Author Topic: Misleading or False Claims by Trump  (Read 66341 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #250 on: February 15, 2019, 12:45:43 PM »
Quote
I continue to believe that it is ridiculous to correlate economic performance as a whole to Presidential terms

I was looking a trends that in general after a eight year GOP administration the economy tends to be on a down swing or crises.
Personally I think the GOP tax and regulation philosophy has something to do with it. The policy feels good in the short term but generally at a cost in the long term, mostly to the middle class as the division of wreath gets larger and larger.

Its odd but in a way the Liberal economic theory tends to be more conservative then the conservative economic theory.

So your data set is... how many samples of 8 year GOP adminstration?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #251 on: February 15, 2019, 01:12:42 PM »
Republicans accept the Boom/Bust cycle as part of the economic cycle. It's how innovation happens. Ironically, those bust cycles would be where social safety nets are most needed.

Democrats support economic theories that have the general idea that they can do away with the boom/bust cycle through the right combination of regulation and fiscal policy. Or at least, abolish the extreme swings between booms and busts.

Republicans favor allowing the boom/bust cycle more freedom to operate because they believe that the long-term average growth(over decades) is better.

Meanwhile the other theory thinks the by removing the extreme swings, they ameliorate the suffering of those who would be harmed by a bust cycle. Of course, their trade off is slower rates of growth in general. IIRC, I don't think they even try to make any claims as to "Long term outcomes" being better with their method, only asserting it's more stable and predictable.


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #252 on: February 15, 2019, 01:28:22 PM »
So your data set is... how many samples of 8 year GOP adminstration?

Probably one 12 year period and a 8 year period against two 8 year terms. I would be surprised if he looked at the 70's and earlier.

This also ignore that boom/bust cycles have a habit of running on a 2 to 6 years time frame. IIRC, prevailing view was we were supposed to enter a period of economic contraction sometime around 2016, as we'd never truly hit a period of negative growth since shortly after Obama took office. So in many respects its amazing the US economy grew at all after Trump took office, unless you decide to describe Obama's Administration as having been a "boat anchor" that had been holding things back, something Trump stopped once in office. Leading to the pent up economic activity taking place as quickly as the market could bear until it had played out, at which point the "bust"/consolidation/reorganization cycle is starting to take hold for a time causing growth to slow or even contract before heading into a normal boom/bust cycle.

Trump came in on the coat tails of perhaps one of the largest government induced market distortions ever seen, trying to make sense of a market returning to natural operation after such a state was achieved is going to be difficult at best.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #253 on: February 15, 2019, 01:46:43 PM »
It was a while since I looked at the data, however the data when back to the 1910 -

It was a general observation I noted and put down to party philosophy more then about being about a particular president. 
And I'm not saying if its a good thing or bad thing, just a observation. I'm conservative by nature and the GOP economic philosophy is not a Conservative long term/forward thinking philosophy.
Its all about getting it now... :)

I won't be surprised if there is a major financial melt down by the end of Trumps second term. 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 01:52:55 PM by rightleft22 »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #254 on: February 15, 2019, 03:25:43 PM »
Just for clarification, and not to interrupt the economics conversation, but I was primarily referring to his abysmal counting of the number of people in his rally and O'Rourke's rally. :)

In other news, Trump states that "I never said, ’I’m going to build a concrete--,' I said I was going to build a wall."  He goes on to man-splain why steel is a better construction material than concrete.

I guess all those conversations we had here about the concrete wall, the cost of the concrete wall, the materials needed for a concrete wall, they were all "fake news."  Every person who thought they heard Trump talk about a 20-foot, 30-foot, 40-foot concrete wall doesn't remember the speeches correctly.  When Trump said, "On the fence--it's not a fence. It's a wall," he was comparing a steel structure to chicken wire.  When he tweeted, "An all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED..." he didn't mean concrete, he meant...bah, who knows what he meant.  ::)  Obviously he didn't mean concrete when he used the word "concrete."

At least, for now.  ;)

Perhaps it is the meaning of words that aren't "concrete" to him. :)

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #255 on: February 15, 2019, 03:35:38 PM »
If numbers don't matter to the man, why would building materials?  Quit being so nitpicky.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #256 on: March 24, 2019, 05:48:24 PM »
Quote
They haven't presented evidence of criminal activity that justifies the appointment (that is just a fact, they literally haven't shown the cards).
This is just silly - by this standard, every single investigation throughout the history of humanity was a witch hunt at the time investigators began investigating, with the possible exception of those investigations that were initiated by the culprit initiating the process by pre-emptively confessing.

