End Of The Mueller Probe

[Replay]

Kali wants it celebrated that Trump was cleared from the potential of high treason/conspiracy charges in the Mueller probe!

So let's recap!

Six major Trump campaign advisers arrested, including his personal lawyer who once said he'd "take a bullet for Trump", most serving serious multi-year sentences. Manafort convicted on 25 counts, Cohen on 8, both relating to campaign finance crime. Overall indictments include 25 Russian nationals indicted as well, including 12 GRU officers.

But rejoice, my fellow Americans:

It appears that the Trump 2016 campaign was *only* guilty of campaign finance fraud, and a lot of phone calls to Russian mobsters and the GRU (otherwise known as The Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation), and perjury and a lot of other things. Not actual collusion! Seems like when you run for President, and your staff is calling The Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the down low - that is more chill now, preparation for office and international policy, like - not actually collusion. Viva perestroika! Viva glasnost!

As someone who considered 2016 a sterling example of what happens when both parties choose candidates who prefer shady backroom deals and dirty money to human kindness and compassion, I am neither put out nor surprised by the end of the probe. I think hyperpartisans on both sides are getting what they deserve here - Hillaryite Dems, a much-needed reminder that the Clintons are not God, nor free of accusations of Russian influence-peddling themselves, and that they can't crush their enemies all the time just because they want to and that they ought to be more self-reflective, and Trumpist Republicans, a lack of awareness among hollering and hooting that would shame the mandrills that the arrest of six major Trump 2016 campaign advisers for campaign finance fraud and perjury doesn't really represent "the optics of victory" from where independents are sitting.

I mean, goodness. Trump's personal lawyer for about a decade and one of his main campaign managers are imprisoned on charges of campaign finance fraud and actual bank and wire fraud - and this is victory, just because Trump didn't get indicted too?

You cannot indict a sitting President by longstanding and bipartisan agreement of the U.S. Justice Department - not necessarily a decision I agree with, but them's the breaks, at least right now. You can only impeach by majority vote of Congress, and complete impeachment by two-thirds majority vote, which is hardly off the table entirely - and while Trump seems to be avoiding that for the present, this is not really what I'd call Republican momentum or a real Republican win.

Nobody fucking won this, except possibly the Russian mob - which must be thrilled at outplaying us at Great Game chess like this for once.

America certainly didn't.

But, hey, happy end of the probe anyway, because we should all be happy and not let these fuckheads ruin our days no matter what happens to be going on among the wealthy and corrupt.

[kali o.]

Crazy is gonna keep on being crazy, proof be damned; news at 11! Jet fuel can't burn that hot!!!

Lol. Here is the spoiler: The MSM ran such an offensive and partisan news cycle, that when Trump won, people were emotionally DEVESTATED. MSM capitalized on that, especially since the entire election proved so profitable, for the next two years. That's why, sadly, some otherwise normal people (not including Mental) are absolutely incapable of not believing Trump is cleared despite the completion of the special counsel. MSM ratcheted up the propaganda and theories to 11, and even the best of people can't fight 24/7 messaging.

I remember when I was in university, oh so long ago, and focusing on Psychology. I always intrigued by the studies into human behavior, and how easily people were influenced even through short term suggestion.

So, the main issue here is the unethical MSM, acting in tandem with a political party (I wouldn't care which side, both are bad). The unethical and even illegal behavior of politicians is less of an issue, because there are checks in place, even if the wheels move slowly.

Important note here: The current House has no legitimacy now. They grabbed power under a lie; nearly half of the voting public was led to believe Trump colluded with Russia.

I'm not sure how you fix that (MSM), outside a lot of laws and regulations, which isn't my preferred approach. The best thing anyone can do is vary their media sources and always employ critical thinking / research and check your bias.

The MSM/Dems will latch onto the obstruction narrative (yes, obstructing investigation into the crime that didn't happen by firing Comey, who was telling Trump in private he wasn't being investigated, and not doing anything else to impact the FBI). After that fails, and it will, it will then go back to the go nowhere Stormy / campaign violation claim, which the public already proved they didn't care about and think is nonsense. The hope is, I guess, that the dems can stretch to bullshit to 2020 -- but the timing for that doesn't work, so it'll backfire. The unknown factor is there is a good chance the Trump admin will get a SC onto the origin and details of the original spying and investigations...heads could roll if it happens.

The big question is if the regular voting public is disgusted over being lied to for over two years by the dems and media. If so, and I am 50/50 here, Trump wins 2020 in a landslide. MAGA

[Replay]

Crazy is gonna keep on being crazy, proof be damned; news at 11! Jet fuel can't burn that hot!!!

