Quote (Plaguefear @ Nov 6 2021 02:32pm)

Ah i thought you are a business owner, just a manager, i found most of the time the management was the biggest issue when a business was faltering.
I always paid well above the minimum too so i had better quality employees.
And yes more money in peoples pockets should mean more business for a well run business.

Quote (bogie160 @ Nov 6 2021 02:35am)

If we want to call Kilimnik a Russian intelligence operative, we're going to need to iron out when exactly he became a Russian intelligence operative. Are we saying that he was considered an intelligence operative at the same time that the United States was paying his salary at the IRI? That sounds absurd. He left the IRI to work for Manafort's Ukrainian consulting business, lobbying on behalf of various Ukrainian oligarchs. At what point did he stop being Kilimnik, political consultant and become Kilimnik, intelligence operative?

These labels are important. Relationships in Russia are intensely personal, anyone tangentially related to government work is going to rub shoulders with oligarchs who are in some way connected to Putin, because all Russian business is in some way connected to Putin. Steele's dossier is living proof of that, being a product of Russian disinfo itself. That does make Kilimnik a security threat, he is clearly not a trustworthy recipient of information. It doesn't make him a Russian spy, and it's certainly not evidence of a conspiracy between Manafort and the Russian government.

Manafort's motives appear relatively clear, he was interested in promoting his work to potential clients, some of whom he believed owed him money. He's a professional political grifter in that arena, his clients stopped asking for his services, he wanted to fill the pipeline for future work after Trump. It makes sense. What doesn't make sense is Manafort using Kilimnik to sneak Putin a few pages of polling data, the vast majority of which was public. Russian intelligence has better connections, and we know that because Obama was being briefed on the fact that Russian intelligence was allegedly aware that Clinton was trying to tie Trump to Russia.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Nov 6 2021 03:07am)

See, this is how I know you're dishonest. Because I've personally corrected you on this specific point more than once.

Mueller fundamentally did not say "no" in his report. The methodology he was employing explicitly excluded saying "yes", but still allowed "no" or "Maybe, refer to congress". He did not say no, he specifically referred to congress.

You are a liar, and have been for years now, and this is just one example.

Quote

...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Quote

Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

Quote (bogie160 @ Nov 6 2021 02:20pm)

You are confusing obstruction with conspiracy. If you do ever decide to read the report, Mueller divides the issues neatly into sections hundred of pages apart so as to prevent this exact sort of confusion.
There was nothing stopping Mueller from making a determination on whether the Trump campaign was involved in an illegal conspiracy. And indeed, he made the determination that there was insufficient evidence to support that charge.

So, to circle back, your claim in this thread is that collusion has been conclusively proven. It's just not true.

Quote (IceMage @ Nov 6 2021 03:44pm)

The Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation assessed he is a Russian intelligence officer. Mueller just said he had ties to Russian intelligence services. The US Treasury Department says that Kilimnik gave the Russian intelligence services sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy. You're falling into paranoid Glenn Greenwald territory when you imply that all of these parts of the US government are lying about it.

There's no reason Kilimnik can't be both a political consultant and an intelligence operative, just as Stefan Halper was both a professor and an asset of American intelligence, and just as Joseph Mifsud was an academic and an asset of Russian intelligence.

The motives didn't appear as clear to the Senate Intel investigators, or Mueller's team. Of course the cult wants to grab onto whatever explanation helps Trump, which is that Kilimnik, the Russian intelligence officer, put aside his spy duties while talking to the head of a presidential campaign. And Manafort, the man of character and integrity, couldn't have handed over the information knowing where it could've gone, to appease the oligarch he owed 20 million to. Who knows what else they talked about that we don't know about.

Of course, this is what must be done when faced with incredibly damning facts... find a way to minimize them. "AKSHULLY, Manafort handing over sensitive campaign information to Russian intelligence isn't a big deal!"

Quote (bogie160 @ Nov 6 2021 04:20pm)

You are confusing obstruction with conspiracy. If you do ever decide to read the report, Mueller divides the issues neatly into sections hundred of pages apart so as to prevent this exact sort of confusion.
On collusion...
On obstruction...
There was nothing stopping Mueller from making a determination on whether the Trump campaign was involved in an illegal conspiracy. And indeed, he made the determination that there was insufficient evidence to support that charge.
So, to circle back, your claim in this thread is that collusion has been conclusively proven. It's just not true.

Quote (Sioux @ 6 Nov 2021 17:48)

The report literally says there is evidence, just not enough to support a criminal charge because the conspirators used encrypted messaging systems and deleted evidence.

The gap between "NO COLLUSION" to evidence of collusion to evidence to support a criminal charge of conspiracy is pretty large.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 6 Nov 2021 18:12)

"Not enough evidence to support the charge" is not the same as a "not guilty" conclusion. He explicitly stated that they were willing and able to collaborate, and further evidence after the report came out substantiated that they indeed did colaborate.

Your transparent attempt to muddy the waters is noted.

Quote (bogie160 @ 6 Nov 2021 17:20)

You are confusing obstruction with conspiracy. If you do ever decide to read the report, Mueller divides the issues neatly into sections hundred of pages apart so as to prevent this exact sort of confusion.

On collusion...



On obstruction...



There was nothing stopping Mueller from making a determination on whether the Trump campaign was involved in an illegal conspiracy. And indeed, he made the determination that there was insufficient evidence to support that charge.

So, to circle back, your claim in this thread is that collusion has been conclusively proven. It's just not true.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Nov 6 2021 06:12pm)

"Not enough evidence to support the charge" is not the same as a "not guilty" conclusion. He explicitly stated that they were willing and able to collaborate, and further evidence after the report came out substantiated that they indeed did colaborate.

Your transparent attempt to muddy the waters is noted.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Nov 6 2021 02:27am)

We have Trump's campaign directly colluding with Russia. Only thing we don't have is Trump on a call saying "Yes, I will give you X for Y". But you'd have to be pretty dumb, or think pretty lowly of Trump, to think he had no idea this was going on.

Quote (bogie160 @ Nov 6 2021 05:35pm)

I am responding to statements you made in this thread.

Let's reiterate, what you're saying is false. It's not correct. It's directly contradicted by the Mueller report. You are saying that collusion is a fact. Mueller says he doesn't have the evidence to support that accusation.

Let's not shift the goal posts. Mueller investigated whether the President's campaign conspired with the Russian government, and found insufficient evidence to support that charge. It's not his job to exonerate the President, and we certainly don't assume evidence of guilt absent evidence of guilt.

You need to take a step back and read the report. You've made several mistakes in this thread that demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. Mueller did not refer the question of conspiracy to Congress, and there was no restriction on his ability to form a conclusion.

Quote (WickedDarkJuggalos @ Nov 7 2021 06:02am)

You come off very insulting.