In another thread a debater said the following
Oh yeah, the hoax that revealed significant interference from Russia, where a number of high profile Trump associates have been jailed. The hoax where the main reason given for not making an explicit charge against Trump was that a president cannot be indicted so it's best handle via impeachment?
Question for debate
1. Was there any significant interference from Russia in the 2016 election?
2. Were any high profile Trump associates jailed in connection with this Russian interference?
3. What charges, connected to the Russian interference, would have been brought against Trump if he could have been indicted?
The Russia Hoax
Moderator: Moderators
- Daedalus X
- Apprentice
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:33 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 12 times
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9858
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: The Russia Hoax
Post #2Is the Mueller Report considered credible here? You can find the exact wording and context here.
1) I make do with this sound bite. "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." There is a lot more detail in the report.
2) Jailed in connection with this Russian interference? Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. We can add Paul Manafort to the list if we widen the criteria to jailed in connection with the investigation into Russian interference. There is also Rick Gates who is convicted, but still awaiting sentence.
For those who are unfamiliar with these names, these people are Trump's personal lawyer, his national security advisor, his foreign policy advisor, his campaign chairman and chief strategist, and his campaign manager.
3) Obstruction of justice, the report highlighted these issues:
The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump.
Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn.
The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation.
The President's termination of Comey.
The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him.
Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation.
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence.
Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation.
Efforts to have White House Counsel Don McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed.
Conduct towards Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort.
Conduct involving Michael Cohen.
There is also this gem "the President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
1) I make do with this sound bite. "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." There is a lot more detail in the report.
2) Jailed in connection with this Russian interference? Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. We can add Paul Manafort to the list if we widen the criteria to jailed in connection with the investigation into Russian interference. There is also Rick Gates who is convicted, but still awaiting sentence.
For those who are unfamiliar with these names, these people are Trump's personal lawyer, his national security advisor, his foreign policy advisor, his campaign chairman and chief strategist, and his campaign manager.
3) Obstruction of justice, the report highlighted these issues:
The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump.
Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn.
The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation.
The President's termination of Comey.
The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him.
Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation.
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence.
Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation.
Efforts to have White House Counsel Don McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed.
Conduct towards Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort.
Conduct involving Michael Cohen.
There is also this gem "the President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
- Daedalus X
- Apprentice
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:33 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: The Russia Hoax
Post #3Is it credible anywhere? We don't even know if Muller wrote the report, anymore than we know that Mathew wrote the Gospel of Mathew. I don't even know if Muller has read the Muller report.Bust Nak wrote: Is the Mueller Report considered credible here?
I am sure that, to some people, 'sound bites' count as evidence, but not on this forum.Bust Nak wrote:1) I make do with this sound bite. "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." There is a lot more detail in the report.
As far as I know, only George Papadopoulos was sentenced in connection with allegations of Russian interference. He tried to get alleged Russian held 'dirt' [1] on Clinton, in exchange for who knows what, to the Trump campaign but it was not acted on. He only got 14 days jail time, for lying, so his crime was not serious. Certainly NOT 'significant interference from Russia'.Bust Nak wrote:2) Jailed in connection with this Russian interference? Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. We can add Paul Manafort to the list if we widen the criteria to jailed in connection with the investigation into Russian interference. There is also Rick Gates who is convicted, but still awaiting sentence.
Obstruction of justice is meaningless here. We live in a world where the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives thinks the words "I will see you in court" is obstruction of justice when those words mean exactly the opposite of what she thinks.Bust Nak wrote: 3) Obstruction of justice, the report highlighted these issues:
The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump.
Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn.
The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation.
The President's termination of Comey.
The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him.
Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation.
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence.
Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation.
Efforts to have White House Counsel Don McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed.
Conduct towards Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort.
Conduct involving Michael Cohen.
There is also this gem "the President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
One very obvious error in your list is the President's termination of Comey, the President had every right to terminate Comey for any reason or even no reason as the FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the president. As for the Presidents dealings with Comey he may have attempted obstruction by asking him not to investigate something, but that is just a 'he said she said' thing.
You will need to give more detail if you want to make any of those other charges fly, as I don't see any crimes here. And nether did anyone else, that matters, ergo no impeachment came out of this report.
1. ↑ One question, what does it mean to 'dig up dirt'? I see it used a lot, but I can find no legal definition of it. Was, for example, Bernstein and Woodward 'digging up dirt' on President Nixon?
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9858
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: The Russia Hoax
Post #4Sure, in the US for example.Daedalus X wrote: Is it credible anywhere?