Who's talking about jet fuel? I thought we were talking about the Russian mob?

Lol. Here is the spoiler: The MSM ran such an offensive and partisan news cycle, that when Trump won, people were emotionally DEVESTATED. MSM capitalized on that, especially since the entire election proved so profitable, for the next two years. That's why, sadly, some otherwise normal people (not including Mental) are absolutely incapable of not believing Trump is cleared despite the completion of the special counsel.

Like I said, whatever you say. He hangs out with Felix Sater for shits and giggles, right?

Felix Henry Sater (born Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky;[4][5] Russian: Фе́ликс Миха́йлович Шеферовский; March 2, 1966) is a Russian-American mobster, convicted felon, [6] real estate developer and former managing director of Bayrock Group LLC,[7] a real estate conglomerate based out of New York City. Sater has been an advisor to many corporations, including The Trump Organization,[8] Rixos Hotels and Resorts, Sembol Construction, Potok (formerly the Mirax Group), and TxOil.

In 1998, Sater pleaded guilty to his involvement in a $40 million stock fraud scheme orchestrated by the Russian Mafia,[9][10] and became an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and federal prosecutors, assisting with organized crime investigations. In 2017, Sater agreed to cooperate with investigators into international money laundering schemes.[11]

So, the main issue here is the unethical MSM, acting in tandem with a political party (I wouldn't care which side, both are bad). The unethical and even illegal behavior of politicians is less of an issue, because there are checks in place, even if the wheels move slowly.

That sounds totally rational and not fucked-up and crazy to me! Lying media bad, lying politicians to be overlooked. I'll make a little note.

Important note here: The current House has no legitimacy now. They grabbed power under a lie; nearly half of the voting public was led to believe Trump colluded with Russia.

That's a funny one, the notion that Congresspeople elected in a culture of lies don't get to retain their offices. I wish I'd had a hold of that one back when Bush was lying to people about the Iraq War every other week!

Why don't you go try to pass a Congressional or Executive resolution in that direction and see how well it does you with everyone who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool Republican?

The big question is if the regular voting public is disgusted over being lied to for over two years by the dems and media. If so, and I am 50/50 here, Trump wins 2020 in a landslide. MAGA

You want to know something funny here?

I agree with you about at least one thing - the Steele dossier was indeed a craven, partisan attempt made by deep-state operatives in bad faith by Hillary's camp to smear her opponent just because she lost.

And it would have probably totally shat the bed if, you know, Trump weren't in the longstanding fucking business of actually selling real estate to the Russian mob.

There is no propaganda quite like the truth - even when the truth is put out in bad faith, and put out in order to throw dirt over one's own Russian influence-peddling and shady bullshit.

[Replay]

Again, your narrative that Trump is pure as the driven snow now just because Mueller lacks sufficient dirt to indict is kinda compromised by his longstanding ties to Russian mobsters and the arrest and conviction of non-trivial parts of his campaign staff for 2016 campaign fraud and talks with the fucking *GRU*. I can go pull up your *own post from two years ago* about how building major hotels is basically impossible without dealing to the mob with some extent if you like.

That being said, I'm getting so cynical that at this point I'm inclined to just advise America to lean into it all. Have a perestroika party - put a giant ice statue of a Russian prostitute that pisses pure Stoli Elit on the White House lawn! Invite Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and Bill Clinton to the best vodka-and-hookers experience ever, after you get that happy ending decriminalized - we gotta know Bill and Boris are down at bare minimum, right? Get Kurt Loder to run an MTV News special about it all for that Gen-X nostalgia vote. Maybe even jam a few peace treaties in everyone's hand after they're too soused on vodka and Russian tits to know where they fucking are or what they're doing, tell them all it's a new Uranium One contract and set up the press conference before they realize they've been bait-and-switched.

I'm down if we can divert some of the influence-peddling money to dig up some new 2Pac tapes, how about it, America?

[Replay]

Honestly, we can clearly see as well from all the responses here that the nation, or at least the Shrine, totally gives a shit too, right?

[kali o.]

Honestly, we can clearly see as well from all the responses here that the nation, or at least the Shrine, totally gives a shit too, right?

The propaganda was like a drug -- with the narrative imploding, people will have a few weeks of hangover first; then the rational ones will get angry, while the hopelessly addicted get back on the pipe.

[Replay]

Again, whatever you say.

You'll be thrilled to know that Fox & Friends is on your side when it comes to, you know, not ever actually having to read anything important, because apparently school sucks and reading is for nerds.

Co-host Ainsley Earhardt quickly chimed in to back her couch mate. “And Brian, like you said, the summary thing, everyone is probably thankful they don’t have to read the 300 pages,” she said. “We all will, probably, but you at home, you’re probably not going to sit down and read 300 pages, you want the summary.”