Of course, there have already been dozens (hundreds?) of indictments and charges resulting from this supposed witch hunt - including against, what, 27 Russian nationals for the actual interference? One of the defining attributes of "witch hunts" is that witches do not actually exist - 27 people charged in federal court would seem to belie the primary attribute of the witch hunt claim...   

And one has to be willfully ignorant of the recent court filings by the special counsel to believe that there has been no evidence yet provided of "links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."  Also, note that the order appointing the special counsel does not limit the investigation to only "criminal activity" - that seems to be a pretty common and convenient misrepresentation of the scope of the investigation.

So we have
1. Evidence of Russian interference - check
2. Evidence of links between the Russians charged with interference and members of the Trump campaign - check

Is anything proven?  No.  Is there evidence? Unquestionably.  Will that stop people from parroting Trump's "witch hunt" characterization?  Almost certainly not.

This aged well.  ;D

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #257 on: March 24, 2019, 10:48:12 PM »
The funny thing is (not surprising of course) is that you don't realize that it is still 100% accurate.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #258 on: March 24, 2019, 11:27:10 PM »
ROFLMAO

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #259 on: April 05, 2019, 05:37:24 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-mocks-bidens-statement-on-personal-space-with-doctored-video-190658980.html

"Trump mocks Biden's statement on 'personal space' with doctored video."

Trump is using a video that never happened to make fun of a serious situation of making women uncomfortable and touching them without permission. If you look carefully at the video you can see Biden talking to the camera and then he sneaks up on him and puts his hands on him like he does often to women and children but since it is he putting his hands on him it's almost certainly a doctored and fake video and therefore a blatant lie and probably fake news too. I suppose it could be some kind of Split thing like that lady in Heroes or some weird Warehouse 13 coming out of a mirror horror but if you run the numbers it's much more likely that it's just Trump lying through his teeth again just as the headline indicates by saying it's a doctored video which insinuates purposeful deception as opposed to a parody which might have been okay and for humorous effect instead of lying as usual.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #260 on: April 05, 2019, 08:52:45 AM »
This response actually works here:
The funny thing is (not surprising of course) is that you don't realize that it is still 100% accurate.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #261 on: April 05, 2019, 09:24:42 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-mocks-bidens-statement-on-personal-space-with-doctored-video-190658980.html

"Trump mocks Biden's statement on 'personal space' with doctored video."

Trump is using a video that never happened to make fun of a serious situation of making women uncomfortable and touching them without permission. If you look carefully at the video you can see Biden talking to the camera and then he sneaks up on him and puts his hands on him like he does often to women and children but since it is he putting his hands on him it's almost certainly a doctored and fake video and therefore a blatant lie and probably fake news too. I suppose it could be some kind of Split thing like that lady in Heroes or some weird Warehouse 13 coming out of a mirror horror but if you run the numbers it's much more likely that it's just Trump lying through his teeth again just as the headline indicates by saying it's a doctored video which insinuates purposeful deception as opposed to a parody which might have been okay and for humorous effect instead of lying as usual.

Just to be clear...  You are mocking the headline?  For using the word "doctored"?  Sorry, my funny bones all need a marrow transplant after the last few years.   :-\

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #262 on: April 05, 2019, 09:28:18 AM »
Yes, I was calling out and clapping back with thrown shade against the headline for calling it a doctored video which sounds sinister instead of what most people would probably call it which is a parody video. I thought it was pretty funny myself.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #263 on: April 05, 2019, 09:38:50 AM »
Quote
1. Evidence of Russian interference - check
2. Evidence of links between the Russians charged with interference and members of the Trump campaign - check

1. We aren't really going to contest this one are we? All the intelligence agencies have weighed in.
2. Problematic. There were 13 Russians charged with interference. Which member of the Trump campaign had contact with any of them, even by proxy?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #264 on: April 05, 2019, 09:57:09 AM »
 <goes to urban dictionary to look up "clapping back" and "throwing shade">

Ahhh.  I see now. 

