More Mueller news: Whitaker, Treason, and Farage.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump is demanding the right to view the Mueller report and edit it on the basis of "executive privilege" before it is viewed by Congress or the public:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... of-vpx.cnn

[Bernkastel]

Trump is demanding the right to view the Mueller report and edit it on the basis of "executive privilege" before it is viewed by Congress or the public:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... of-vpx.cnn

Wow. I'm rarely inclined to comment on stuff, especially politics. But Trump really is remarkable. Of course he'd try something like this, as stupid as it is.

[Crazedwraith]

It would lovely if they let him do that... then release the original alongside his version.

[The Romulan Republic]

The sad thing is it might actually work- at least to delay the release of the report weeks or months while they argue out the limits of executive privilege in the courts.

It would piss off Congress to no end though- even some Republicans, probably. Given that that House just passed a non-binding resolution calling for the public release of the report by a vote of 420 to 0 (with four Republicans voting "present"):

https://globalnews.ca/video/5055857/con ... ort-public

And the only reason it hasn't passed the Senate is that Lindsey Graham pulled some legislative fuckery and tacked on a demand for a second special counsel to investigate the investigation, and Schumer then withdrew it:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... nr-vpx.cnn

It would lovely if they let him do that... then release the original alongside his version.

Indeed.

[Vympel]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... er-n984911

ROFLMAO. "Yeah, we've been inciting people for two years with lunatic tales about Trump going down for TrumpRussia! collusion, and now we know that's not actually going to happen, so please say nothing as we move the goalposts to "whether Trump is under the influence of a foreign government now".

These fucking cranks.

WASHINGTON — Nearly two years into his investigation, special counsel Robert Mueller has not accused any member of the Trump campaign of conspiring with the 2016 election interference effort — and it's not clear whether he will.

But legal experts, along with the congressman leading the House Russia investigation, tell NBC News that the most important question investigators must answer is one that may never have been suitable for the criminal courts: Whether President Trump or anyone around him is under the influence of a foreign government.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... er-n984911

ROFLMAO. "Yeah, we've been inciting people for two years with lunatic tales about Trump going down for TrumpRussia! collusion, and now we know that's not actually going to happen, so please say nothing as we move the goalposts to "whether Trump is under the influence of a foreign government now".

These fucking cranks.

WASHINGTON — Nearly two years into his investigation, special counsel Robert Mueller has not accused any member of the Trump campaign of conspiring with the 2016 election interference effort — and it's not clear whether he will.

But legal experts, along with the congressman leading the House Russia investigation, tell NBC News that the most important question investigators must answer is one that may never have been suitable for the criminal courts: Whether President Trump or anyone around him is under the influence of a foreign government.

1. That is not shifting the goal posts. Whether Trump colluded during the election and whether he is being influenced by a foreign government are two separate but related questions, they've both been a subject of interest from the beginning, and they both will continue to be.

2. The final results of the Mueller probe are by no means clear, and asserting that they are, and that that is the motive behind the Congressman's comments, is a lie.

3. Arguing that Trump may have engaged in collusion is not "incitement" (I presume you mean incitement of violence?), and this sounds to me like a fascistic attempt by you to brand concerns about or investigation of collusion as extremist activity.

4. Don't you ever feel even the slightest shame as you constantly parrot the propaganda of Putin/Trump?

[Vympel]

1. That is not shifting the goal posts. Whether Trump colluded during the election and whether he is being influenced by a foreign government are two separate but related questions, they've both been a subject of interest from the beginning, and they both will continue to be.

Yes, it's shifting the goal posts, and obviously so. For two years you and your ilk have been caterwauling MUELLER WILL SAVE US, and now that - lo and behold- he won't - the focus now shifts to a continuing Manchurian Candidate circus.

2. The final results of the Mueller probe are by no means clear, and asserting that they are, and that that is the motive behind the Congressman's comments, is a lie.

Keep clapping for Tinkerbell dude.You don't look even the slightest bit ridiculous.

3. Arguing that Trump may have engaged in collusion is not "incitement" (I presume you mean incitement of violence?), and this sounds to me like a fascistic attempt by you to brand concerns about or investigation of collusion as extremist activity.

It is extremist activity, and much the same level of credibility as the belief that Obama was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Also, your characterization of the extremist insanity of Trump-Russia conspiracy cranks as "arguing that Trump may have engaged in collusion" is hilarious in its dishonesty. We both know that you honestly think Trump is a literal traitor, just come out and own the crazy.