...

“I have a confession,” Kilmeade said. “I never ready the Odyssey. I only read the Monarch notes. I still got a very good, uh, I still got a very good grade.”

At that point, top Friend Steve Doocy offered a word of warning. “I wouldn’t say that on TV, your teacher could be watching.”

Kilmeade, looking a little uncomfortable, then quipped, “We’re not live are we?”

The Fox News crew recently mocked Democratic 2020 candidate Beto O’Rourke for the amount of books shown in a video announcing his run, with Kilmeade scoffing “As if it’s a big plus that he reads books.”

Democrats consider April 2, aka four days from now, a hard date for the release of the full report to Congress. Enjoy.

If that date is missed, you can expect the public to be made aware of that too...right up until Election Day.

[kali o.]

The dems can demand anything they want -- that kind of grandstanding / fake news works well on broken people like you.

The truth is, the dems are not entitled to that. You are old enough that you should know why -- but if you were not big on reading (lol) and missed it -- look into the issues and law that came out of Clinton special counsel.

[Replay]

The dems can demand anything they want -- that kind of grandstanding / fake news works well on broken people like you.

"Broken" in the sense that I call you out on your evil and lies? Remember when you admitted to having me surveilled in 2007, then quickly deleted it after you realized that my family's name is actually on the side of a Federal headquarters?

Go pay a poor woman to touch your penis while you accuse others of a "lack of empathy", you little mobster beta. You can't get it any other way, or you would be. Maybe if you weren't evil and murderous, you could find a mate for yourself; but here you are instead. And your chances aren't getting any better from here.

The truth is, the dems are not entitled to that. You are old enough that you should know why -- but if you were not big on reading (lol) and missed it -- look into the issues and law that came out of Clinton special counsel.

Oh, I'm well aware that they don't have a legal entitlement to it - morally and ethically, however, the failure to produce will be noted by a nation that is tired of the lies. Barr's already hem'ing and haw'ing around, talking about "mid-April". Another few weeks to decide on the best strategy to remind the country that six of the more prominent Trump 2016 campaign staff are in prison as a result of the probe, no doubt.

The entire festival and spectacle of Trump turning on his former cronies, distancing himself from Cohen and Manafort, will work on the mob of evil and hate and greed that the modern GOP has turned into - nearly thirty years after my grandfather survived his ouster attempt by the Bushes, who were keen to expel him from the FDIC to obscure Neil Bush's thefts at Silverado Savings and Loan.

It won't work on anyone else, Killer. This is what it looks like, outside of the Republican fold:



I'm well aware that you and your "handlers" are in the longstanding business of trying to dumb down the American public so that the country can be more easily occupied economically and exploited - but you all haven't learned the truth of Lincoln's famous words about lies yet, it seems. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time; and the more that you continue to try, the more that you will see the national resistance galvanized against the tide of hatred and deception.

[Replay]

But since this has all devolved into our usual shouting match despite my best intentions - here's something for you that's been on my mind lately, "Kali" - a story I consider to be a preview of your life in thirty years or so.

In Malibu, Herzer claims, Redstone became obsessive about wanting to have sex. After his wife Phyllis initiated divorce proceedings, in 1999, he had gone on a dating spree, meeting with a slew of beautiful women, often with Herzer’s help. According to the onetime close friend, one of those women remained on retainer with Redstone, getting $5,000 a month at the gate to Beverly Park whether she saw him or not. In Malibu, Redstone relentlessly called out for her, demanding that she come over. But she didn’t answer her phone. Back at Beverly Park, post-fumigation, Redstone continued to pine for her. She showed up, but “he can’t have sex, so it’s all in his head, right?” says the onetime friend. “How can a guy with a feeding tube who can’t move have sex? There’s no sex.”

She was not the only woman who continued to come to the mansion, however. In early September, Herzer got back in touch with Heidi MacKinney, another Redstone favorite from the old days. “Sumner wanted to see me,” she wrote in a court filing. But he was not the same. “Mentally, Sumner was not present,” she wrote. “He did not seem able to communicate with me, was frail looking, and was not fully aware of his surroundings or what was happening around him.” She met with him five times after he kicked Holland out. On her fourth visit, on October 3, he was “completely non-responsive and vacant,” she wrote. She offered to have sex with him. He did not respond. “It was as if he did not understand what was happening.” She resolved to stop coming to see him.

