The Russia Hoax

[Daedalus X]

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?

[Daedalus X]

Why doesn't the evidence presented in the report counts as valid evidence?

Evidence needs to be valid and verifiable. So far we have not seen any valid and verifiable evidence in the so called Mueller Report. The report saying 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia' is not evidence, it is a claim, and you can't support your claim with some other claim.

Because that's what the consulting work was: issues relating to Russian interference.

How do you know this? Do you make it a habit to believe everything you are told, or did you come to this belief because of some sort of valid reasoning? Help me out, I don't have as much faith in Rachel Maddow and her ilk as some do.

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?

Yes.

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.

We do not make up laws on the fly and we do not execute justice with the laws that we wish we had, we execute justice with the laws that we do have. If you don't like the laws as written, there are ways of changing them, but until you change them, you are stuck with them.

[Bust Nak]

Evidence needs to be valid and verifiable. So far we have not seen any valid and verifiable evidence in the so called Mueller Report. The report saying 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia' is not evidence, it is a claim, and you can't support your claim with some other claim.

Where does this end though? Verifications in the from of testimonies obtained under oath are claims, e-mails are claims, travel information are claims.

How do you know this? Do you make it a habit to believe everything you are told, or did you come to this belief because of some sort of valid reasoning? Help me out, I don't have as much faith in Rachel Maddow and her ilk as some do.

How about the BBC? This article explains how the Ukraine government got tied up with Russian interference.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48268762

Yes.

Wow. Remind me not to work for you.

We do not make up laws on the fly and we do not execute justice with the laws that we wish we had, we execute justice with the laws that we do have. If you don't like the laws as written, there are ways of changing them, but until you change them, you are stuck with them.

Again, that's why the court appeals are still happening. We are proceeding with the laws that we do have. Despite the court challenges are meant as a delay tactic, knowing that court has traditionally ruled in favor of the Congress.

[Daedalus X]

Where does this end though? Verifications in the from of testimonies obtained under oath are claims, e-mails are claims, travel information are claims.

Where does this begin though?

You are talking like you have provided 'testimonies obtained under oath', 'e-mails' and 'travel information'. You have given us nothing. Have you even read the Mueller report?

Please provide 'testimonies obtained under oath' from the Mueller report that supports 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'.

Please provide 'e-mails' from the Mueller report that supports 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'.

Please provide 'travel information' from the Mueller report that supports 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'.

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.

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.

I do not know what Rick Gates told the FBI. Can you tell us what he said word for word?

No, but I can tell you what he pleaded guilty to: lying about consulting work with pro-Russian political figures in Ukraine.

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"?

Because that's what the consulting work was: issues relating to Russian interference.

How do you know this?

How about the BBC? This article explains how the Ukraine government got tied up with Russian interference.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48268762

Your claim is that Rick Gates lied to the FBI about consulting work, with pro-Russian political figures in the Ukraine, relating to Russian interference.

To support this claim you give us a BBC article that does not even mention Rick Gates!

Do you even realize that it is entirely possible that 'the Ukraine government got tied up with Russian interference' has nothing to do with Rick Gates' consulting work with pro-Russian political figures in Ukraine.

Are you going to support your claims or just withdraw them?

Again, that's why the court appeals are still happening. We are proceeding with the laws that we do have. Despite the court challenges are meant as a delay tactic, knowing that court has traditionally ruled in favor of the Congress.

Yes, President Trump is obeying the law and if he does not stop obeying the law we must impeach him for obeying the law. ](*,)

[Bust Nak]

Where does this begin though?

How about you read the report?

Please provide 'testimonies obtained under oath' from the Mueller report that supports 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'.

I was referring to Mueller's testimony during a House Judiciary Committee hearing here.

Please provide 'e-mails' from the Mueller report that supports 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'.

There are tonnes of it in the report, GRU email to WikiLeaks offering them stolen data, for example.

Please provide 'travel information' from the Mueller report that supports 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'.

Here I am referring to various people travelling to Moscow to meet with Russian intelligence officers or government officials.

Your claim is that Rick Gates lied to the FBI about consulting work, with pro-Russian political figures in the Ukraine, relating to Russian interference.

To support this claim you give us a BBC article that does not even mention Rick Gates!

But it does explain how consulting work, with pro-Russian political figures in the Ukraine is related to Russian interference.

Do you even realize that it is entirely possible that 'the Ukraine government got tied up with Russian interference' has nothing to do with Rick Gates' consulting work with pro-Russian political figures in Ukraine.

He might not be personally involved with Russian interference, but this is still an issue relating to Russian interference. Recall if you will near the beginning of this thread, I rise the question of whether issue related to Russian interference should be limited to connection with Russian interference, or include issue discovered with the investigation into Russian interference.

Yes, President Trump is obeying the law and if he does not stop obeying the law we must impeach him for obeying the law. ](*,)

If he obeyed the law, then we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place, the president is not above the law.

[Daedalus X]

Where does this begin though?

How about you read the report?

Did you forget that you are the one making claims here and failing to support your claims. You are shifting the burden of proof, just like the House of Representatives is shifting the burden of proof to the Senate.

Please provide 'testimonies obtained under oath' from the Mueller report that supports 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'.

I was referring to Mueller's testimony during a House Judiciary Committee hearing here.

Here is his testimony, please provide the time code where he supports your claim that 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia' and we will examine the evidence he provides.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ittee.html

Please provide 'e-mails' from the Mueller report that supports 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'.

There are tonnes of it in the report, GRU email to WikiLeaks offering them stolen data, for example.

Okay, provide the 'GRU email to WikiLeaks offering them stolen data' and we will examine this evidence.

Please provide 'travel information' from the Mueller report that supports 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia'.

