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?

[Bust Nak]

Is 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."

[Daedalus X]

Is the Mueller Report considered credible here?

Is 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.

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.

I am sure that, to some people, 'sound bites' count as evidence, but not on this forum.

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.

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'.

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."

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.

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?

[Bust Nak]

Is it credible anywhere?

Sure, in the US for example.

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.

Does that matter when we know it has Muller's backing?

I am sure that, to some people, 'sound bites' count as evidence, but not on this forum.

That's where the report comes in.

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.

Well now you know two more, potentially more, depending on how you count. The latest update, 45 days for Rick Gates.

Certainly NOT 'significant interference from Russia'.

Are you changing the goal post? In connection with Russian interference is much broader than conspiring with Russia's interference.

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.

Context please. I don't watch Fox news, so I am a few step behind on right wing talking points.

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.

Having the power to do something, doesn't make it right, or even legal in some cases.

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.

That's where the report comes in.

And nether did anyone else, that matters, ergo no impeachment came out of this report.

Criminal actions and impeachment are different topics. One is a matter of law, the other politics.

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.

There is no legal definition, in my words, it's something like investigating someone without a proper reason.

Was, for example, Bernstein and Woodward 'digging up dirt' on President Nixon?

No. The break in was the proper reason.

[Daedalus X]

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.

Does that matter when we know it has Muller's backing?

Backing from a confused old man is not much of an endorsement.

I am sure that, to some people, 'sound bites' count as evidence, but not on this forum.

That's where the report comes in.

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'.

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.

Well now you know two more, potentially more, depending on how you count. The latest update, 45 days for Rick Gates.

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.

Certainly NOT 'significant interference from Russia'.

Are you changing the goal post? In connection with Russian interference is much broader than conspiring with Russia's interference.

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.

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.

Context please. I don't watch Fox news, so I am a few step behind on right wing talking points.

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.

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.

Having the power to do something, doesn't make it right, or even legal in some cases.

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.

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.

That's where the report comes in.

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]

Backing from a confused old man is not much of an endorsement.

You are moving the goal post. Whether his endorsement is worth something or not, is irrelevant as to the authenticity of the 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'.

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.

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.

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.

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

But presumably, painting this instance at obstruction of justice into some sort of "nothing burger" did came from Fox?

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.

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?

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?

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]

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.

Does that matter when we know it has Muller's backing?

Backing from a confused old man is not much of an endorsement.

You are moving the goal post. Whether his endorsement is worth something or not, is irrelevant as to the authenticity of the report.

Are 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?

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'.

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.

Perhaps you should admit that you have not found any proof in the Mueller report that supports significant 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?

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.

But presumably, painting this instance at obstruction of justice into some sort of "nothing burger" did came from Fox?

It is NOT a "nothing burger", in fact it is an abuse of power... hers.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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]

Are you saying the report has Mueller's 'backing' but his 'endorsement' is irrelevant?

No, I am saying how much his endorsement/backing is worth, is irrelevant as to the authenticity of the report.

Can you explain what this means, given that 'backing' and 'endorsement' are synonymous?

I don't know why you'd thought to ask, not sure why you think I was treating as anything other than synonymous.

Perhaps you should admit that you have not found any proof in the Mueller report that supports significant interference from Russia.

That would be highly irrational given what the report has found.

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.

It is NOT a "nothing burger", in fact it is an abuse of power... hers.

You seem to be forgetting that Congress has the right to subpoena and oversight over the Executive branch.

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.

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?

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".

A direct quote from the Mueller report that states there was "sweeping and systematic" interference from Russia doesn't count as "significant?"

[Daedalus X]

No, I am saying how much his endorsement/backing is worth, is irrelevant as to the authenticity of the report.

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.

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

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"?
That makes as much sense as saying President Trump had Russian dressing on his salad, so he must be colluding with the Russians.

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?

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.

You seem to be forgetting that Congress has the right to subpoena and oversight over the Executive branch.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.