A week later, though, according to MacKinney’s filing, one of Redstone’s male nurses called MacKinney and said Redstone wanted to see her again. She returned for her final visit to Beverly Park. “This time he appeared even more disoriented, distant, and non-communicative,” she wrote. She spent 20 minutes with him. “It was clear to me that he was not aware of my presence, much less able to communicate with me.” Nevertheless, she continued in her filing, the male nurse—identified in Herzer’s filings as Jeremy Jagiello—remained in the room with her and Redstone, “directing me and telling me what sex acts I should perform.” Jagiello would “sometimes tell Sumner that he had ejaculated, when in fact Sumner had not,” she concluded. “Sumner appeared to believe him, not aware of the truth.” (Attempts to reach Jagiello were not successful.)

Your life is currently full of the people who will one day lie to you as you have lied to them, crowding around you, paid to be your "friends", and ignoring the spectacle in their eagerness to nibble little pieces of your pie.

They will gleefully lie to you in that day, telling you that you fucked the hooker good and proper when you actually cried and fell asleep.

I won't be that guy. It's against my nature.

And therein lie the root of our disagreements, I'd say.

Find some love in your life, Sumner.

It all goes away one day, you and you can't take anything with you except that.

[kali o.]

Its like you are playing a game of telephone with yourself; as the details change slightly while you recite your usual list of personal injustices...funny stuff.

I didnt read all of your second post, as it seemed purely to troll / insult me. Please keep things on topic somewhat, at least

Thanks for your anticipated compliance.

[Replay]

Its like you are playing a game of telephone with yourself; as the details change slightly while you recite your usual list of personal injustices...funny stuff.

I didnt read all of your second post, as it seemed purely to troll / insult me. Please keep things on topic somewhat, at least

You want me to start off a new thread talking about it all, the way you used to do to me - break my threads in half, put something top-level with an insulting title?

You are well aware of the personal injustices you have committed against me. I don't recall any empathy, years ago, when I was trying to apologize to you for losing my temper over the board's desire to say "homo" every other hour, on one of the worst nights of my life. I certainly don't recall any empathy or apology over your boasting and bragging about having me surveilled.

This board has been an important lesson for me in so many ways:

1. Don't ever give away my power.
2. Don't cast pearls before swine.
3. Despite my sins and flaws - and there is no doubt I have many - things do get worse when I stop actively cultivating and stewarding them.

[Replay]

Oh, and back on topic:

[kali o.]

You want me to start off a new thread talking about it all, the way you used to do to me - break my threads in half, put something top-level with an insulting title?

Hi. Yes, do that.
Thanks.

On topic: Still no collusion.

[Replay]

On topic: Still no references on your part.

I have more, though. Remember, the Mueller report indicted 12 Russian GRU personnel in addition to Trump's campaign staff.

I find myself curious as to how and why a probe that led to the arrest and conviction of Trump 2016 campaign staff is indicting actual Russian military/espionage personnel if there was no collusion.

So let's take a dive:

(The indicted Russians) are charged with hacking the computer networks of members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They allegedly coordinated to release damaging information to sway the election under the names “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” However, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told reporters that it’s unclear if their efforts changed the outcome of the election.

In total, the indictment charges 11 spies with conspiracy to commit computer crimes, eight counts of aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money. Two of the defendants are charged with a separate conspiracy to commit computer crimes.

The indictment comes just days before President Donald Trump is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. Trump so far has said he believes Putin’s denials that his country interfered in the election in any way.

A few questions I have, and I'm hardly the only one:

If there was "no collusion" on Trump's part - then who authorized the hack of the DNC files by the Russian military and why? Why were the DNC offices the only ones targeted? Why did the same probe that led to the indictment of Trump 2016 campaign staff lead to the indictment of GRU personnel, if there is no collusion? How credible is the information indicting the Russians of the hack, and where did it come from?

As your own messages get shorter and shorter in their eagerness to avoid these details, much of the rest of the nation will be waiting for the full report so that these matters may be discussed in full.

[kali o.]

I find myself curious as to how and why a probe that led to the arrest and conviction of Trump 2016 campaign staff is indicting actual Russian military/espionage personnel if there was no collusion.

A few questions I have, and I'm hardly the only one:

If there was "no collusion" on Trump's part - then who authorized the hack of the DNC files by the Russian military and why? Why were the DNC offices the only ones targeted? Why did the same probe that led to the indictment of Trump 2016 campaign staff lead to the indictment of GRU personnel, if there is no collusion? How credible is the information indicting the Russians of the hack, and where did it come from?

As your own messages get shorter and shorter in their eagerness to avoid these details, much of the rest of the nation will be waiting for the full report so that these matters may be discussed in full.

Hi. It could be my messages get shorter because I'm getting bored. But let's give it another try:

1. You need better news sources, as you are factually wrong. RNC/Trump was targeted for hacks, they were just largely unsuccessful. Hackers were successful at a limited state level and DCLeaks dumped the emails.

