THE REPORT, buttoned up (SCO Thread v. 33)

[Darkballs]

You're referring to the Steele dossier? That was 100% funded by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Marc Elias via Fusion GPS.

The Washington Free Beacon (anti-Trump Republican newspaper) had contracted with Fusion GPS previously to provide anti-Trump opposition research, but that did not include the Steele dossier.

We were talking about how the democrats paying for the Steele dossier in cash is so much worse than trump seeking stolen information from a foreign state.

I'll be the first to admit, I have no idea what the significance here is. Apparently it's much worse when you get information in cash, even if it's from a private citizen doing nothing illegal. No further elaboration has been given.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Mueller's conclusion was that despite this DOJ's strict policy on never indicting a president for obstruction, here's all the evidence he had for obstruction, do with it as you will. Mueller very explicitly did not exonerate trump, and I'm not sure why you'd lie about that.

To this affect Mueller clearly laid out how the trump administration worked with a third party that was working with a foreign state. You think that buffer alone is enough to escape all liability. I disagree.

She lies constantly as you see.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

It's not a slight of hand when I refuse to use the term "collusion" as it has no criminal significance. I understand that's why the the trump WH has been parroting that line, so that partisans like yourself could have an "a-ha" moment.

We're talking about the trump campaign using a third party to get access to information stolen by a foreign state. Try and stay on that topic.

You and I were talking back and forth about collusion for several comments in a row, then you suddenly, with no transition, began talking about obstruction and how I'd lied about it. I had said nothing at all about obstruction and so you were clearly in the wrong to call me a liar for that. Calling that kind of bullshit a sleight of hand was an attempt to be nice because I think you are a good poster.

 

[waiguoren]

@Darkballs

I was referring to this exchange, in which you seemed to be claiming that the
Republicans paid money for the Steele dossier. To my knowledge, only the Clinton campaign and the DNC (through Marc Elias) did that.

Christ dude. The opposing parties campaign paid FUCKING MONEY for foreign information. Paid ACTUAL MONEY to a foreign agent

Both sides did. Republicans first, then dems. But paying for information from a foreign source isn't illegal nor unethical. Working with a third party who you know obtained the information from a foreign state that obtained it by theft, is certainly unethical.

Pretty big distinction you're leaving out.

 

[Darkballs]

You and I were talking back and forth about collusion for several comments in a row, then you suddenly, with no transition, began talking about obstruction and how I'd lied about it.

You were using the term collusion. A term that has no legal significance. Did you need me to affirmatively object to such a term in the first post, before you'd be able to realize the stupidity of that word choice? Well consider yourself on notice then.

No do you want to address the trump campaign working with a third party to receive information they know was stolen by the russian state?

 

[hillelslovak87]

Well you bring it up and then say it’s not going to happen. So why bring it up?

As for the ‘spiral’...bit dramatic much? Really who cares about cabinet turnover when America is thriving, unemployment is lower than ever, more secure and the border crisis is finally been addressed notwithstanding the partisan opposition to it.

Just relax and let the guy continue doing his thing till 2025

Conservatives asked these exact questions during the Bush admin, and it took people 8 years to find out how much he had been fucking up the country while we were thriving.You said it during the Reagan and HW Bush years also. How many times will this shit take?

 

[Darkballs]

I was referring to this exchange, in which you seemed to be claiming that the Republicans paid money for the Steele dossier. To my knowledge, only the Clinton campaign and the DNC (through Marc Elias) did that.

The issue was that democrats paid for information in cash, and that makes it worse. Whether or not the retarded poster in question was referring to the Steele dossier itself, or just the initial contract with Fusion GPS, makes no difference. I understand it's a weak attempt at a two-wrongs argument, made in an effort to avoid the information contained in the Mueller report.

Perhaps you can help him out an explain why paying a private security firm for information in cash is worse than what the WH did.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Do not give me what YOUR characterization of the Mueller Mandate. Quote from it. Here it is for your convenience.

Read my excerpt above and address how Mueller did not achieve the very CORE of his mandate.

DO NOT ignore answering the above which goes right to the core of his mandate and what you said while repeatedly asking me to address instead your characterization as I am not going to answer that while you ignore this.

Mike, I already answered your question and I already directly quoted the mandate when I did so. Do you have me on your ignore list or something and are missing some of my posts? If you'd like to read my answers to your question, you can easily follow the chain of our comments backwards a bit.

If you cannot be troubled to read my replies to you, then please stop asking me to reply to you.