Does that matter when we know it has Muller's backing?We don't even know if Muller wrote the report, anymore than we know that Mathew wrote the Gospel of Mathew. I don't even know if Muller has read the Muller report.
That's where the report comes in.I am sure that, to some people, 'sound bites' count as evidence, but not on this forum.
Well now you know two more, potentially more, depending on how you count. The latest update, 45 days for Rick Gates.As far as I know, only George Papadopoulos was sentenced in connection with allegations of Russian interference. He tried to get alleged Russian held 'dirt' [1] on Clinton, in exchange for who knows what, to the Trump campaign but it was not acted on. He only got 14 days jail time, for lying, so his crime was not serious.
Are you changing the goal post? In connection with Russian interference is much broader than conspiring with Russia's interference.Certainly NOT 'significant interference from Russia'.
Context please. I don't watch Fox news, so I am a few step behind on right wing talking points.Obstruction of justice is meaningless here. We live in a world where the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives thinks the words "I will see you in court" is obstruction of justice when those words mean exactly the opposite of what she thinks.
Having the power to do something, doesn't make it right, or even legal in some cases.One very obvious error in your list is the President's termination of Comey, the President had every right to terminate Comey for any reason or even no reason as the FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the president. As for the Presidents dealings with Comey he may have attempted obstruction by asking him not to investigate something, but that is just a 'he said she said' thing.
That's where the report comes in.You will need to give more detail if you want to make any of those other charges fly, as I don't see any crimes here.
Criminal actions and impeachment are different topics. One is a matter of law, the other politics.And nether did anyone else, that matters, ergo no impeachment came out of this report.
There is no legal definition, in my words, it's something like investigating someone without a proper reason.1. ↑ One question, what does it mean to 'dig up dirt'? I see it used a lot, but I can find no legal definition of it.
No. The break in was the proper reason.Was, for example, Bernstein and Woodward 'digging up dirt' on President Nixon?
- Daedalus X
- Apprentice
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:33 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: The Russia Hoax
Post #5Backing from a confused old man is not much of an endorsement.Bust Nak wrote:Does that matter when we know it has Muller's backing?Daedalus X wrote: We don't even know if Muller wrote the report, anymore than we know that Mathew wrote the Gospel of Mathew. I don't even know if Muller has read the Muller report.
If you found something in the report, don't be shy, share it with the rest of us. I have not found anything in that 'report'.Bust Nak wrote:That's where the report comes in.Daedalus X wrote:I am sure that, to some people, 'sound bites' count as evidence, but not on this forum.
Well NO, Rick Gates was NOT convicted of anything related to Russian interference. It had to do with lying to the FBI and money laundering in the Ukraine.Bust Nak wrote:Well now you know two more, potentially more, depending on how you count. The latest update, 45 days for Rick Gates.Daedalus X wrote:As far as I know, only George Papadopoulos was sentenced in connection with allegations of Russian interference. He tried to get alleged Russian held 'dirt' [1] on Clinton, in exchange for who knows what, to the Trump campaign but it was not acted on. He only got 14 days jail time, for lying, so his crime was not serious.
Your claim is "the hoax that revealed significant interference from Russia, where a number of high profile Trump associates have been jailed."Bust Nak wrote:Are you changing the goal post? In connection with Russian interference is much broader than conspiring with Russia's interference.Daedalus X wrote:Certainly NOT 'significant interference from Russia'.
So, being jailed for something unrelated to significant interference from Russia does not support your claim.
She said the President's actions of "bumping them up in court" — or continuing to appeal to a higher court — "is an obstruction of justice." that is from CNN not FOX.Bust Nak wrote:Context please. I don't watch Fox news, so I am a few step behind on right wing talking points.Daedalus X wrote:Obstruction of justice is meaningless here. We live in a world where the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives thinks the words "I will see you in court" is obstruction of justice when those words mean exactly the opposite of what she thinks.
In this case it was both legal and right. President Trump is a good judge of character. Here is some 20/20 hindsight on Comey.Bust Nak wrote:Having the power to do something, doesn't make it right, or even legal in some cases.Daedalus X wrote:One very obvious error in your list is the President's termination of Comey, the President had every right to terminate Comey for any reason or even no reason as the FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the president. As for the Presidents dealings with Comey he may have attempted obstruction by asking him not to investigate something, but that is just a 'he said she said' thing.