2. Not one, single Trump ally was charged with any crime related to "Russian Collusion". They were either charged with process crimes over the course of the SC investigation (and side note: FBI even disagreed Flynn lied, while Papadopoulos simply agreed to guilty and serve 14 DAYS to avoid threats/costs and Manafort got the tax/income related charges]. Charging these people was an overt attempt to have these people flip or compose on Trump, which clearly didn't happen. (Side note: Isn't it interesting how Tony Podesta escaped any charges, while Manafort got put through the wringer. Why? Because SC wanted Manafort to flip somehow).

3. Since you asked, I don't think any of the details on the Russian interference are particularly reliable. Fake news addicts like to say "all 17 Intelligence agencies concluded Russia interfered!" -- that's actually untrue; it was 3 with the others offering no conclusion. The majority of the info comes from Cyberstrike, with the DNC servers never actually getting reviewed. I take the idea that Wikileaks/Assange being a Russian puppet with a HUGE grain of salt -- the US has had a hard on for Wikileaks for years, as they have been a pivotal source of transparency and been a thorn in the government sides for years. It's far, far too convenient in my mind to suddenly write off Wikileaks as "evil" because the US government doesn't like them.

4. The nature of the "interference". The DNC hack (which was Podesta falling for a phishing email, iirc) is not something I am going to cry about. It provided transparency, which I love, and exposed the DNC for colluding to push out Sanders and collusion with the media (funny how people forget that...it's almost like some other narrative was deployed to distract them). Beyond that, we are talking twitter trolls and facebook ads, which after the Facebook internal audit showed an incredibly small budget and included ads supporting Bernie and BLM). Social media is a global platform, currently, and if people are seriously considering global opinions, government backed or not, to be interference, then you might as well close the whole thing down now.

5. Now, I've provided facts to correct some of the things you believed. Before you get defensive and just doubledown, take a second to consider what I said, check whether it is true and evaluate how this might change some of your opinions, if at all. This is an important issue on the other side too -- because if I am right, you have an admin spying on a rival candidate, abusing processes / intelligence agencies and colluding with media....that, if true, would be utterly horrendous for democracy.

[Replay]

I'm not going to get defensive, as I don't care enough. I began accepting that most U.S. Presidents and Administrations of my lifetime have been criminal in some way or another a long time ago; I am cynical and world-weary of it all by now.

I am not closed to discussing what you've said; but I want to see your sources. Indeed, it is a prerequisite to any further discussion. You are asking me to take the things you've said here on face value with no references, and that's simply not good enough.

I have more to say on this, possibly, but a lot to do as well.

[kali o.]

I'm not going to get defensive, as I don't care enough. I began accepting that most U.S. Presidents and Administrations of my lifetime have been criminal in some way or another a long time ago; I am cynical and world-weary of it all by now.

I am not closed to discussing what you've said; but I want to see your sources. Indeed, it is a prerequisite to any further discussion. You are asking me to take the things you've said here on face value with no references, and that's simply not good enough.

I have more to say on this, possibly, but a lot to do as well.

No, please check any claim I made that you suspect is false or misleading -- use DuckDuckGo for best results. I'm not being a dick here, I am just not convinced you are willing to debate in good faith and sourcing every statement is a lot of work. I'll be too frustrated if it falls on deaf ears. Beyond that, discovering truth for oneself is often better at changing minds.

If you find a false claim I made, or have legitimate problem sourcing, by all means point it out -- I will either clarify, defend or retract.

Start with the easy claims...the DCLeaks email dump (also covered in more detail in Comey's public testimony). The 3 of 17 intelligence agencies. The actual charges against Manafort, Flynn and Papadopoulos. Podesta involvement with Manafort. Etc. All info that is public and searchable.

And PS - I think it's sad you don't care. Imo, if my opinions and statements are true, you should be livid. As should every American. I still stand by my assessment that the media is the real chilling factor here -- and I have no solutions.

[Replay]

And PS - I think it's sad you don't care. Imo, if my opinions and statements are true, you should be livid. As should every American. I still stand by my assessment that the media is the real chilling factor here -- and I have no solutions.

I wasted "livid" on the way the U.S. media waved pom-poms for the Iraq War, and the way it still waves them for the War on Terror generally, refusing to investigate anything substantial when it comes to the corruption of the military-industrial complex and surveillance state. So you may have to settle for "mildly disgruntled" on this one, if that.

Is the U.S. news media routinely far more dishonest than advertised? Sure. Indeed I seem to remember yelling my head off about this, starting around nine years ago, particularly with respect to the way our foreign wars are covered - asking others to be "livid" as well - not a lot of traction here on that one, and there still isn't.

