Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

And who else running for president wanted to build a hotel in Moscow?  Who - while president - has taken emoluments from Russians and diplomats from foreign countries?

How much of Trump's debt is connected to Russian banks - should this fact be known?

For the sane among you, you may notice that Professor Corey made all of that up.  

Please continue.

paulsurovell said:

 OK, you've given three examples of Trump's real estate dealings with Russians.
Now what has been discovered that relates these dealings to the allegation that Trump colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

We’re all agreed that Trump’s past connections are fair game, and we’re all interested in anything about Trump, regardless of how it’s disclosed. Whether evidence that relates to the collusion allegation has or hasn’t been discovered — tough for some of us to judge before the results of the Mueller investigation are released — doesn’t affect those two concurrences.

So, contrary to one of the statements that started this afternoon’s discussion, Paul does care about Trump’s past Russia connections. What remains a puzzle is why the rest of us are supposed to care only if they relate to interference in the 2016 election.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 OK, you've given three examples of Trump's real estate dealings with Russians.
Now what has been discovered that relates these dealings to the allegation that Trump colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

We’re all agreed that Trump’s past connections are fair game, and we’re all interested in anything about Trump, regardless of how it’s disclosed. Whether evidence that relates to the collusion allegation has or hasn’t been discovered — tough for some of us to judge before the results of the Mueller investigation are released — doesn’t affect those two concurrences.
So, contrary to one of the statements that started this afternoon’s discussion, Paul does care about Trump’s past Russia connections. What remains a puzzle is why the rest of us are supposed to care only if they relate to interference in the 2016 election.
 

Let me unlock the puzzle for you:

I've never said that anyone should not "care" about anything.

I've said that people should not conflate (1) prior Trump real estate dealings with Russians and (2) alleged Trump collusion with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. Those are two distinct and separate activities (and one of them is an alleged activity with no evidence to support it).

Unfortunately many believers of the collusion conspiracy, especially in the media, often claim prior Trump Russian business dealings as evidence of collusion, directly or by innuendo.

I've pointed out the flawed logic of such claims.

So my position is -- It's good to "care" but not good to misrepresent what you care about.

jamie said:
And who else running for president wanted to build a hotel in Moscow?  Who - while president - has taken emoluments from Russians and diplomats from foreign countries?
How much of Trump's debt is connected to Russian banks - should this fact be known?

 Apparently Trump decided not to build a hotel in Moscow. Does this suggest an alliance with Putin?

The emoluments clause has nothing to do with Presidential candidates, only Presidents.

Yes, all facts should be known about all Trump wealth and financial and business dealings. And I will support Nadler's efforts to go after his tax returns.

Apart from that, I've said before that Trump should be impeached for putting the nation at risk by denying and exacerbating climate change:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-climate-withdrawal-is-an-impeachable-offense_us_59395721e4b094fa859f1625

Trump should be investigated and charged for real crimes, not bogus ones, like Russian collusion. That's a hoax.

sbenois said:
For the sane among you, you may notice that Professor Corey made all of that up.  

Please continue.

Did you change your position from executing Assange to imprisoning him so you could pretend you're a "liberal?"

Again - this was the directive of the Special Counsel:

Investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals

(i) associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

Indictments to date:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

The biggest question all along - if Trump and his crew did nothing wrong.  Why did they deny talking to Russians at every chance possible?   Why lie?  

And how can anyone conclude that it's a witch hunt and hoax prior to the final report.  This whole thread - you're trying to squash the counsel and resorting more to the court of public opinion.  It's absolutely bizarre.

Trump should be investigated and charged for real crimes, not bogus ones

What bogus crime has Trump been charged with?????????????????  Maybe Mueller will find nothing.

paulsurovell said:

paulsurovell said:

Now what has been discovered that relates these dealings to the allegation that Trump colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

So my position is -- It's good to "care" but not good to misrepresent what you care about.