Bring it on, we are waiting with bated breath. Be specific, give us chapter and verse. And be honest, if we have to believe something by 'faith' then say so. Sometimes faith is all that we have, but how much are you willing to believe in by way of faith?Bust Nak wrote:That's where the report comes in.Daedalus X wrote:You will need to give more detail if you want to make any of those other charges fly, as I don't see any crimes here.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9858
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: The Russia Hoax
Post #6You are moving the goal post. Whether his endorsement is worth something or not, is irrelevant as to the authenticity of the report.
Perhaps you should read it, even just a summary? I gave you the link the to report in my first post. Volume 1 is all about Russian interference.If you found something in the report, don't be shy, share it with the rest of us. I have not found anything in that 'report'.
You mean to tell me you did not know he was lying to the FBI on issues relating to Russian interference? And the second charge was for conspiracy against the United States.Well NO, Rick Gates was NOT convicted of anything related to Russian interference. It had to do with lying to the FBI and money laundering in the Ukraine.
Okay, then that's moot then, since being jailed for something related to significant interference from Russia does support my claim.Bust Nak wrote: Your claim is "the hoax that revealed significant interference from Russia, where a number of high profile Trump associates have been jailed."
So, being jailed for something unrelated to significant interference from Russia does not support your claim.
But presumably, painting this instance at obstruction of justice into some sort of "nothing burger" did came from Fox?She said the President's actions of "bumping them up in court" — or continuing to appeal to a higher court — "is an obstruction of justice." that is from CNN not FOX.
I am not sure what I am suppose to be getting out of that video. Comey is a liar therefore it's okay for the president to fire him for investigating Russia interference into US election?In this case it was both legal and right. President Trump is a good judge of character. Here is some 20/20 hindsight on Comey.
Just in case it wasn't clear, I quote directly from the report. Faith is not required when I have evidence. The whole of volume is about obstruction.Bring it on, we are waiting with bated breath. Be specific, give us chapter and verse. And be honest, if we have to believe something by 'faith' then say so. Sometimes faith is all that we have, but how much are you willing to believe in by way of faith?
- Daedalus X
- Apprentice
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:33 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: The Russia Hoax
Post #7Are you saying the report has Mueller's 'backing' but his 'endorsement' is irrelevant? Can you explain what this means, given that 'backing' and 'endorsement' are synonymous?Bust Nak wrote:You are moving the goal post. Whether his endorsement is worth something or not, is irrelevant as to the authenticity of the report.Daedalus X wrote:Backing from a confused old man is not much of an endorsement.Bust Nak wrote:Does that matter when we know it has Muller's backing?Daedalus X wrote: We don't even know if Muller wrote the report, anymore than we know that Mathew wrote the Gospel of Mathew. I don't even know if Muller has read the Muller report.
Perhaps you should admit that you have not found any proof in the Mueller report that supports significant interference from Russia.Bust Nak wrote:Perhaps you should read it, even just a summary? I gave you the link the to report in my first post. Volume 1 is all about Russian interference.Daedalus X wrote:If you found something in the report, don't be shy, share it with the rest of us. I have not found anything in that 'report'.
I do not know what Rick Gates told the FBI. Can you tell us what he said word for word?Bust Nak wrote:You mean to tell me you did not know he was lying to the FBI on issues relating to Russian interference? And the second charge was for conspiracy against the United States.Daedalus X wrote:Well NO, Rick Gates was NOT convicted of anything related to Russian interference. It had to do with lying to the FBI and money laundering in the Ukraine.
It is NOT a "nothing burger", in fact it is an abuse of power... hers.Bust Nak wrote:But presumably, painting this instance at obstruction of justice into some sort of "nothing burger" did came from Fox?Daedalus X wrote:She said the President's actions of "bumping them up in court" — or continuing to appeal to a higher court — "is an obstruction of justice." that is from CNN not FOX.
It is okay for the president to fire Comey for any reason, it just turns out that Comey really was in need of being tossed to the curb.Bust Nak wrote: I am not sure what I am suppose to be getting out of that video. Comey is a liar therefore it's okay for the president to fire him for investigating Russia interference into US election?
I may have missed it, but you have only posted three times and I can't find a direct quote from the Mueller report that would support a claim of "significant interference from Russia".Bust Nak wrote:Just in case it wasn't clear, I quote directly from the report. Faith is not required when I have evidence. The whole of volume is about obstruction.Daedalus X wrote:Bring it on, we are waiting with bated breath. Be specific, give us chapter and verse. And be honest, if we have to believe something by 'faith' then say so. Sometimes faith is all that we have, but how much are you willing to believe in by way of faith?