 

[waiguoren]

The issue was that democrats paid for information in cash, and that makes it worse. Whether or not the retarded poster in question was referring to the Steele dossier itself, or just the initial contract with Fusion GPS, makes no difference. I understand it's a weak attempt at a two-wrongs argument, made in an effort to avoid the information contained in the Mueller report.

Perhaps you can help him out an explain why paying a private security firm for information in cash is worse than what the WH did.

When you claimed that the Republicans paid money for "foreign information" in the 2016 election, were you referring to the Steele dossier or something else?

 

[Rematch]

Well that's not what the report says.

Funny. The guy that wrote the report says no evidence of collusion. But what the fuck does he know, right?

 

[JamesRussler]

@Limbo Pete is going to want royalties with you stealing his shit.

That’s the story of Pete’s life, TBH

 

[Darkballs]

When you claimed that the Republicans paid money for "foreign information" in the 2016 election, were you referring to the Steele dossier or something else?

The point was that the democrats paying for something "in cash" was a useless rebuttal as to whether or not the trump campaign is at fault for seeking information they knew was stolen by the russian state.

Couldn't be more plain champ.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You were using the term collusion. A term that has no legal significance. Did you need me to affirmatively object to such a term in the first post, before you'd be able to realize the stupidity of that word choice? Well consider yourself on notice then.

No, you introduced the term collusion in our tete a tete. Here:

Of course they were. Lying about meetings with the same people that the trump administration were actively seeking support from, certainly relates to the collusion.

Apparently your word choice was stupid? Perhaps you should put yourself on notice.

I have used the word collusion quite a bit tonight, but you should blame Mueller for his stupid word choice when he repeatedly stated unequivocally that the evidence does not establish any collusion to have taken place between Trump's campaign and the Russians. You should let him know he's on notice as well.

 

[Darkballs]

Funny. The guy that wrote the report says no evidence of collusion.

Mueller did not opine on evidence for the non-existent crime of collusion. Mueller did detail how trump reached out to a third party who was working on behalf of russian intelligence. Barr concluded that this couldn't possibly be collusion, because wikileaks didn't help with the actual hack.

 

[waiguoren]

The point was that the democrats paying for something "in cash" was a useless rebuttal as to whether or not the trump campaign is at fault for seeking information they knew was stolen by the russian state.

Couldn't be more plain champ.

I try to be civil with you. I'm just asking you to clarify a claim you made. If the claim was made in error, could you just admit it so I know what you meant?

 

[Limbo Pete]

I'm legitimately impressed that every single component of this magnificent fiasco has made things actively more of a cluster fuck

@Limbo Pete is going to want royalties with you stealing his shit.

This is an outrage

 

[Fawlty]

Can you or other Spanish speakers explain what is funny about this? Is it funny because it's like saying "I'm boned" (meaning, is it silly and unprofessional, or funny in a journalistic context) or is it a translation that changes the meaning?

 

[Rematch]

Mueller did not opine on evidence for the non-existent crime of collusion. Mueller did detail how trump reached out to a third party who was working on behalf of russian intelligence. Barr concluded that this couldn't possibly be collusion, because wikileaks didn't help with the actual hack.

So if I'm hired to find something that you are certain exists, but I submit a report does not support the existence of that something that you are certain exists...

C'mon, man. Give it up. Just wipe the egg off of your face already.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Mueller did not opine on evidence for the non-existent crime of collusion.

Yes, he did. Repeatedly.

Mueller clearly considered it the key part of his job to determine whether the available evidence established that members of Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government. It's something we've all discussed for several years now. Back-pedaling as if collusion is somehow no big deal is number one bullshit. If it had happened, it would have been a big fucking deal, and so it correspondingly is a big deal that it happily did not occur.

 

[Darkballs]

No, you introduced the term collusion in our tete a tete. Here:

So you're pissed that I'm not using the term collusion, but then you complain that I used the term collusion? How about this as a compromise, since collusion has no legal connotation here, lets stop using it.

I have used the word collusion quite a bit tonight,

No shit.

but you should blame Mueller for his stupid word choice when he repeatedly stated unequivocally that the evidence does not establish any collusion to have taken place between Trump's campaign and the Russians.

No he didn't. He laid out clear evidence of collusion, or coordination or whatever you want to call it, between the trump organization and third parties working with the russian state. Barr's conclusion was that cannot amount to collusion because that third party only knowingly accepted stolen data, but didn't participate in the theft.

Instead of bemoaning what words you chose to describe that, how about you just address the point itself?