Am I going to be up in arms that the media treats Donald Trump with dishonesty, disrespect, and disgrace? No, I'm probably not, Kali - because that's the way he treats others, routinely, and that is not in dispute no matter how you feel about the people lying about him. He hasn't earned a lot of goodwill because he never treats any situation he's in like a responsible adult, he just talks endless shit in front of huge crowds of negative, violent people.

Let's take the Adam Schiff situation as an example: Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Subcommittee, says he plans to press forward with investigations of the President. Could this be a continuation of a smear or a plot by previous Administrations to take him down? I guess it certainly could be - the Steele Dossier does indeed prove that the Bush-Clinton-Rockefeller contingent seemed hell-bent on revenge against the Mercer-Trump contingent for the temerity of taking an election away from them, and willing to run smear campaigns as a result.

Is Trump speaking with dignity, grace, and meaning on these developments? No, he is not. He's out calling Schiff a "pencil-neck" in the fashion of junior high school bullies everywhere - setting a terrible precedent once again for our young people and the nation generally that, when in doubt or under attack, act like the biggest bully in the room and maybe you can get crowds of other bullies to cheer for you.

---------------

That all being said - bizarrely, even though you have never once supported me here in my own calls to investigate the corruption of the media when it comes to my own interests and needs (specifically regarding military-industrial corruption), ten years of being a pariah myself on the issue of media corruption does not make me completely unsympathetic.

However, as you have so capably noted here over the years, I am not independently wealthy myself, nor receiving any kind of payout from your various cool-kids funds here, if such a thing even exists and wasn't made up just to troll me - so my time is limited. I have had a few months' sabbatical after a particularly good year last year, but I will indeed have to return to work soon, and so my time is focused on that - so it is limited to do the kind of research you have asked me to do.

I will try, if I can find the time - but I can't promise anything. Continuing to earn a living comes first.

If you'd like to help me out with any sourcing, that would probably lubricate the wheels of this discussion greatly.

[Replay]

So far:

1. You need better news sources, as you are factually wrong. RNC/Trump was targeted for hacks, they were just largely unsuccessful. Hackers were successful at a limited state level and DCLeaks dumped the emails.

This checks out:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... blican-na/

I was unaware that the RNC had been targeted as well; I was not intending to mislead, simply unaware. Thank you for the correction.

2. Not one, single Trump ally was charged with any crime related to "Russian Collusion". They were either charged with process crimes over the course of the SC investigation (and side note: FBI even disagreed Flynn lied, while Papadopoulos simply agreed to guilty and serve 14 DAYS to avoid threats/costs and Manafort got the tax/income related charges]. Charging these people was an overt attempt to have these people flip or compose on Trump, which clearly didn't happen. (Side note: Isn't it interesting how Tony Podesta escaped any charges, while Manafort got put through the wringer. Why? Because SC wanted Manafort to flip somehow).

I cannot rate this as true.

For anyone else still wading through our mock Congressional deposition here:

In United States criminal procedure terminology, a process crime is an offense against the judicial process.[1] These crimes include failure to appear, false statements, obstruction of justice, contempt of court and perjury.

For one - Manafort pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States, which is not a process crime. That's a major, felony Federal financial crime - take it from someone whose family prosecuted a lot of them. He did this in order to avoid further charges on money laundering, and here is an example of who he was accused of laundering with:

The exhibit list also mentions items citing “OVD” and “Oleg,” which appear to be references to Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum magnate and ally to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin who employed Manafort as an investment consultant.

Second - is it your supposition that process crimes do not count? We aren't talking failure to show up for a traffic ticket here; we're talking perjury and witness tampering. That's stuff that is not okay in America, and process crimes are criminal offenses for very good reasons.

We don't do "holy law" in America, but our swear-ins on the religious tome of your choice are not just for show and are probably as close as it as we do get here. It is implied heavily in our process that when you lie in an American court or place of government relating to the law enforcement process, you lie before both man and God, whatever your conception of such may be - and that such offenses require criminal punishment for the protection of the other citizens of our nation.

Cohen was charged with and found guilty of perjury - *regarding Trump Administration deals with Russian officials*.

On November 29, 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee and House Intelligence Committee in 2017 regarding the proposed Trump Tower Moscow deal that he spearheaded in 2015 and 2016.[11][167] Cohen had told Congress that the deal ceased in January 2016 when it actually ended in June 2016, and that he had not received a response about the deal from the office of a senior Russian official when he actually had.

I have not yet dug into Podesta's files; more to come as time permits.

