There is a vast gulf between ‘not true’ and ‘unproved.’
Your assertions above allow you to overlook the significant amount of effort – much of it almost certainly criminal – expended by Trump and his cabal to prevent Mueller and Congress from looking for, much less obtaining, the evidence that may well have proved the criminality of Trump, Kushner and others. Giuliani’s actions are certainly part of that in the 2020 election.
It’s only now that investigators are belatedly able to pursue what was hidden from scrutiny for the duration of Trump’s term. From Rod Rosenstein’s restrictions on what Mueller and his team could investigate (nothing of Trump’s personal financial dealings) and charge (Mueller’s team were not allowed to overstep the DOJ OLC memo that a sitting president cannot not be indicted), to the Trump team’s failure to comply with lawful subpoenas for both persons and documents, all reasonable investigations were stymied at every turn.
I’m glad our current AG is not turning away from pursuing these long overdue investigations.
You know another thing that was recently confirmed by our intelligence agencies with a declassified report? That the Trump campaign did in fact actively collude with Russia to swing the 2016 election.
I pointed this out to you in another thread, where you claimed it was “old news.” Again the not-so-subtle framing of something as “old news,” when in truth, you argued vociferously in the moment that it was untrue. It wasn’t. It was simply unproved at the time. It’s proved now, though.
Back in 2016, individuals allied with the Russian government tricked the President’s son into participating in an incriminating e-mail chain, in which he agreed to receive political disinformation from Russian agents with the intent of pushing it out into the public sphere. It was probably icing on the cake that other parties were involved, and the fact that the meeting actually took place was a big frosting rosette.
The Republican Party is that there was nothing wrong with this because they never received the disinformation and the Russian agent wasn’t a direct employee of the Russian government, just a lawyer that did a lot of work with them. Do you agree?
Do you know how adversarial interests compromise American citizens? For a year or so, the Russian government had this email chain where the President’s son agreed to meet with a Russian agent in their possession. This information was not public knowledge and had not yet been discovered by law enforcement.
That’s all they need. They don’t need to make overt threats. They have something that will damage you. They know they have the goods on you. You know they have the goods on you. No one else knows they have the goods on you. This may cause you to modify your behavior without any threats or further action. You’re compromised. If your daddy is President, you have become a national security risk.
Too bad terminal stupidity isn’t a crime, I’m still gobsmacked at how freaking stupid this incident was, how easy it was for the Russians to compromise Qusay and other Trump cronies.
A smart dishonest person would’ve responded to that email with righteous indignation, then asked one of their operatives to contact the guy discreetly.
I stand by all those posts. None have anything to do with your false claim.
What I recently suggested was “old news” was the notion that Manafort offered to provide Deripaska with internal Trump polling data and the like. This was widely reported years ago and discussed on this MB at the time. It is also not anything that I ever vociferously denied.
In short, there is nothing that I ever vociferously argued against and am now dismissing as old news.
It occurred to me belatedly after I posted above that I may have violated a forum rule by pulling your posts from another forum into this one. I have reported my own post and asked the mods to remedy the situation if it is in fact a rules violation. But I do think your posts speak for themselves with respect to what you are arguing, and you’ll receive no apology from me for it.
I also won’t engage in a further hijack of this thread.
Whether or not it was collusion is beyond the scope of your claim here.
Again, what was reported in that thread was that Manafort offered Trump polling data to Deripaska. This was old news, as it had been widely discussed years ago. It is not something that I ever vociferously denied.
Your claim in this thread is blatantly false.
Personally I think it would behoove you to be more careful to stick to the truth when posting to this MB, especially when making claims about other posters. But no one can force you.