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9858
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: The Russia Hoax
Post #8No, I am saying how much his endorsement/backing is worth, is irrelevant as to the authenticity of the report.Daedalus X wrote: Are you saying the report has Mueller's 'backing' but his 'endorsement' is irrelevant?
I don't know why you'd thought to ask, not sure why you think I was treating as anything other than synonymous.Can you explain what this means, given that 'backing' and 'endorsement' are synonymous?
That would be highly irrational given what the report has found.Perhaps you should admit that you have not found any proof in the Mueller report that supports significant interference from Russia.
No, but I can tell you what he pleaded guilty to: lying about consulting work with pro-Russian political figures in Ukraine.I do not know what Rick Gates told the FBI. Can you tell us what he said word for word?
You seem to be forgetting that Congress has the right to subpoena and oversight over the Executive branch.It is NOT a "nothing burger", in fact it is an abuse of power... hers.
Again, he has the power to, is that enough to make it okay in your eyes? If so, is that a general rule, having power = okay, or just okay in this instance?It is okay for the president to fire Comey for any reason, it just turns out that Comey really was in need of being tossed to the curb.
A direct quote from the Mueller report that states there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia doesn't count as "significant?"I may have missed it, but you have only posted three times and I can't find a direct quote from the Mueller report that would support a claim of "significant interference from Russia".
- Daedalus X
- Apprentice
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:33 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: The Russia Hoax
Post #9So far, we have a report (aka propaganda) that bears the name of a person that may have written or read some of it, which makes the unsubstantiated claim that 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'. And you have failed to provide any valid evidence for this claim.Bust Nak wrote: No, I am saying how much his endorsement/backing is worth, is irrelevant as to the authenticity of the report.
Bust Nak wrote: You mean to tell me you did not know he was lying to the FBI on issues relating to Russian interference?
How do you go from "lying about consulting work with pro-Russian political figures in Ukraine" to "lying to the FBI on issues relating to Russian interference"?Bust Nak wrote: No, but I can tell you what he pleaded guilty to: lying about consulting work with pro-Russian political figures in Ukraine.
That makes as much sense as saying President Trump had Russian dressing on his salad, so he must be colluding with the Russians.
One of the powers granted to the President is to fire the director of the FBI for any reason. So it is okay for the President to fire the director of the FBI. Even if Comey was lying to protect the nation, it would still be okay to fire him. I can imagine a scenario where Comey had long conversations with President Obama on the justification for illegally spying on the Trump campaign to determine if President Trump had been working for the Russian government, and both these men felt it would be too divisive for the nation for this information to come out.Bust Nak wrote: Again, he has the power to, is that enough to make it okay in your eyes? If so, is that a general rule, having power = okay, or just okay in this instance?
You seem to be forgetting that we have three branches of government. If President Trump takes the subpoena to court, then let the Judicial Branch take care of it. Or we could let Congress amend the Constitution to make it clear that a congressional subpoena is absolute and can't be challenged in court. (And let Congress abuse that power.)Bust Nak wrote: You seem to be forgetting that Congress has the right to subpoena and oversight over the Executive branch.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9858
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: The Russia Hoax
Post #10Why doesn't the evidence presented in the report counts as valid evidence?Daedalus X wrote: So far, we have a report (aka propaganda) that bears the name of a person that may have written or read some of it, which makes the unsubstantiated claim that 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'. And you have failed to provide any valid evidence for this claim.
Because that's what the consulting work was: issues relating to Russian interference.How do you go from "lying about consulting work with pro-Russian political figures in Ukraine" to "lying to the FBI on issues relating to Russian interference"?
Okay, how about my follow up question, is this a general rule or just specific to this case? I have to power to fire any of my employee for any reason (other than those specified in employment discrimination laws,) would it be okay to fire someone because I figured it would help my chances at stealing his/her boy/girlfriend?One of the powers granted to the President is to fire the director of the FBI for any reason. So it is okay for the President to fire the director of the FBI. Even if Comey was lying to protect the nation, it would still be okay to fire him. I can imagine a scenario where Comey had long conversations with President Obama on the justification for illegally spying on the Trump campaign to determine if President Trump had been working for the Russian government, and both these men felt it would be too divisive for the nation for this information to come out.
But that's exactly what is happening. The sticking point was, taking the subpoena to court was meant as a delay tactic, as the court has traditionally ruled in favor of the Congress.You seem to be forgetting that we have three branches of government. If President Trump takes the subpoena to court, then let the Judicial Branch take care of it.