I thought it was funny as well.  Kinda bold coming from Trump, but amusing none the less.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #265 on: April 05, 2019, 11:14:17 AM »
2. Problematic. There were 13 Russians charged with interference. Which member of the Trump campaign had contact with any of them, even by proxy?

Bannon was coordinating with Stone who was coordinating with a Russian hacker who was one of the indicted.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-filing-roger-stone-communicated-with-wikileaks-russian-hacker-2019-2

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/25/steve-bannon-was-likely-trumps-contact-with-roger-stone-on-wikileaks-email-dumps/

We have the Trump Tower meeting with a variety of Trump personnel meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting

We have the Trump campaign coordinating with the NRA and Maria Butina.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/677100880/how-russian-maria-butina-figures-into-the-trump-administration

https://www.salon.com/2018/12/12/maria-butinas-boyfriend-claimed-he-set-up-trump-russia-nra-conduit-as-campaign-funds-flowed/

Maria Butina has been indicted and had done a plea bargain. and Veselnitskaya has been indicted on a separate issue.  Stone is indicted.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #266 on: April 05, 2019, 06:03:14 PM »
Keep going!

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #267 on: April 05, 2019, 09:20:51 PM »
2. Problematic. There were 13 Russians charged with interference. Which member of the Trump campaign had contact with any of them, even by proxy?

Bannon was coordinating with Stone who was coordinating with a Russian hacker who was one of the indicted.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-filing-roger-stone-communicated-with-wikileaks-russian-hacker-2019-2

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/25/steve-bannon-was-likely-trumps-contact-with-roger-stone-on-wikileaks-email-dumps/

We have the Trump Tower meeting with a variety of Trump personnel meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting

We have the Trump campaign coordinating with the NRA and Maria Butina.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/677100880/how-russian-maria-butina-figures-into-the-trump-administration

https://www.salon.com/2018/12/12/maria-butinas-boyfriend-claimed-he-set-up-trump-russia-nra-conduit-as-campaign-funds-flowed/

Maria Butina has been indicted and had done a plea bargain. and Veselnitskaya has been indicted on a separate issue.  Stone is indicted.

Are you saying that Mueller was incapable of investigating what happened in those meetings?

Because it does seem that Mueller found "no evidence" of coordination(collusion) between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #268 on: April 05, 2019, 11:28:05 PM »

Are you saying that Mueller was incapable of investigating what happened in those meetings?

Because it does seem that Mueller found "no evidence" of coordination(collusion) between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

Actually we have no idea what Mueller found, we haven't seen the report.

That said, Stone hasn't gone to trial yet.  So it would be part of an ongoing investigation.  Also is coordinating with Stone who you know is coordinating with Russia "coordinating with Russia" in the sense of Mueller's investigation?

The other two were "prior Russian agents" working for "Russian Oligarchs who were personal friends of Putin".  What is the legal distinction between Russian Oligarchs and the Russian Government?  If Trump campaign members coordinated with and made promises to Russian Oligarchs rather than to Putin is that under Meuller's purview or should he turn over the investigation to others?

I'm curious what Mueller has to say and I look forward to reading the report when it becomes available (to the extent it can be made public) and the testimony of Mueller, his team members, and Barr.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #269 on: April 08, 2019, 11:33:11 AM »

Are you saying that Mueller was incapable of investigating what happened in those meetings?

Because it does seem that Mueller found "no evidence" of coordination(collusion) between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

Actually we have no idea what Mueller found, we haven't seen the report.

Actually we do have an idea.  Are you just using hyperbole, or do you not understand the following statement:

Quote
The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

So you have it in Barr's words and the words from the report.  Mueller did not find the evidence of collusion that you want to see. 

There's also this line:

Quote
The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations.

Which again means what it says, they did a thorough investigation using (and possibly abusing) the powers of a federal prosecutor to compel testimony and disclosure.  Internet sleuthing of publically available snippets and construing them to be as misleading (and supportive of your conspiracy theory) as possible notwithstanding.

Both the house and the Senate also failed to find this "obvious" evidence.

The most likely answer is and always was that there was no collusion, which is why no one can find evidence of it.

Quote
That said, Stone hasn't gone to trial yet.  So it would be part of an ongoing investigation.  Also is coordinating with Stone who you know is coordinating with Russia "coordinating with Russia" in the sense of Mueller's investigation?