Here I am referring to various people travelling to Moscow to meet with Russian intelligence officers or government officials.

Please provide the who, what, where, when and why and we will examine this evidence. Please note, it is not illegal to meet with Russian intelligence officers or government officials.

Your claim is that Rick Gates lied to the FBI about consulting work, with pro-Russian political figures in the Ukraine, relating to Russian interference.

To support this claim you give us a BBC article that does not even mention Rick Gates!

But it does explain how consulting work, with pro-Russian political figures in the Ukraine is related to Russian interference.

Please copy and past the part that explains how consulting work, with pro-Russian political figures in the Ukraine, is related to Russian interference.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48268762

Do you even realize that it is entirely possible that 'the Ukraine government got tied up with Russian interference' has nothing to do with Rick Gates' consulting work with pro-Russian political figures in Ukraine.

He might not be personally involved with Russian interference, but this is still an issue relating to Russian interference. Recall if you will near the beginning of this thread, I rise the question of whether issue related to Russian interference should be limited to connection with Russian interference, or include issue discovered with the investigation into Russian interference.

When you admit he might not be personally involved with Russian interference, you also admit that when you said...

You mean to tell me you did not know he was lying to the FBI on issues relating to Russian interference?

...and...

Okay, then that's moot then, since being jailed for something related to significant interference from Russia does support my claim.

...you were just making stuff up to support your argument. When President Trump does things like that, they accuse him of lying.


And which part of...

So, being jailed for something unrelated to significant interference from Russia does not support your claim.

...did you not understand?

Yes, President Trump is obeying the law and if he does not stop obeying the law we must impeach him for obeying the law. ](*,)

If he obeyed the law, then we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place, the president is not above the law.

Are you now saying that an appeal to the courts is not obeying the law? Is it also your position that the House of Representatives is above the law? If not, then maybe you think it is about time the House of Representatives obey the law, and drop this sham obstruction of Congress charge.

[Bust Nak]

Did you forget that you are the one making claims here and failing to support your claims.

You can't forget something that isn't true. I supported my claims by presenting the report.

please provide the time code where he supports your claim that 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia' and we will examine the evidence he provides.

39:48

Okay, provide the 'GRU email to WikiLeaks offering them stolen data' and we will examine this evidence.

I don't have access to the actual email, you can see what the report actually says on page 44. Volume 1, section III, B3.

Please provide the who, what, where, when and why and we will examine this evidence.

Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.

Please copy and past the part that explains how consulting work, with pro-Russian political figures in the Ukraine, is related to Russian interference.

"It was the black ledger payment revelations that forced Manafort to resign from the Trump campaign.
Those arguing that there was collusion, among them Mr Giuliani, allege that the ledger might be fake and that it was maliciously leaked after contacts between Mr Trump's Democrat opponents and Ukrainian diplomats... There's been no credible evidence that the ledger is fake, indeed many of the smaller payments on it have been tracked down and verified."

When you admit he might not be personally involved with Russian interference, you also admit that when you said

… you were just making stuff up to support your argument.

Why doesn't things dug up during the investigation into Russian interference, count as related to Russian interference?

And which part of...

So, being jailed for something unrelated to significant interference from Russia does not support your claim.

...did you not understand?

That seems easy enough to understand, it just isn't all that relevant here because being jailed for something related to significant interference from Russia does support my claim.

Are you now saying that an appeal to the courts is not obeying the law?

No, I am saying obstruction of justice and perhaps more importantly, freezing aid form Ukraine to pressure them to help his re-election is against the law.

Is it also your position that the House of Representatives is above the law? If not, then maybe you think it is about time the House of Representatives obey the law, and drop this sham obstruction of Congress charge.

But they are obeying the law. It is their lawful duty to hold the President accountable.

[Daedalus X]

Did you forget that you are the one making claims here and failing to support your claims.

You can't forget something that isn't true. I supported my claims by presenting the report.

please provide the time code where he supports your claim that 'there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia' and we will examine the evidence he provides.

39:48

Okay, provide the 'GRU email to WikiLeaks offering them stolen data' and we will examine this evidence.

I don't have access to the actual email, you can see what the report actually says on page 44. Volume 1, section III, B3.

Please provide the who, what, where, when and why and we will examine this evidence.

Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.

Please copy and past the part that explains how consulting work, with pro-Russian political figures in the Ukraine, is related to Russian interference.

"It was the black ledger payment revelations that forced Manafort to resign from the Trump campaign.
Those arguing that there was collusion, among them Mr Giuliani, allege that the ledger might be fake and that it was maliciously leaked after contacts between Mr Trump's Democrat opponents and Ukrainian diplomats... There's been no credible evidence that the ledger is fake, indeed many of the smaller payments on it have been tracked down and verified."

When you admit he might not be personally involved with Russian interference, you also admit that when you said

… you were just making stuff up to support your argument.

Why doesn't things dug up during the investigation into Russian interference, count as related to Russian interference?

And which part of...

So, being jailed for something unrelated to significant interference from Russia does not support your claim.

...did you not understand?

That seems easy enough to understand, it just isn't all that relevant here because being jailed for something related to significant interference from Russia does support my claim.

Are you now saying that an appeal to the courts is not obeying the law?

No, I am saying obstruction of justice and perhaps more importantly, freezing aid form Ukraine to pressure them to help his re-election is against the law.

Is it also your position that the House of Representatives is above the law? If not, then maybe you think it is about time the House of Representatives obey the law, and drop this sham obstruction of Congress charge.

But they are obeying the law. It is their lawful duty to hold the President accountable.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/40427 ... padopoulos


https://www.thedailybeast.com/barr-went ... ssia-probe


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 40930.html

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-fake- ... 15532.html

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/17/wh ... artphones/