[Replay]

Moving on: The idea that Podesta has "escaped charges" is not entirely accurate, either. He hasn't been charged *yet*. Mueller's office referred him to the New York prosecutors instead - which is indeed a bit suspicious on partisan terms, but it's hardly an acquittal either.

On to number 3:

I take the idea that Wikileaks/Assange being a Russian puppet with a HUGE grain of salt [sic]

Maybe watch your sodium intake on this one. I will do you a solid from my own personal files - as terrible an idea as that is, really, since I've been threatened very seriously over this transcript series before.





Number 4 seems to revolve around your idea that having Russia hack our political parties is somehow good for democracy. I can't personally agree; so far I haven't seen that it's helped us out a lot. I haven't cried a lot of tears about anything that has happened to Hillary; she can pay for her role in Vince Foster's death and the deaths of many other people who have gotten in the way of that same Clinton-Bush-Rockefeller syndicate that I mentioned. Establishing a precedent to ignore foreign spying on the United States at a national level, though - particularly given your note that the RNC was hacked too - that doesn't strike me as a great idea. Indeed, the notion that the RNC was hacked too raises *more* troubling questions, not less - how is it that both of our major parties were hacked, yet the Republicans are claiming that there was no large-scale effort to influence the 2016 election? Why would Trump 2016 campaign staffers continue pursing real estate deals and hiding millions in Russian money in offshore accounts in that kind of a climate?

Number 5 is not a fact-check; that's your opinion. So far you have provided exactly one correction. The rest of the bullet points are things that I have provided either corrections or counterarguments on.

[Replay]

All in all, Kali, we're more or less back to where we started out. To wit:

1. The Mueller probe did not uncover sufficient evidence to indict Trump for conspiracy against the United States or other high crimes.
2. It did, however, uncover evidence of vast great money laundering, tax evasion, hush payments, Russian real estate deals with top Putin friends and associates, and so on. Is the nation supposed to simply ignore that?
3. The Trump 2016 campaign also did this in a year when apparently both major U.S. political parties were subject to attempted hacking from Russia. Again, if there was no large-scale effort to influence American politics that year, why were our political parties both hacked?

Once again I will reiterate my starting position: America is not sufficiently satisfied with the current answers to these questions.

The Mueller report needs to be released - to all of Congress, and then to the nation.

[kali o.]

I cannot rate this as true.

For one - Manafort pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States, which is not a process crime. That's a major, felony Federal financial crime - take it from someone whose family prosecuted a lot of them. He did this in order to avoid further charges on money laundering, and here is an example of who he was accused of laundering with:

Putting aside your myopic focus on one thing in attempt negate the entire paragraph I wrote, your issue is you don't understand what a process crime is and apparently misread what I wrote (though to be fair, I wrote it poorly). That charge on Manafort was two-fold, witness tampering and tax avoidance. The dates in question for the lobbying were 2010-2014. The witness tampering was within the process of the SC investigation -- which is why they are called "process crimes". Further, please re-read what I wrote -- it was 3 category of "crimes" I outlined, which included tax/income.

NONE of the crimes were connected to the actual claim that prompted the SC (conspiracy to collude with Russia from the Trump campaign). Bank charges? Tax issues? If you actually want to appreciate how over the top this got -- they charged Manafort with FARA violations, which is a voluntary registration, of which more than half of lobbyists are in violation of in some manner and DoJ has charged maybe half a dozen times and had 1, maybe 2 (iirc) convictions under that since its enactment in 1938. If that doesn't show you how bias, silly and arbitrary this all is, then nothing will.

Second - is it your supposition that process crimes do not count? We aren't talking failure to show up for a traffic ticket here; we're talking perjury and witness tampering. That's stuff that is not okay in America, and process crimes are criminal offenses for very good reasons.

Yes, process crimes are a prosecutorial tool in which to pressure parties to flip, plea or compose. Do I (OR YOU) care if Manafort made a misstatement or lie to another party during the course of the investigation? In the case of Flynn, the FBI didn't even think he lied while the SC chose to charge him -- that shows you how arbitrary and up to interpretation these charges can be.

Cohen was charged with and found guilty of perjury - *regarding Trump Administration deals with Russian officials*.

Cohen was deemed not part of the SC investigation and that alone tells you the partisan nature of those charges and wording. In addition, you are again making an incorrect statement. Cohen was not found guilty -- he plead guilty to certain charges as part of a deal.

I have not yet dug into Podesta's files; more to come as time permits.

If you mean the DNC hack emails, have fun. I believe there is a searchable database created. Super handy to confirm -- maybe check out a summary to confirm the worst stuff they found, then confirm the truth by searching the exact email chain.

EDIT: You really chain reply too much, it gets confusing.