No, or Mueller would still be investigating.  Stone speaking to Wikileaks isn't even a crime, even assuming that the prosecutors can show he did so (which he denied).  Are you still confused about that?

Has any case been brought against Wikileaks for Russian collusion?  Not that I'm aware of, and we already know that there are no sealed indictments from the special counsel's report.  You seem not only to have skipped that step, but also to have already convicted Wikileaks, notwithstanding that they'd release anything they got from anyone.

Quote
The other two were "prior Russian agents" working for "Russian Oligarchs who were personal friends of Putin".  What is the legal distinction between Russian Oligarchs and the Russian Government?  If Trump campaign members coordinated with and made promises to Russian Oligarchs rather than to Putin is that under Meuller's purview or should he turn over the investigation to others?

It was in his mandate, which means he investigated it and did not find the evidence you are making up without any cause.

You don't have real evidence so why are you still trying to make it up?  Take a step back.  Realize that you've bought into a made up story and try to move on.

Meanwhile, still waiting for an explanation for sending a swat team with diver support and tactical equipment to capture a 69 year old man, with a deaf wife, who didn't present any real risk, and who was released by the court on his own recognizance, while CNN had a crew standing by.  Do you care - at all - about abuse by the government?

Quote
I'm curious what Mueller has to say and I look forward to reading the report when it becomes available (to the extent it can be made public) and the testimony of Mueller, his team members, and Barr.

I look forward to reading the report.  I'm sure it'll have enough nastiness in it to feed into the delusion that there was collusion.  But remember, if a bunch of hardnosed Hillary supporting prosecutors couldn't find a case, then only conspiracy theorists will be able to do so.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #270 on: April 08, 2019, 12:24:45 PM »

Actually we do have an idea.  Are you just using hyperbole, or do you not understand the following statement:

Quote
The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

So you have it in Barr's words and the words from the report.  Mueller did not find the evidence of collusion that you want to see.

Barr has specifically stated that his note was not a 'summary' of Mueller's findings, and there has been reports that the investigators believe that Barr grossly misrepresented their findings.  So I think given both of those we don't have much of an idea of what Mueller found.  Also Barr has made statements about what would constitute obstruction of justice that seems he holds a definition entirely contrary to law.  Given this, I don't think Barr's statements can be taken at face value. 


Quote
Quote
The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations.


Which again means what it says, they did a thorough investigation using (and possibly abusing) the powers of a federal prosecutor to compel testimony and disclosure.  Internet sleuthing of publically available snippets and construing them to be as misleading (and supportive of your conspiracy theory) as possible notwithstanding.

Again, we don't know how Mueller defined "Russian Government" - he may have decided that Russian oligarchs don't meet the definition of "Russian government" and thus are outside his purview.

Quote
Both the house and the Senate also failed to find this "obvious" evidence.

The Republican controlled House and Senate didn't call a number of important witnesses, and bizarrely allowed claims of privilege for conversations that were not privileged.  It was clearly not a good faith investigation, but rather a farce.

Quote
The most likely answer is and always was that there was no collusion, which is why no one can find evidence of it.

I just presented evidence of it - it may not meet a 'beyond reasonable doubt' - but it absolutely is evidence.

Quote
No, or Mueller would still be investigating.  Stone speaking to Wikileaks isn't even a crime, even assuming that the prosecutors can show he did so (which he denied).  Are you still confused about that?

Given the Meuller's investigation was quickly brought to a close after Barr was appointed, I think it likely that Barr instructed Mueller to wrap up the investigation by a given date.  I never claimed that talking with wikileaks was a crime - I said conspiring with Russia.

Quote
Has any case been brought against Wikileaks for Russian collusion?  Not that I'm aware of, and we already know that there are no sealed indictments from the special counsel's report.  You seem not only to have skipped that step, but also to have already convicted Wikileaks, notwithstanding that they'd release anything they got from anyone.

There is actually a sealed indictment against Julian Assange that was accidentally revealed due to a misfiling by prosecutors.

Quote
The charges came to light late Thursday through an unrelated court filing in which prosecutors inadvertently mentioned them.

“The court filing was made in error,” said Joshua Stueve, a spokesman for the United States attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia. “That was not the intended name for this filing.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/julian-assange-indictment-wikileaks.html

Also there is only an anonymous source claiming there are 'no sealed indictments' - we don't actually have that from the special counsel's report (especially since we don't have the special counsels report).

