There's two separate issues: suspicious contacts that people in Trumpworld lied about, and clear evidence of a conspiracy. When we first learned of Russiagate, Trump and company claimed no contacts, no business, nothing at all. Many of them lied. Over two years we've slowly seen what they lied about, and how shady and corrupt these people were.

But still, there's no clear evidence of a conspiracy yet. So maybe they just lied to cover up politically damaging information... maybe their desire to collude never resulted in actual collusion. But let's not pretend this investigation has exonerated Trumpworld of wrongdoing.

Or perhaps many of these people didn't lie at all, they simply did not properly recollect an event in their past? At least two people are guilty of nothing more than that.

Or perhaps people weren't lying about not having dealings with Russia, because they did not consider business dealings with non-government people in Russia as having dealings with Russia?

Last I checked, Russia is not our enemy, and there is no trade embargo against them. Last I checked, there is nothing illegal, suspicious, or conspiratorial about speaking to random Russians or Russian businesses.

I believe we can both agree that when Trump says something, the first thing we do is try to source it, because there's a 50% chance it's a lie. Watching this thread, and the clamoring to prove ANYTHING about ANYONE to discredit trump, his claims of a "Witchhunt" appear to be looking more and more valid.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Mar 5 2019 10:41am

If you want to dispute the facts of the case, you need to be specific. Who simply didn't recollect an event in their past? Lay out the facts for why you believe that.

I'm not just speaking of people charged with lying to the FBI... Manafort, Kushner, and Don Jr. took a meeting with a couple Russians because they expected to receive dirt on Hillary Clinton. The email said "as part of the Russian government's effort to get your father elected". That's just one lie of many. Trump lied saying he had no dealings in Russia, had nothing to do with Russia, all the while trying to sign an incredibly lucrative deal for a Moscow Trump tower. He was aware that his fixer was reaching out to government officials in Russia to make it happen. It's very suspicious and unethical that he continued to try to make this deal happen with a principal adversary even after he won the Republican nomination. Oh, and while doing this, the adversary was intervening in our election to help him win.

I'd rather just dissect what you're talking about here:
1. The meeting with the Russian lawyer was supposed to have damaging information about Clinton. Sure. It didn't. It was about some adoption thing. However, what's the issue? There was no damaging information, and the meeting actually was about some adoption thing. So when asked, that's what Don Jr, Kushner, and Manafort said. There's no lie there. I can see a case for omission, but omission of what? Where's the crime? Oppo research is not exactly an issue, is it? And a lawyer is not a foreign government. They are not a government agent. So the meeting with the Russian isn't an issue, what they were misled into thinking they'd get wasn't an issue, and what they actually discussed wasn't an issue. It seems here that the only issue is that somebody omitted information that wasn't relevant to the question at hand. Regarding all three men, "they did nothing wrong" as far as this specific subject is concerned. Manafort, it seems, has allegedly committed a host of unrelated crimes that had nothing to do with the other two. If convicted, it'll be fun to watch him rot in a cell. I believe we are in agreement on that at least. And it's good to know there's one less criminal and foreign lobbyist working in Washington.

2. Trump spoke of having no business with Russia, and technically, that was accurate. If I offer to sell you a bottle of vodka for $150, and you say how about $5, and I say, How about $80, but I get to drink half, and we go on dickering about it, and eventually we both walk away, have we conducted business? Until you engage in a transaction, it's not business. It's a negotiation only. Now, that's getting really lawyeresque in the technicalities, but if you consult a lawyer, it's accurate. Now as far as him lying about it, clearly he didn't, since his words were technically correct. But even if his words were not technically correct, so what if he lied about it? Public statements are not under oath. There's no crime there either way. And how is it at all suspicious or unethical for continuing negotiations on a potential business deal in a nation that is not our enemy, that is currently hard at work rebuilding it's economy? Why is this suspicious? Trump likes to build huge gaudy monstrosities. If he could get one built in every nation in the world that we don't consider our enemy, he absolutely would. Why would Russia be treated special?

3. You refer to Russia as our adversary, and that's where I'm going to require you back up your claim. First, define what you mean by adversary. Second, qualify it. Because the only current diplomatic status we have with Russia is "somewhat unfriendly due to Crimea". There are several sanctions, and Trump has imposed quite a few in the last year. A few businessmen and diplomats have been restricted from entering the US. But by calling them our "adversary" you seem to be indicating they are our "enemy", and they are by no means our enemy, we still trade with them, and we still have diplomatic relations with them.

4. I'm going to need the specific information on how you claim Russia intervened in our election, and how exactly they were trying to help Trump win. If you're talking about the troll factory, how is that "intervening" at all? I mean, when Obama went and spoke in London prior to Brexit, and said how there would be "Consequences" if Britain voted to leave, that would be "intervening" right? Like, the President of the world superpower threatening your economic success unless you vote his way? I'm not trying to point fingers here. I'm merely trying to insure we're on the same page. So, the only facts of Russian involvement in our election that anyone has presented so far would be the troll factory. But what actually was that? From all the information I've read, it was a $1,250,000/year ad campaign, plus a bunch of users/bots that posted an epic fuckton of pro bernie, anti hillary stuff to social media initially, then a bunch of pro trump, anti-hillary stuff after the primaries. Based on the fact that it was all pro-bernie shit until the primary, it seems to me the campaign had more to do with trying to sway people against hillary specifically, not making trump win. Also, one and a quarter million a year on ads? That's not even one superbowl ad, dude. That's like, an epic nothing. Regarding the bots, so what? I have real people on my feed who spend 10 hours a day tossing out pro-AOC propaganda. That person is from Europe and doesn't even understand the US political system. Should she be banned for it? And how exactly would you define this as an "intervention"? It's an attempt to influence voters, convince them to vote differently. We did the same thing in Russia's last election, in Ukraine, in Brexit, hell, all over the place. How is it either illegal, or an "intervention". Influence campaigns are done by virtually all nations, all the time.