4. Don't you ever feel even the slightest shame as you constantly parrot the propaganda of Putin/Trump?

Don't you ever feel the slightest shame at parroting the propaganda of shameless Democratic party functionaries who lost the easiest election in history to a soup-brained racist?

(Please also point out where 'Putin' is proferring 'propaganda' on your Russiagate delusions)

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, it's shifting the goal posts, and obviously so. For two years you and your ilk have been caterwauling MUELLER WILL SAVE US, and now that - lo and behold- he won't - the focus now shifts to a continuing Manchurian Candidate circus.

Repeating a dishonest assertion does not make it so.

Keep clapping for Tinkerbell dude.You don't look even the slightest bit ridiculous.

Substituting mockery for actual rebuttal is ad hominem (although that is apparently acceptable now on this board, at least as long as I am the target). The investigation is ongoing, though it has already alleged ties between several Trump campaign and administration officials and Russia, including coordination of the hacked email releases. That is a fact. Pretending otherwise even when called on it simply makes you a liar, and a fool.

It is extremist activity, and much the same level of credibility as the belief that Obama was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Also, your characterization of the extremist insanity of Trump-Russia conspiracy cranks as "arguing that Trump may have engaged in collusion" is hilarious in its dishonesty. We both know that you honestly think Trump is a literal traitor, just come out and own the crazy.

"BOTH SIDES! BOTH SIDES!"

Also, while I think that some of Trump's actions are probably treasonous, I have repeatedly said that I do not think colluding with Russia qualifies as treason. You have no right to put words in my mouth, tell me what I think, and then call me dishonest for not "admitting" to the opinions you assigned me. Do it again, and I will report you for defamation.

Finally, your accusation that I and tens of millions of democrats, liberals, and progressives are extremists, and your implication that we are effectively terrorists and inciting violence, because we accuse Trump of collusion, is defamatory and fascistic, an attempt to brand opposition speech as terroristic in an effort to silence it. You have once again shown your true colors as a tool and proponent of authoritarianism.

Don't you ever feel the slightest shame at parroting the propaganda of shameless Democratic party functionaries who lost the easiest election in history to a soup-brained racist?

Right, because Russian collusion is entirely an invention of "Democratic party functionaries". No media reports backing it up, no intelligence backing it up. No indictments backing it up.

Hell, the Steel dossier was being created while the election was still ongoing, and originally started as Republican-funded opposition research. But facts are nothing to you. The West is evil, Putin is against the West, therefore Putin can do no wrong.

(Please also point out where 'Putin' is proferring 'propaganda' on your Russiagate delusions)

Have I got this right? You're asking me to prove the assertion that Putin uses propaganda?

You have offered nothing in this discussion, literally nothing, except a link to some random Congressman talking about the possibility of Trump being under foreign influence, spinning that into "proof" of a Democratic witch hunt in a manner that would be more suited to Trump's twitter feed than a board that supposedly prides itself on "mockery of stupid people ideas", and the usual personal mockery and defamation directed at me. Oh, and branding everyone who disagrees with you a terrorist and demanding that I prove that Dear Leader Putin uses propaganda, let's not forget that.

[Vympel]

Repeating a dishonest assertion does not make it so.

I know you think its some sort of awesome own to keep insisting "but you don't know that!" when I express a firm belief - increasingly shared by many (as the MSNBC report indicates, obviously) that The Sacred Mueller Report is going to be a small wet fart on the topic of 'collusion', but it really isn't.

Substituting mockery for actual rebuttal is ad hominem (although that is apparently acceptable now on this board, at least as long as I am the target). The investigation is ongoing, though it has already alleged ties between several Trump campaign and administration officials and Russia, including coordination of the hacked email releases. That is a fact. Pretending otherwise even when called on it simply makes you a liar, and a fool.

Actually the investigation is clearly winding down (as the mounting reports on Mueller's prosecutors leaving the investigation to go back to their regular lives indicates) and your assertion that the "investigation alleged" "coordination of the hacked email releases" between the Trump campaign and Russia is a complete lie. Simply never happened.

"BOTH SIDES! BOTH SIDES!"

What a substantive response!

Also, while I think that some of Trump's actions are probably treasonous, I have repeatedly said that I do not think colluding with Russia qualifies as treason. You have no right to put words in my mouth, tell me what I think, and then call me dishonest for not "admitting" to the opinions you assigned me. Do it again, and I will report you for defamation.

Finally, your accusation that I and tens of millions of democrats, liberals, and progressives are extremists, and your implication that we are effectively terrorists and inciting violence, because we accuse Trump of collusion, is defamatory and fascistic, an attempt to brand opposition speech as terroristic in an effort to silence it. You have once again shown your true colors as a tool and proponent of authoritarianism.