Quote
Quote
The other two were "prior Russian agents" working for "Russian Oligarchs who were personal friends of Putin".  What is the legal distinction between Russian Oligarchs and the Russian Government?  If Trump campaign members coordinated with and made promises to Russian Oligarchs rather than to Putin is that under Meuller's purview or should he turn over the investigation to others?

It was in his mandate, which means he investigated it and did not find the evidence you are making up without any cause.

Barr said "russian government" not "russian oligarchs" - so even if Barrs statement accurately reflected Mueller's findings, we don't know what Mueller's findings were regarding russian oligarchs. Statements by lawyers should be parsed as if they were by lawyers, especially when bad faith and deceptive statements are regular occurrences by this administration.

Quote
You don't have real evidence so why are you still trying to make it up?  Take a step back.  Realize that you've bought into a made up story and try to move on.

There was plenty of real evidence, we simply don't know what Meuller's findings were.  You may have faith that Trump and his administration have made a good faith report of what Meuller has found, I don't have such faith.  Once we see Mueller's report and have heard his and his collegues testimony then I'll be satisifed.

Quote
Meanwhile, still waiting for an explanation for sending a swat team with diver support and tactical equipment to capture a 69 year old man, with a deaf wife, who didn't present any real risk, and who was released by the court on his own recognizance, while CNN had a crew standing by.  Do you care - at all - about abuse by the government?

If you mean Stone - a no knock warrant was fully justified - the risk was his destroying evidence.  CNN figured out where it would take place on their own.   There is zero evidence of government abuse in this case.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« Reply #271 on: April 08, 2019, 01:12:57 PM »

Actually we do have an idea.  Are you just using hyperbole, or do you not understand the following statement:

Quote
The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

So you have it in Barr's words and the words from the report.  Mueller did not find the evidence of collusion that you want to see.

Barr has specifically stated that his note was not a 'summary' of Mueller's findings, and there has been reports that the investigators believe that Barr grossly misrepresented their findings.

Barr quoted a passage from the report.  I can't guaranty it, but it's a virtual certainty that what the reports of "anonymous" members of the team passing on to their "anonymous" associates and somehow to the front page of the NYTimes is that they believed the President obstructed justice.  As I mentioned before, they are bulldog leftist prosecutors and seem to believe that publically calling their investigation a witchhunt should have been deemed a criminal interference.

It's a nonsensical standard.

In any event, Barr quoted the report on this point.  It is settled, and it's pure conspiracy to assert that he's somehow misrepresented the conclusion.

Quote
So I think given both of those we don't have much of an idea of what Mueller found.

To the contrary, we have a lot of idea of what he found.  Nothing much.

Quote
Also Barr has made statements about what would constitute obstruction of justice that seems he holds a definition entirely contrary to law.  Given this, I don't think Barr's statements can be taken at face value.

Actually he didn't.  You're flat wrong in two ways.  First, his summary specifically said that he was not relying on that interpretation (which relates to whether a President can not be guilty as a matter of law), but rather that the elements were not present.  We also know they were not present because Mueller didn't bring the claim himself.

Second, you're just wrong that what he said was contrary to law.  It's factually completely consistent with law.  The existence of a legal debate on the point does not render his position (which has been widely held for decades by the DOJ under control of both parties) as beyond settled to be wrong. 

Quote
Again, we don't know how Mueller defined "Russian Government" - he may have decided that Russian oligarchs don't meet the definition of "Russian government" and thus are outside his purview.

No chance.  Given that he'd be at least as aware as you are of the interconnections between the two.  Not to mention he specifically investigated Russian companies with connections more nebulous than that.

Again, why are you going to such lengths to hang your hat on obvious nonsense.  The prosecutors involved are much better at their job that you are, and they were at least as motivated.

Quote
Quote
Both the house and the Senate also failed to find this "obvious" evidence.

The Republican controlled House and Senate didn't call a number of important witnesses, and bizarrely allowed claims of privilege for conversations that were not privileged.  It was clearly not a good faith investigation, but rather a farce.

Lol, you keep asserting this nonsense.  There are no "witnesses" to collusion that didn't happen.  What criminal activity are you investigating? There was none.  What collusion are you investigating?  There was none.  Who exactly did the House, the Senate and the Special Prosecutor fail to talk to?

