Does the Mueller probe boil down to a PR fight?

[Silver_lining]

@Czarcasm

And I am asking you to back up your statement that the Russians gave more to Clinton than they have given to Trump.

I already told you the Russians gave the Clinton’s 500k for a speech.

Renaissance Capital is an investment bank, “with ties to the Kremlin” according to the NY Times. Clinton was paid $500,000 for the one-hour speech.

Pictures of Bill Clinton's $500k Speech in Moscow

According to Politifact, yes, he gave a speech to Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank, in 2010 for $500,000. The Clinton’s disclosed this on Hillary Clinton’s federal financial disclosure forms.

Now show me a source that says the Russians gave more to Trump for the election. The ball’s is in your court. Not serving back = you have nothing.

-SL

[Silver_lining]

@Sage_Rat

Technically, he has included a criteria that we already know to be false, as his condition for acceptance.

“I will only accept that Bob murdered Jane if Bob is covered in her blood and Jane was actually a person from outer space.” Somewhat reasonable up to the point where you get to the “and”. Not only is the latter unlikely to be true, but it’s also completely irrelevant to the question of murder.

We currently don’t believe that the Russians modified any voter equipment, but no one ever accused them of doing so, nor was that ever a condition of collusion. Effectiveness is not a condition of collusion, either. If the Russians did nothing of any value for the election, but Trump paid them to, swapped information with them, or did anything else, then it’s treasonous. Maybe not Constitutionally treasonous, but certainly by lay-speak. So to add any extra requirements is, simply, a disservice to the nation and grossly shameful mental dishonesty for the purpose of partisan politics.

You can quote me correctly.

To answer your question, if Trump is found guilty of collusion to which does not include getting political dirt AND there is proof the Russians worked with him compromise voting machines, then yes, he should be removed from office. -SL

No, I don’t think getting political dirt is treasonous. What law says it is?

If you want to talk about breaking the law, that would be Hillary Clinton, unless you think its not a crime to send classified information the way she did.

[Silver_lining]

@Fiveyearlurker

**Silver_lining **provides the answer to the OP. He won’t accept the results of the probe regardless of what those results show. There is no evidence that he will accept, so there is no PR to be had that will help as he has declared himself impervious to facts.

Did you read what I said?

It is not I who won’t except it, it is the majority of the board who is having difficulty accepting the result of the 2018 Presidential election.

Facts? Sure. Please show me ONE charge ( A charge does not mean guilty ) of collusion. There is none, and some have trouble accepting that as well.

[Airbeck]

Show me that an ongoing investigation including a currently in progress trial is actually over or I win!!!

Lame dude. 0/10. What do you think you are accomplishing on this board aside from embarrassing yourself?

[Czarcasm]

@Silver_lining

Did you read what I said?

It is not I who won’t except it, it is the majority of the board who is having difficulty accepting the result of the 2018 Presidential election.

Facts? Sure. Please show me ONE charge ( A charge does not mean guilty ) of collusion. There is none, and some have trouble accepting that as well.

Back up your claim that the Clintons received more from the Russians than Trump.

[Superdude]

@Silver_lining

As for indictments, how many does the Clinton’s have by now? Over 30? I think so.

I believe that answer is zero.

Regarding Obama and cyber security, he wanted to go public with the info. He wanted McConnell to denounce the Russian interference in a bipartisan statement. McConnell refused, so Obama kept quiet because he didn’t want to be thought of as trying to influence the election.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Silver_lining

Did you read what I said?

It is not I who won’t except it, it is the majority of the board who is having difficulty accepting the result of the 2018 Presidential election.

Facts? Sure. Please show me ONE charge ( A charge does not mean guilty ) of collusion. There is none, and some have trouble accepting that as well.

So, to the OP, does it seem like the above poster is going to come back to a fact based world with any amount of public relations?

[nelliebly]

@Silver_lining

I already told you the Russians gave the Clinton’s 500k for a speech.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/24/pictures-of-bill-clinton-giving-a-500k-speech-in-moscow/

Now show me a source that says the Russians gave more to Trump for the election. The ball’s is in your court. Not serving back = you have nothing.

-SL

You’re going to have to do better than Breitbart if you want to impress anyone with a grain of sense, conservative or liberal. It’s like quoting MSNBC: just not reliable. Even my conservative friends who read Breitbart don’t do so for reliable information. Try again.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@nelliebly

You’re going to have to do better than Breitbart if you want to impress anyone with a grain of sense, conservative or liberal. It’s like quoting MSNBC: just not reliable.