You literally called Trump the "Traitor In Chief" approximately a month ago, on this board. Your indignation is an obvious sham.

Right, because Russian collusion is entirely an invention of "Democratic party functionaries". No media reports backing it up, no intelligence backing it up. No indictments backing it up.

Hell, the Steel dossier was being created while the election was still ongoing, and originally started as Republican-funded opposition research. But facts are nothing to you. The West is evil, Putin is against the West, therefore Putin can do no wrong

We know this from the book Shattered, where it indicates that Hillary's army of incompetent losers seized on the 'Russia' narrative to explain their loss within 24 hours of losing.

As for your assertions:

- Media: you mean the credulous ninnies who just repeat whatever the DNC told them to say? Who cares?
- Intelligence: the only thing 'backing this up' is the Steele Toilet Paper, which has never had a single one of its 'collusion' assertions substantiated in any relevant particular. Oppo research by some imbecile who doesn't know what CNN iReports is ain't intelligence.

When asked if he had an understanding of what CNN iReport was, Steele said he did not know. He thought the information on the site had "some kind of CNN status. Albeit that it may be an independent person posting on the site," Steele said during the deposition.
CNN iReport was a separate citizen journalism initiative from CNN's editorial news service that allowed users to contribute stories, photos or videos.
"Do you understand that they have no connection to any CNN reporters?" an attorney asked Steele during his deposition last June. "I do not," he answered, according to the transcript.

Michael Steele - superspy!

Have I got this right? You're asking me to prove the assertion that Putin uses propaganda?

No, you don't. Can you not read? Did I say "please prove that Putin uses propaganda" or did I say "please point out where Putin is proferring propaganda on your Russiagate delusions?"

[The Romulan Republic]

I know you think its some sort of awesome own to keep insisting "but you don't know that!" when I express a firm belief - increasingly shared by many (as the MSNBC report indicates, obviously) that The Sacred Mueller Report is going to be a small wet fart on the topic of 'collusion', but it really isn't.

Being a "firm belief" is not evidence. If it was, then you would have to admit that I have an unassailable argument. Lots of people have a "firm belief" that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And saying "you don't know what the outcome will be" is a simple statement of objective fact.

Actually the investigation is clearly winding down (as all of Mueller's prosecutors leaving the investigation to go back to their regular lives indicates)

People have been saying its ending any day now for about a year. Some of the prosecutors have left (presumably because the specific parts of the investigation they were working on have wrapped up), but Mueller also just asked for a sixty day extension on the sentencing of Gates, and is still battling an unknown company for documents in the Supreme Court:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... ys-n958886

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -this-week

It is also widely speculated that Mueller may have sealed indictments that have not yet been released (due to an unusually high number of sealed indictments in the DC court system), but there's no way to say for sure:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dozens- ... d=59249030

In any case, "the investigation is almost finished" proves nothing about what its final conclusions will be.

and your assertion that the "investigation alleged" "coordination of the hacked email releases" between the Trump campaign and Russia is a complete lie. Simply never happened.

Roger Stone: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics ... index.html

I expect you to retract and apologize for falsely accusing me of lying. Well, actually, I don't, because you're a shameless liar yourself, and because nobody ever suffers consequences for defaming me on this board. But its what you would do if you were a decent person.

What a substantive response!

More substantive than the cheap Whataboutism to which it was a response. Give me something worthy of an in-depth response, and you'll get one.

You literally called Trump the "Traitor In Chief" approximately a month ago, on this board. Your indignation is an obvious sham.

Read what I said again. I said that I consider Trump guilty of treason (his pandering to Kim Jong Un, mainly), but not for that reason. There is zero inconsistency.

We know this from the book Shattered, where it indicates that Hillary's army of incompetent losers seized on the 'Russia' narrative to explain their loss within 24 hours of losing.

I just cited how the roots of the investigation predated the outcome of the election, and you ignored it. Yet you have the gall to accuse me of dishonesty.

But no, its all a plot by Crooked Hillary (or should I say Killary? ) LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

As for your assertions:

- Media: you mean the credulous ninnies who just repeat whatever the DNC told them to say? Who cares?
- Intelligence: the only thing 'backing this up' is the Steele Toilet Paper, which has never had a single one of its 'collusion' assertions substantiated in any relevant particular. Oppo research by some imbecile who doesn't know what CNN iReports is ain't intelligence.

Michael Steele - superspy!

The investigation is a plot by Clinton, the media are all pawns of the DNC, the investigation is entirely based on the Steele dossier, nothing in the dossier has ever been proven...

