

Aside from that, it was revealed during Manafort's trial that he shared campaign data with Russia. Data and voter information is about as valuable a thing as a campaign can have. He also discussed campaign briefings with the Russians. All parts of the crimes he was charged with and found guilty of. 

 

Roger Stone is charged with coordinating between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks on the release of their stolen emails, emails that were stolen by the Russian hackers. Wikileaks has long been viewed by our intelligence agencies as a front for Russian intelligence campaigns. 

 

Cohen plead guilty to lying to Congress about Trump's ties to Russia and the work they were doing to seal a Trump Tower Moscow business deal worth $100+ million. This deal was being worked on while Trump himself was lying about ties to Russia and defending them. So when all of American and our ally's intelligence agencies are confirming an attack on our democratic institutions, Trump was denying Russian involvement, telling Russia not to worry about sanctions while also secretly working on a business deal. That is a pretty cut and dry. 

 

"Collusion" has already been proven and found guilty in the court of law. If you think these men acted on their, and literally everybody else within the campaign acted on their own without Trump's consent you are extremely naive. Perhaps Trump kept enough degrees of separation to not be able to tie him directly to it. We will see. 

 

Your attempts to dismiss the charges to this point as "process crimes" and unrelated to Russia only shows that you aren't interested in the truth or actual justice but simply pushing your idiotic talking points that ignore all reality in favor of what the ministers of propaganda have told you. 

 

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

Again, Manaforts dealings with russia from years ago, do not link trumps campaign to russia.  

 

Again, yes, they do. 

 

If person X has ties to Russia, and is on the campaign, then Person X is a link from the campaign to Russia. 

 

But please, feel free to keep playing the "well, if you take this one listing, pretend that it ended after one sentence, then pretend that that one sentence has additional qualifiers in it that I've made up" game. 

 

At least its more honest than the attempt to claim that the evil evil liberals have been fixated on the word "collusion" and nothing else for years. (When in fact, the only use of the word in the discussion has been Trumps belief that if he just tweets the words "no collusion" enough times, then evidence, guilty pleas, indictments and convictions will all magically disappear). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

This is irrelevant because in an investigation like this, you wouldn't charge others with a crime that implicates POTUS until you are ready to charge POTUS. Charging campaign staff with the totality of the investigation's results now will only allow discovery of the evidence to other parties. the SC may not want that if they are still working leads and sources and following up on trails etc. 

 

Aside from that, it was revealed during Manafort's trial that he shared campaign data with Russia. Data and voter information is about as valuable a thing as a campaign can have. He also discussed campaign briefings with the Russians. All parts of the crimes he was charged with and found guilty of. 

 

Roger Stone is charged with coordinating between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks on the release of their stolen emails, emails that were stolen by the Russian hackers. Wikileaks has long been viewed by our intelligence agencies as a front for Russian intelligence campaigns. 

 

Cohen plead guilty to lying to Congress about Trump's ties to Russia and the work they were doing to seal a Trump Tower Moscow business deal worth $100+ million. This deal was being worked on while Trump himself was lying about ties to Russia and defending them. So when all of American and our ally's intelligence agencies are confirming an attack on our democratic institutions, Trump was denying Russian involvement, telling Russia not to worry about sanctions while also secretly working on a business deal. That is a pretty cut and dry. 

 

"Collusion" has already been proven and found guilty in the court of law. If you think these men acted on their, and literally everybody else within the campaign acted on their own without Trump's consent you are extremely naive. Perhaps Trump kept enough degrees of separation to not be able to tie him directly to it. We will see. 

 

Your attempts to dismiss the charges to this point as "process crimes" and unrelated to Russia only shows that you aren't interested in the truth or actual justice but simply pushing your idiotic talking points that ignore all reality in favor of what the ministers of propaganda have told you. 

 

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???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Again, yes, they do. 

 

If person X has ties to Russia, and is on the campaign, then Person X is a link from the campaign to Russia. 

 

But please, feel free to keep playing the "well, if you take this one listing, pretend that it ended after one sentence, then pretend that that one sentence has additional qualifiers in it that I've made up" game. 

 

At least its more honest than the attempt to claim that the evil evil liberals have been fixated on the word "collusion" and nothing else for years. (When in fact, the only use of the word in the discussion has been Trumps belief that if he just tweets the words "no collusion" enough times, then evidence, guilty pleas, indictments and convictions will all magically disappear). 

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?

 

32 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

Yes but not to conspiracy against the US related to Russian coordination.

 

Not yet.

thank you.  not yet.  What if it doesnt happen?  Seriously, if this is all we have will it change your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

As an aside, where does the notion that the Mueller investigation is almost over and has found no evidence of collusion come from? Ty Cobb famously predicted its end by December 2017.

 

Some of his lawyers are already looking for their next gig, so thats the biggest, most recent sign. Im not sure that it means much though. There is still atleast one case that is under seal that we know next to nothing about. One would assume that has alot to do with the subject matter but we wont know until its available to us. 

 

 

Also note: Dude just said "If anything, Manafort implicated Democrats" while he has spent so much energy talking down the ties between Russia and Trump. That right there tells you all you need to know. It invalidates anything he has to say going forward. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

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?

 

If that's all he can prove then that's all he can prove. It won't change my mind based on the evidence available now because what somebody knows and what somebody can prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things. There is also the possibility that it shows clear collusion/conspiracy but GOP congress will never impeach so it pretty much dies there. It's not likely Trump would ever go to trial on this. They will cover it up and defend just as you are doing now. 

 

The real question is what will you do if it is proven? Defend, obfuscate, play semantics and blatantly ignore the truth, which you are readily doing now? We all know you won't hold him accountable if it is proven. So the questions you should be asking are to yourself. Things like:

 

Do I really care about truth and justice?

Will I adjust my beliefs in accordance with the facts presented to me?

Am I a person of integrity or just a blind partisan hack?

 

4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Also note: Dude just said "If anything, Manafort implicated Democrats" while he has spent so much energy talking down the ties between Russia and Trump. That right there tells you all you need to know. It invalidates anything he has to say going forward. 

 

Straight from Rush Limbaugh's mouth to CurseReversed's keyboard. 

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...