1 year ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
13 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    Mueler isn't investigating the FBI so far as I know.

    • a year ago

      I enjoyed listening in. :)

      • a year ago
        • a year ago

          @bronsonkaahui Good story on Ukraine, but I didn't see anything about money in there. There was the one activist and then the parliament member who were trying to provide dirt on Manford (who was a right-hand man of the old regime and thus a focus of Ukraine/US politics.

          It could count as election interference, though without cash changing hands or being spent, it's harder to pin that down. Offering up incrimination information on someone certainly can be of value, but I don't know where it falls in the law.

          A lot of the roads on RussiaGate lead back to the Ukraine conflict, both sides of it. It's looking like the locust of the info battles of the inteligence world these days.

        • a year ago

          @sigfried "It could count as election interference, though without cash changing hands or being spent, it's harder to pin that down. Offering up incrimination information on someone certainly can be of value, but I don't know where it falls in the law."

          Boom! I actually was using this as an assay to see how positions change based on equal information. Because the Donald Trump Jr. narrative was always that information was, in fact, a thing of value. That entire thing evaporated once we found out it was in fact the Hillary Campaign/DNC that was behind the Steel Dossier. Suddenly, it's okay to get dirt on your election opponents from Russians lol.

          It kinda tells you everything you need to know about the narrative, and how this is about Trump, not "foreign election interference." If Trump did not win the election then these would all be non-stories.

        • a year ago

          @bronsonkaahui The inditement that was filed recently listed specific expenditures and payments to US companies, campaigns, and individuals by foreign nationals.

          So far as I know the accusations of Russian actions have always included advertising expenditures in addition to the hacking. But the hacking was not a campaign violation, it is covered under other laws.

          I never heard anyone try to attribute the Steel Dossier to the Trump campaign. Nor has anyone claim that Trump Jr's effort to get dirt from the Russian lawyer in and of itself counted as a campaign violation, though I'm sure it's been discussed. Whatever would apply to that, would also apply to the Ukraine story.

          Was your claim about Ukraine supplying money to the Clinton campaign a mistake/misunderstanding?

        • a year ago

          @sigfried "I never heard anyone try to attribute the Steel Dossier to the Trump campaign."

          That's not what I said. The Donald Trump Jr. emails were considered the "smoking gun" of "Russian collusion." That's because "information might be a thing of value," and it came from a Russian, therefore it's collusion.

          That entire narrative evaporated when we learned that the Steel Dossier was bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign.

          "or has anyone claim that Trump Jr's effort to get dirt from the Russian lawyer in and of itself counted as a campaign violation"


          Not true.

          "Was your claim about Ukraine supplying money to the Clinton campaign a mistake/misunderstanding?"

          I never said Ukraine SUPPLIED money to the Clinton Campaign, I said they SPENT money in order to help Clinton get elected (or more accurately, to curry favor with someone that everyone expected to be the next President). If I did say they gave money as in a campaign donation to the Clinton Campaign that's definitely not what I meant and I'm damned wrong if I ever said that.

      • a year ago

        I am always enjoy our debates my friend. I look forward to the next one.

        • a year ago

          What I can't figure out is why the slogan "where there is smoke, there is fire" only seems to apply when it involves Trump and no other case.

          • a year ago

            As usual Bronson, you're throwing a lot of "red herrings". As you know, the prosecution needs to 1st present allegations that IF proven are 2nd against one or more laws that are on the "books". There is no need to present the evidence relied upon for those allegations at this point in time. Now, if as you suggest, that this is only some kind of ruse on the part of Mueller and the FBI, then Putin can send these folks to the US to defend themselves. It should be like shooting fish if you're correct and there is nothing here since the prosecution has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.

            More likely these acts were in fact conducted by these very people. Who paid them? Laundered moolah, that will be traced back to Trump's LLC is the answer.

            • a year ago

              @denniskleid 'Now, if as you suggest, that this is only some kind of ruse on the part of Mueller and the FBI, then Putin can send these folks to the US to defend themselves."

              (LOL)

            • a year ago

              @denniskleid why would anyone show up to their own witch hunt? If Russian federal prosecutors accused you of some bogus crimes amidsts a climate of anti-American xenophobia and hatred, would you show up?

          • a year ago

            Uzbekistan :D