Let's take the Adam Schiff situation as an example: Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Subcommittee, says he plans to press forward with investigations of the President

Schiff has said publicly for two years he had access to information that proved Russia collusion (despite the committee finding none twice). With the SC report finally concluded, Schiff has now been exposed as a liar. Voters went into the midterms with nearly one in two believing Trump was a Russian puppet. Now, when Schiff was prompted to resign, he verbally responded with public information (firing Comey, etc) to justify his actions -- it's clear he had no classified info to back up his claims -- which basically amounts to his opinion.

In any other "normal" year, this would be a HUGE scandal and Schiff would resign in disgrace after his lies were exposed, as Pelosi would demand it. In a perfect world, US Intelligence would stop providing any Intel to Schiff if he is going to ignore conclusions and lie to the public (50/50 this happens).

What Schiff will attempt to do, thanks to Pelosi's weakness, is simply doubledown and hope to spread shit onto Trump until the public forgets about him.

As to some of your other statements, Trump wasn't voted in because he is an eloquent speaker, classy or even because he is a clean spotless person (I'm sure he has done shady things in his past). Trump was voted in because he said what people think, and pushback to the Globalists and Progressive Left, which went FULL RETARD in about 2014 or so.

[Replay]

Kal, no offense, but I'm bored with this. My position hasn't changed.

If six Trump campaign staff arrested and convicted - one for conspiracy to defraud the United States (which is *not a process crime* no matter how much you argue otherwise) related to tens of millions of dollars in hidden assets and real estate money laundering related to Russian underworld figures - represents the optics of victory to you, by all means please run with it.

There is a great deal of the nation that is not going to accept the notion that the probe "only" finding evidence of a vast great amount of Russian-mob-related real estate money laundering, and perjury/witness tampering to conceal the same, is harmless just because it failed to find sufficient evidence as well to prove an actual effort by Russia and Trump to conspire to illegally manipulate the election.

I personally never saw the Steele dossier as anything other than an attempt by the old guard to delegitimate the new - but as a relative of someone who prosecuted financial crime in the United States, I can't exactly look the other way when the resulting investigation turns up a bunch of Russian-mob money laundering, either. And in fact this gets to what I see as a fundamental flaw in your argument...

As to some of your other statements, Trump wasn't voted in because he is an eloquent speaker, classy or even because he is a clean spotless person (I'm sure he has done shady things in his past). Trump was voted in because he said what people think, and pushback to the Globalists and Progressive Left, which went FULL RETARD in about 2014 or so.

Inside right-wing bully echo chambers, this position no doubt sounds great. Outside of it, there's much more of a notion that Trump was elected in large part because a great deal of America simply hated Hillary more than him - because she absolutely failed to rally her base the way he did - and because she does pull stunts like having deep-state operatives like Steele run hitpieces on her opponents rather than playing fair.

Because of that, your equation of "globalists" with "the progressive left" is problematic. Those factions are not synonymous, and indeed it is very arguable that the civil war *between* the globalist and progressive factions of liberalism last time around did more to push Trump into power than anything else.

I sat out last time rather than support the globalist faction, for instance. I'm unlikely to do the same next year, because I'm really, really tired of Trump's bullying and his utter and complete lack of empathy for anyone who doesn't look and think like him. And so far, the globalist contingent is not dominating the Democratic field - Biden and Booker are the most globalist of all of them, but Warren and Harris are just as competitive or more and as likely to get the nomination - and I'll tell you right now, as it stands, I'll hold my nose and vote for Biden or Booker just as an alternative to Trump, in exactly the way I didn't in 2016.

I'm only one person with one vote, but I don't think I'm alone here. If not, the kind of swing vote that I represent will have the power to change the next election - and so you'd better hope that I am more alone than I believe myself to be, and that there aren't millions out there like me who were on the fence or in the dugout last time who are ready to step up and vote against the quiet, Mercer-backed, white-nationalist-inflected strain of thinking currently dominating the GOP...because if so, Trump is in trouble.

[Replay]

Oh, and one final thing...

Do I (OR YOU) care if Manafort made a misstatement or lie to another party during the course of the investigation?

Yeah. Yeah I do. In fact, if you don't, that shows exactly why you and I are never going to come to an accord here.

My grandfather put financial criminals in jail. A lot of them lied to the government in their attempts to conceal their various financial frauds which badly hurt and ruined the lives of Americans. And hey, a lot of them went to jail for it - *as they should have*.

You're not supposed to lie to duly appointed criminal investigators of the United States. That's perjury.

And if you think perjury in the process of a United States criminal investigation doesn't matter, you are a bad person in my eyes - and indeed a liability to the United States of America.