This is seriously some of the weakest shit I've ever heard, and if it's the basis for a $27 million investigation, we've been had. So, if you have more examples of some actual extreme bombshell to share, feel free. Try to focus on actual crimes though, and since it's nailing Trump you're after, attempt to keep them focused at least somewhere near him, bot factory boy.

*Shakes head and wanders off*

Ah... so you want to dodge the question I had for you. Clearly you're not familiar enough with the case, and you're just throwing out weak right-wing talking points that don't stand up to scrutiny.

I'm going to be brief, because your incoherent rambling just reveals you don't know the facts of the case.

1) So going from "no Russian contacts" to "we tried to accept help from the Russian government in the form of dirt on Hillary from a Russian government lawyer(google it retard), and we admit during the meeting adoptions(thus, sanctions) were discussed" isn't a lie?

2) Trump has done business with Russians for decades in real estate and stupid pageants, and in 2015/2016 he tried to get a Trump Tower Moscow deal done. He even signed a letter of intent. That's called business.

3) Russia has been an adversary of the US since WW2 ended... this isn't exactly tough stuff. You may have noticed they are somewhat hostile to the West.

4) Google is your friend here. You can read all about how Russia intervened in 2016, and who has determined that they did it to help Trump.

You didn't debunk anything I said... your answer to pretty much everything is "so what?". The fact is that Trumpworld has lied over and over about their contacts with Russians and Russian cutouts. Oh, and Mueller is seizing 20+ million from Manafort, so he's basically paid for his investigation.

You must be trolling. Can't think of anything else to explain this level of nonsense.

1. I think you don't even know what you yourself are talking about. The lawyer is not a government lawyer. Google it yourself. She's a private lawyer. The discussion was in regards to the potential of Americans adopting Russian children. There are no sanctions against this. There is currently a Russian BAN in effect against it, because they claim we're abusive to their kids. Jesus Christ dude, at least THINK about learning your subject matter.

2. Renting apartments to Russians isn't "doing business with the Russians". He has no business interests in Russia. A letter of intent is still not a transaction. That's still just the tail end of a negotiation. Action has to be taken on it, it wasn't. Selling or renting real-estate in the US to Russians is also no crime. What about pageants now? NBC made the decisions on where Miss Universe was going. Trump may have been part owner, but NBC scheduled the gigs, dude.

3. No, the US was an adversary of the Soviet Union. AKA expansionist Communists. The US has not been an adversary of Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, we've partnered with them on hundreds of projects, at a government level, to help get them back on their feet since then, AND paved the way for mutually beneficial business. You really don't know shit about recent history do you?

4. Perhaps google needs to be your friend. You clearly don't know shit, you can't show any criminal activity, let alone collusion. This entire investigation can be summed up in two words: "Perjury Trap". That is the textbook definition, when it comes to this kind of investigation, of a "Witch Hunt".

And thus far, the only notable indictments I've seen are Manafort and Gates. That's it. Everyone else is either a Russian National who won't ever be charged, and those primarily because apparently it's not okay for Russians to troll the internet, or people caught in perjury traps. That's it. That's all you've got, mate. The rest is all conspiracy garbage that has nothing to do with any actual crimes. Now, regarding Manafort and Gates, that shit's fucking amazing. The problem is, why were their crimes only found out now, through this unrelated investigation?

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Mar 5 2019 04:23pm

Even that lawyer herself disagrees with you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/us/natalya-veselnitskaya-trump-tower-russian-prosecutor-general.html

That's not what that says, mate. She's still a private lawyer. As a lawyer, NATURALLY she speaks to the prosecutor general. Naturally they share information. That's part of her job.

That's like saying Cohen was a government lawyer because he frequently spoke to NY district attorneys, DAs, and judges. No, no he wasn't.

The prosecutor general and the investigative committee of russia are independent of the judicial, executive, AND legislative branches of Russia.

Yeah, Yuri Y. Chaika is a russian official. NO, Veselnitskaya is not.

It is not the Russian Government who pays her. It's her clients who pay her.

I didn't say she was a government lawyer. Note what I bolded in your previous post: "They are not a government agent". Her own claim of being an informant for the Russian Prosecutor General pretty much confirms that she's a government agent (whether or not she's a private lawyer).

This post was edited by Surfpunk on Mar 5 2019 05:05pm

That is inaccurate. That's like saying that because Manafort gave information to the FBI, he's a government agent. No, he was a suspect, giving testimony.

You cannot prosecute cases without going through the Prosecutor General. And getting any investigation done via the investigative committee of russia (basically their FBI) requires authorization from the Prosecutor General as well, and you are required to provide a fair bit of information.

HE is a government agent, yes. HIS hand directs their version of the FBI even. But to say that pretty much every single attorney in Russia is a government agent because they have to work with a government agent is asinine.