Then here’s hoping one of the variations of my answer — “I don’t know yet” — will one of these days satisfy the variations of your question.

The Phony Witch Hunt continues, but Mueller and his gang of Angry Dems are only looking at one side, not the other. Wait until it comes out how horribly & viciously they are treating people, ruining lives for them refusing to lie. Mueller is a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue...

The Fake News Media builds Bob Mueller up as a Saint, when in actuality he is the exact opposite. He is doing TREMENDOUS damage to our Criminal Justice System, where he is only looking at one side and not the other. Heroes will come of this, and it won’t be Mueller and his...

terrible Gang of Angry Democrats. Look at their past, and look where they come from. The now $30,000,000 Witch Hunt continues and they’ve got nothing but ruined lives. Where is the Server? Let these terrible people go back to the Clinton Foundation and “Justice” Department!

Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt
   Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt
Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Be About Truth - Witch Hunt
   Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt - Witch Hunt 

"Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps," Corsi wrote on Aug. 2, 2016, referring to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to the draft court papers. "One shortly after I'm back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-has-emails-stone-pal-corsi-about-wikileaks-dem-email-n940611

Trumpy is in deep trouble.   Collusion.   With Paul's friends.   

Paul is strangely silent.   

Humina.  Humina.  Humina.

.

sbenois said:
Trumpy is in deep trouble.   Collusion.   With Paul's friends.   
Paul is strangely silent.   




Humina.  Humina.  Humina.

Look who loves the SubForum now!

After my next post you'll be back to crying to Jamie to bury it.

So the Cohen plea deal turns out to be, like everything else in the Mueller probe, to have nothing to do with the 2016 election. Cohen pleaded guilty of lying three times in a written statement he gave to the House and Senate Intel committees on August 28, 2017. None of the lies relate to Mueller's charge to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

If Cohen had pleaded guilty of lying in his September 19, 2017 statement to the Senate committee, it would be a different story. In the latter statement, Cohen denies the Steele dossier allegations against him and any other form of collusion with the Russian government to influence the election:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/politics/read-michael-cohen-statement/index.html

I have never engaged with, been paid by, paid for, or conversed with any member of the Russian Federation or anyone else to hack or interfere with the election.

So what have we learned from the plea deal?  Virtually nothing. Everything in the plea deal was already in the public record for 6 months or more, with one exception: We learned that Cohen's call to Putin spokesman Peskov was returned by an assistant, who asked Cohen to clarify what he was calling about, not to provide anything for Cohen.

As the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times have reported, Trump's legal team says that Trump's answers to Mueller about the Trump Tower Moscow project are consistent with Cohen's pleadings, including that Trump discussed the proposed project with Cohen during the election.

Since Mueller has the answers, I think it's highly unlikely they are lying about this.

As the Times opines, Cohen's plea deal is not problematic for Trump:

But even if the president knew that Mr. Cohen misled Congress, legal experts said, he is not in legal jeopardy as long as he did not ask Mr. Cohen to lie. And there is no allegation that he did so.

The latest complaint, on its face, seems less worrisome for the president than the previous one lodged against Mr. Cohen in August, said Chuck Rosenberg, a former United States attorney and senior F.B.I. official.

Additional References:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/anthonycormier/trump-moscow-micheal-cohen-felix-sater-campaign#.iwG7zvl9Y

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-mueller-manafort-trump-agenda/

Can we move on now to consider the evidence that Manafort visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy?

paulsurovell said:

Can we move on now to consider the evidence that Manafort visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy?

Only if someone wants to be argumentative, since nobody in our discussions has defended the Guardian story.

Paul - please provide Cohen's transcript with Mueller - I think it was estimated to be around 70 hours of testimony.

Thanks in advance!

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Can we move on now to consider the evidence that Manafort visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy?

Only if someone wants to be argumentative, since nobody in our discussions has defended the Guardian story.