This is literally taken point by point from Trumpist propaganda. You are just regurgitating Alt. Reich memes, and I will treat you accordingly: as a Trumper.

No, you don't. Can you not read? Did I say "please prove that Putin uses propaganda" or did I say "please point out where Putin is proferring propaganda on your Russiagate delusions?"

Very well. Its still a rediculous demand, because of course he is, and because we both know that you will immediately respond by either asserting without proof that everything Putin says is the truth (because you're already basically parroting his propaganda almost word for word like the double-plus good duckspeaker you are), or that any evidence to the contrary is Western/Democratic propaganda. But here you go:

https://www.apnews.com/720147c3d21f47e0a9bffcaffae757dd

[bilateralrope]

Trump is demanding the right to view the Mueller report and edit it on the basis of "executive privilege" before it is viewed by Congress or the public:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... of-vpx.cnn

Passing the original to Trump's White House seems a surefire way to get someone to leak it regardless of what anyone thinks about redacting parts of it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump is demanding the right to view the Mueller report and edit it on the basis of "executive privilege" before it is viewed by Congress or the public:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... of-vpx.cnn

Passing the original to Trump's White House seems a surefire way to get someone to leak it regardless of what anyone thinks about redacting parts of it.

Heh, there is that.

Of course, the danger is selective leaks, designed to sow misinformation. The Trumpers have used that trick before. Whatever the result, the only way that it will have any credibility is if a full, uncensored report is made public.

[Vympel]

Being a "firm belief" is not evidence. If it was, then you would have to admit that I have an unassailable argument. Lots of people have a "firm belief" that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And saying "you don't know what the outcome will be" is a simple statement of objective fact.

Whoever said what I was saying is "evidence"? Like I said, you think this ridiculous tactic of calling everything your opponent says a 'lie' because you can't tell the difference between someone asserting a position and asserting a fact is some sort of devastating rebuttal. It's laughable.

People have been saying its ending any day now for about a year. Some of the prosecutors have left (presumably because the specific parts of the investigation they were working on have wrapped up), but Mueller also just asked for a sixty day extension on the sentencing of Gates, and is still battling an unknown company for documents in the Supreme Court:

Oh, and who are these "people" who have been saying its ending any day now for a year? Sources, please.

It is also widely speculated that Mueller may have sealed indictments that have not yet been released (due to an unusually high number of sealed indictments in the DC court system), but there's no way to say for sure:

So ... speculation.

In any case, "the investigation is almost finished" proves nothing about what its final conclusions will be.

No, but what he's charged and what he hasn't does.

Roger Stone: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics ... index.html

I expect you to retract and apologize for falsely accusing me of lying. Well, actually, I don't, because you're a shameless liar yourself, and because nobody ever suffers consequences for defaming me on this board. But its what you would do if you were a decent person.

No, I won't retract or apologise for saying you were lying - because you're Lying. Mueller has never asserted that Roger Stone "coordinated hacked email releases" with Russia. Not ever.

What that link you're pointing at says is that Stone sought emails from wikileaks. Wikileaks != Russia, genius. Furthermore wikileaks had been broadcasting, on twitter, to the entire world, that they were going to release material well before Stone (is asserted to have said he) contacted them. He did nothing meaningful whatsoever.

So again - you're lying.

More substantive than the cheap Whataboutism to which it was a response. Give me something worthy of an in-depth response, and you'll get one.

LOL, says the guy promoting an extremist conspiracy theory for which he has not a single solitary piece of evidence, let alone an indictment.

Read what I said again. I said that I consider Trump guilty of treason (his pandering to Kim Jong Un, mainly), but not for that reason. There is zero inconsistency.

ROFLMAO. A statement so ridiculous it refutes itself.

I just cited how the roots of the investigation predated the outcome of the election, and you ignored it. Yet you have the gall to accuse me of dishonesty.

I didn't ignore it, I refuted it, in detail. Just because some dipshit paid some British incompetent to write bilge before the election doesn't have shit to do with the point that this hysteria was incited by the Clinton campaign looking to find an excuse for their humiliating defeat.

The investigation is a plot by Clinton, the media are all pawns of the DNC, the investigation is entirely based on the Steele dossier, nothing in the dossier has ever been proven...

This is literally taken point by point from Trumpist propaganda. You are just regurgitating Alt. Reich memes, and I will treat you accordingly: as a Trumper.

Of course you won't respond to anything I actually said refuting your nonsense sentiments. You'll just default to "lol you love Trump" smears instead.