Every person you claim they "failed to call" provided them with documents or testimony.  And you've yet to set out any thing compelling that they were not already asked.  Heck, the administration shared 1.5 million pages with the Special Prosecutor.  The GCA turned over (possibly illegal) the records of the transition to the special prosecutor. 

You want to call Hope Hicks to discuss the president's schedule?  Guaranty they've seen the schedule itself.  Bannon to discuss what?  Executive privileged discussions? 

It's all nonsense.

Quote
Quote
The most likely answer is and always was that there was no collusion, which is why no one can find evidence of it.

I just presented evidence of it - it may not meet a 'beyond reasonable doubt' - but it absolutely is evidence.

Really?   Did you present some evidence of coordination?  Not that I saw.  You presented "evidence" that some people talked to Russians.  It's only delusion that converts that into something more.

There is not one politician that doesn't have someone in their orbit that has talked to a Russian.

Quote
Quote
No, or Mueller would still be investigating.  Stone speaking to Wikileaks isn't even a crime, even assuming that the prosecutors can show he did so (which he denied).  Are you still confused about that?

Given the Meuller's investigation was quickly brought to a close after Barr was appointed, I think it likely that Barr instructed Mueller to wrap up the investigation by a given date.  I never claimed that talking with wikileaks was a crime - I said conspiring with Russia.

Again, you make up a new fact.  Barr told Mueller to wrap it up. 

I already laid out the more likely point.  Mueller knew the gig was up when a non-recused AG was appointed and he'd have to explain why a 2 year investigation into collusion that didn't find collusion was ongoing.

Not that "still had material investigations to do" but that did not find collusion. 

Let's see what started this whole witch hunt.

Quote
There is actually a sealed indictment against Julian Assange that was accidentally revealed due to a misfiling by prosecutors.

lol.  There's been several of those for years, why do you think he's hiding in an embassy?  Nothing stops them from filing against Wikileaks.

Quote
Also there is only an anonymous source claiming there are 'no sealed indictments' - we don't actually have that from the special counsel's report (especially since we don't have the special counsels report).

If by "anonymous source" you mean Barr's letter:

Quote
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public.

So let's be clear there are no sealed indictments waiting to be made public by the Special Counsel.

Again, it's delusional to think that anything in Barr's letter is going to be directly contradicted by the full report.

Quote
Barr said "russian government" not "russian oligarchs" - so even if Barrs statement accurately reflected Mueller's findings, we don't know what Mueller's findings were regarding russian oligarchs. Statements by lawyers should be parsed as if they were by lawyers, especially when bad faith and deceptive statements are regular occurrences by this administration.

Well agree, statements by lawyers shouldn't be parsed by people caught in the grip of a conspiracy theory.  You start reading things in that you wished were there rather than what was there.

If there was something there about "Russian Oligarchs" Mueller would have brought the charges.  Are you confused about his mandate - which specifically covered evidence and crimes that came to his attention during the investigation?

Again this is a fail.  The report is not going to establish a case for Russian Oligarch (but really the Russian government by another name) charges against the President or his campaign.

Quote
There was plenty of real evidence, we simply don't know what Meuller's findings were.

Actually we do.  No collusion with the campaign despite Russian efforts to reach out.  That's the finding.

What you don't know is what facts Mueller discovered that caused him to reach that conclusion.

Quote
You may have faith that Trump and his administration have made a good faith report of what Meuller has found, I don't have such faith.  Once we see Mueller's report and have heard his and his collegues testimony then I'll be satisifed.

Oh, do you know have evidence that Trump has seen the report, or that the White House has access to it?  Far as we know its still sitting with the AG.

And no.  You won't be satisfied if and when it proves there was no collusion.  You're too invested.

Quote
Quote
Meanwhile, still waiting for an explanation for sending a swat team with diver support and tactical equipment to capture a 69 year old man, with a deaf wife, who didn't present any real risk, and who was released by the court on his own recognizance, while CNN had a crew standing by.  Do you care - at all - about abuse by the government?

If you mean Stone - a no knock warrant was fully justified - the risk was his destroying evidence.  CNN figured out where it would take place on their own.   There is zero evidence of government abuse in this case.

What evidence?  They already had his electronic and other records.  Do you just make this up as you go?

Nothing justifies the level of raid they conducted on someone who is not a physical threat.