Since when is posting about topics where there is agreement "argumentative?"

jamie said:
Paul - please provide Cohen's transcript with Mueller - I think it was estimated to be around 70 hours of testimony.
Thanks in advance!

 I'd also like to see the text of his letter where he lied ( he's only accused of lying in the letter). It doesn't seem to be on the Internet.

Robert Mueller Is No Match for Fox News   

https://nyti.ms/2DV5TtY?smid=nytcore-ios-share

The allure of a Mueller report lies in its imagined promise of a single, definitive truth capable of cutting through the haze of lies, confusion and “alternative facts.” But Mr. Corsi’s and Mr. Papadopoulos’s antics are a warning that this hope will inevitably fall short. Conspiracy theorists and prosecutors live in different worlds: The first, unmoored from truth; the second, devoted to proving facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Mueller has the power to charge Mr. Corsi for lying; he has already done so to Mr. Papadopoulos. Rather than crumbling, though, their falsehoods have continued to spread and grow — and they’ve taken root in the media ecosystem in which the president chooses to spend his days. 

In this environment, the question is less what Mr. Mueller will do next and more what Congress and the American people will do with the information they already have.

By now it’s clear that the special counsel is not armed with a silver bullet, not because the facts are not bad for the president but precisely because they are. If facts were enough, Mr. Trump would already have been impeached.

paulsurovell said:

Since when is posting about topics where there is agreement "argumentative?"

 Don’t let me stand in the way of shedding new light.

South_Mountaineer said:
Robert Mueller Is No Match for Fox News   
https://nyti.ms/2DV5TtY?smid=nytcore-ios-share

The allure of a Mueller report lies in its imagined promise of a single, definitive truth capable of cutting through the haze of lies, confusion and “alternative facts.” But Mr. Corsi’s and Mr. Papadopoulos’s antics are a warning that this hope will inevitably fall short. Conspiracy theorists and prosecutors live in different worlds: The first, unmoored from truth; the second, devoted to proving facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Mueller has the power to charge Mr. Corsi for lying; he has already done so to Mr. Papadopoulos. Rather than crumbling, though, their falsehoods have continued to spread and grow — and they’ve taken root in the media ecosystem in which the president chooses to spend his days. 

In this environment, the question is less what Mr. Mueller will do next and more what Congress and the American people will do with the information they already have.

By now it’s clear that the special counsel is not armed with a silver bullet, not because the facts are not bad for the president but precisely because they are. If facts were enough, Mr. Trump would already have been impeached.

 The author doesn't tell us what "facts" he thinks are impeachable.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Robert Mueller Is No Match for Fox News   
https://nyti.ms/2DV5TtY?smid=nytcore-ios-share

The allure of a Mueller report lies in its imagined promise of a single, definitive truth capable of cutting through the haze of lies, confusion and “alternative facts.” But Mr. Corsi’s and Mr. Papadopoulos’s antics are a warning that this hope will inevitably fall short. Conspiracy theorists and prosecutors live in different worlds: The first, unmoored from truth; the second, devoted to proving facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Mueller has the power to charge Mr. Corsi for lying; he has already done so to Mr. Papadopoulos. Rather than crumbling, though, their falsehoods have continued to spread and grow — and they’ve taken root in the media ecosystem in which the president chooses to spend his days. 

In this environment, the question is less what Mr. Mueller will do next and more what Congress and the American people will do with the information they already have.

By now it’s clear that the special counsel is not armed with a silver bullet, not because the facts are not bad for the president but precisely because they are. If facts were enough, Mr. Trump would already have been impeached.

 The author doesn't tell us what "facts" he thinks are impeachable.