:smack:

MSNBC has a bit of a liberal bias. It is not “unreliable”. The difference between Breitbart and MSNBC is like the difference between ScienceBasedMedicine (biased) and NaturalNews (fake news).

[Skywatcher]

Some food for thought:

Analysis / Bias

Breitbart consist of various sections called Big Government, Big Journalism, Big Hollywood, National Security, Tech, Sports, and Wired.

Breitbart uses sensational emotionally loaded language in their headlines such as “Obama Loses 2 Million+ Followers During Twitter Fake Account Purge.” They utilize sources such as tabloid entertainment magazine Variety, and credible sources such as Bloomberg. as well as factually mixed sources such as the Daily Mail. Under the Big Hollywood section they publish tabloid stories such as “Fashion Notes: Melania Trump is Posh and Proper for Final Day in England” utilizing fashion sources such as farfetch.com

In general, the majority of published stories favor the right and are highly pro-Trump in tone and story selection.

A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks by IFCN Fact Checkers. Here are just a few of many as an example:

Breitbart Duped by Fake News (Again) (False)
Following Joe Kennedy’s speech, Breitbart says Fall River, Mass. not built by immigrants (False)
Breitbart gets the wrong Loretta Lynch in Whitewater claim (Pants on Fire)
Did Planned Parenthood ‘Team Up’ With Satanists to Promote Abortion Rights in Missouri? (False)
Trump’s ISIS Conspiracy Theory (False)
Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias and publication of numerous false claims. (M. Huitsing 7/14/2018)

…

[Sage_Rat]

@Silver_lining

I already told you the Russians gave the Clinton’s 500k for a speech.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/24/pictures-of-bill-clinton-giving-a-500k-speech-in-moscow/

Now show me a source that says the Russians gave more to Trump for the election. The ball’s is in your court. Not serving back = you have nothing.

-SL

You do realize that saying, “Well, what if he committed a crime!? That other person also committed a crime!”, isn’t a defense in even the slightest way?

Contributions to the Trump campaign, from Russia, are illegal. This includes finances, information, advertising, etc.

[Sage_Rat]

@Silver_lining

You can quote me correctly.

I didn’t quote you at all. I gave an analogy.

No, I don’t think getting political dirt is treasonous. What law says it is?

Asking a foreign country to use its security apparatus to help you defeat the lawful functioning of the US government, in exchange for future favors that you will be able to grant them if you successfully gain the role in government that you are seeking, is exactly treason. It’s trading personal gain at the expense of your own country.

This isn’t a matter of political dirt. It’s a matter of pitting a foreign government against your own, for self-enrichment and power.

And regardless of whether that was effective or not - it wouldn’t matter if Benedict Arnold had been picked up 2 seconds after making a deal with the British and there’d been any time for him to actually do anything to aid the British - it’s still treason. It’s still choosing to abandon the law, the flag, the right of the people to self-determination, and to sell the people of your own country down the river on the day that those who you made your pact with come calling. And you can’t refuse anything they ask, because they can prove that you committed treason.

If you want to talk about breaking the law, that would be Hillary Clinton, unless you think its not a crime to send classified information the way she did.

Poor security infrastructure is a firing offense, not a crime, at the moment. Since she was already out of office, they couldn’t even do that to her. Minus evidence that she had leaked the information, sent it to our enemies, etc. it wasn’t criminal.

If you listen to Comey’s testimony, he talks about having investigated her for some accused crime 20 years ago, and he considered her to be guilty as hell, but then he got pulled off of the case. She’s the crook that got away.

Everyone who has worked with or investigated the Clintons has seemed to feel that they are dirty as hell, but no one has been able to find a yarn to pull on that could unravel whatever they’d done.

It is unfortunate, but you have to be a special sort of stupid to fail at getting away with white collar crime.

[Psychopants]

@Silver_lining

How many of these allegations are for collusion? Zero. How many indictments are there on Trump? That would be zero again. I’ll stand on these points and wager nothing happens to Trump.

They are going after a guy on not paying his taxes over a decade ago. What does that have to do with the main point of the investigation?!

If the Russian attack is to fully explored, why not examine Obama who told his cyber chief to stand down or Clinton’s private server? Drill down, and spread a wide net, I guaranteed you they find other crimes. To only examine once side is questionable when the USA Election is the topic. That is where my loyalty stands

As for indictments, how many does the Clinton’s have by now? Over 30? I think so.

Perhaps today’s admission on twitter by the so-called president will convince you to change the channel. He lied, they lied, they at least attempted to conspire to defraud the American voters by working directly with the Kremlin to obtain information that was not collected legally. These are what are commonly known as “facts.”

Good grief. I came here to get away from ignorance.