 She. The author is a Ms. Jurecic. Did you read the article?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Robert Mueller Is No Match for Fox News   
https://nyti.ms/2DV5TtY?smid=nytcore-ios-share

The allure of a Mueller report lies in its imagined promise of a single, definitive truth capable of cutting through the haze of lies, confusion and “alternative facts.” But Mr. Corsi’s and Mr. Papadopoulos’s antics are a warning that this hope will inevitably fall short. Conspiracy theorists and prosecutors live in different worlds: The first, unmoored from truth; the second, devoted to proving facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Mueller has the power to charge Mr. Corsi for lying; he has already done so to Mr. Papadopoulos. Rather than crumbling, though, their falsehoods have continued to spread and grow — and they’ve taken root in the media ecosystem in which the president chooses to spend his days. 

In this environment, the question is less what Mr. Mueller will do next and more what Congress and the American people will do with the information they already have.

By now it’s clear that the special counsel is not armed with a silver bullet, not because the facts are not bad for the president but precisely because they are. If facts were enough, Mr. Trump would already have been impeached.

 The author doesn't tell us what "facts" he thinks are impeachable.

 She. The author is a Ms. Jurecic. Did you read the article?

 Yes.  What "facts" does she say are impeachable?

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Robert Mueller Is No Match for Fox News   
https://nyti.ms/2DV5TtY?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 The author doesn't tell us what "facts" he thinks are impeachable.

 She. The author is a Ms. Jurecic. Did you read the article?

 Yes.  What "facts" does she say are impeachable?

 She sets out her arguments using facts and online links, which you can read to satisfy your curiosity.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Robert Mueller Is No Match for Fox News   
https://nyti.ms/2DV5TtY?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 The author doesn't tell us what "facts" he thinks are impeachable.

 She. The author is a Ms. Jurecic. Did you read the article?

 Yes.  What "facts" does she say are impeachable?

 She sets out her arguments using facts and online links, which you can read to satisfy your curiosity.

 In other words the answer is "None."

paulsurovell said:
So the Cohen plea deal turns out to be, like everything else in the Mueller probe, to have nothing to do with the 2016 election. Cohen pleaded guilty of lying three times in a written statement he gave to the House and Senate Intel committees on August 28, 2017. None of the lies relate to Mueller's charge to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

He was charged with lying to Congress re Trump's ties to Russia. So so so many lies about Russia. Do you ever stop to ask why that is?

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Robert Mueller Is No Match for Fox News   
https://nyti.ms/2DV5TtY?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 The author doesn't tell us what "facts" he thinks are impeachable.

 She. The author is a Ms. Jurecic. Did you read the article?

 Yes.  What "facts" does she say are impeachable?

 She sets out her arguments using facts and online links, which you can read to satisfy your curiosity.

 In other words the answer is "None."

 So you read "None" of it.  Suit yourself.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
So the Cohen plea deal turns out to be, like everything else in the Mueller probe, to have nothing to do with the 2016 election. Cohen pleaded guilty of lying three times in a written statement he gave to the House and Senate Intel committees on August 28, 2017. None of the lies relate to Mueller's charge to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

He was charged with lying to Congress re Trump's ties to Russia. So so so many lies about Russia. Do you ever stop to ask why that is?

 No lies.  No puppet.  It's all the fault of the neocon cold-warriors.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 She sets out her arguments using facts and online links, which you can read to satisfy your curiosity.

 In other words the answer is "None."

I didn’t follow Jurecic’s “might haves” and “seeminglys” to her conclusion, either, but I could follow South_Mountaineer’s answer, and it wasn’t that.

South_Mountaineer said:

No lies.  No puppet.  It's all the fault of the neocon cold-warriors.

 Putin's an innocent player, after all.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
So the Cohen plea deal turns out to be, like everything else in the Mueller probe, to have nothing to do with the 2016 election. Cohen pleaded guilty of lying three times in a written statement he gave to the House and Senate Intel committees on August 28, 2017. None of the lies relate to Mueller's charge to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

He was charged with lying to Congress re Trump's ties to Russia. So so so many lies about Russia. Do you ever stop to ask why that is?

 Did you ever stop to ask why none of the lies involve collusion with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election?

And are you aware that Trump and his team have told many lies about many topics?