That none of the ludicrous Steele dossier collusions has been proven is a statement of fact. You don't like that statement? Prove me wrong. But you won't. You always slink away in defeat whenever we get to this stage of the argument, don't you?

That the media has had nothing meaningful to say or done any independent reporting establishing 'collusion' is also a statement of fact.

Very well. Its still a rediculous demand, because of course he is, and because we both know that you will immediately respond by either asserting without proof that everything Putin says is the truth (because you're already basically parroting his propaganda almost word for word like the double-plus good duckspeaker you are), or that any evidence to the contrary is Western/Democratic propaganda. But here you go:

https://www.apnews.com/720147c3d21f47e0a9bffcaffae757dd

ROFL- so if someone points to an article on MSNBC to mock the delusions of Russiagate believers, then thats functionally identical to Russia publically mocking the idea?

Genius! So basically, the only valid conclusion then is that nobody can criticise this bullshit story without being automatically considered to be engaging in Putin/Trump Propaganda. It's the all-purpose escape hatch whenever someone calls bullshit.

[The Romulan Republic]

I never said that no one could criticize the story, or that anyone who did so was using Trump/Putin propaganda. But your specific arguments are, in many cases, almost verbatim from Trumper propaganda, including:

-The allegations being created by Clinton (proven false, as I have already demonstrated in this thread).

-The allegations all being based on the Steele dossier (also proven false: the FBI was already investigating Papadopolous separately from the Steele dossier, among other things, and in any case this claim contradicts the previous falsehood).

-That nothing in the Steele Dossier has been corroborated (also false- https://www.businessinsider.com/steele- ... t-hasn't-2 ).

-That the allegations are a conspiracy by "the media" against Trump (also tacitly engaging in the lie that the media has a collective pro-Democrat bias which as been used to push the national dialogue ever-further to the Right).

So yeah, you're basically just repeating Trump's propaganda about all investigation being a Democrat/Clinton witch hunt, and I'll respond to it accordingly, and call it what it is. Trying to play the victim will not get you out of the obligation to back up your claims.

In summary, you admit that you have no evidence and are basically just taking the piss, somehow spin this as a reason why I am deserving of mockery for pointing out that you have no evidence, throw out a few more insults, false accusations, and assertions at me in lieu of evidence, and call it a day.

I have provided numerous sources backing up my points. You have mostly ignored them, or just repeated your assertions and claimed that I am a liar, and then actually had the hypocrisy to accuse me of refusing to back up my positions. You have in fact outright responded to one of my posts (which I posted in response to a false claim of dishonesty on your part) by saying that it "refutes itself", and admitted that you are not providing evidence, and yet you assert that it is I who am I liar and who refuse to back up my points. You have repeated, without providing any additional evidence, claims that I have already rebutted, such as the Kremlinist/Trumpian lie that Russian Collusion was an allegation created by Clinton to justify her defeat (I guess she had a time machine then, seeing as how the allegations were already out there and under investigation before the election ended). You have, in short, violated the standards of honest debating that this site used to at least pretend to uphold, engaging in broken-record debating, ignoring evidence, and refusing to back up your own claims, and relying on personal attacks to try to cover it up.

We used to have a term for this. What was it? Oh, yes...

Concession accepted.

Reg. Roger Stone: alright, Mueller's indictments alleged that Stone tried to coordinate with Wikileaks, which was working with the GRU, and that the GRU worked with unnamed Americans, while being unclear on how far Stone succeeded in doing so. Is that better, or am I still a liar for not simply agreeing with your Kremlinist agit-prop?

[Vympel]

I never said that no one could criticize the story, or that anyone who did so was using Trump/Putin propaganda. But your specific arguments are, in many cases, almost verbatim from Trumper propaganda, including:

-The allegations being created by Clinton (proven false, as I have already demonstrated in this thread).

-The allegations all being based on the Steele dossier (also proven false: the FBI was already investigating Papadopolous separately from the Steele dossier, among other things, and in any case this claim contradicts the previous falsehood).

-That nothing in the Steele Dossier has been corroborated (also false- https://www.businessinsider.com/steele- ... t-hasn't-2 ).

-That the allegations are a conspiracy by "the media" against Trump (also tacitly engaging in the lie that the media has a collective pro-Democrat bias which as been used to push the national dialogue ever-further to the Right).

So yeah, you're basically just repeating Trump's propaganda about all investigation being a Democrat/Clinton witch hunt, and I'll respond to it accordingly, and call it what it is. Trying to play the victim will not get you out of the obligation to back up your claims.

In summary, you admit that you have no evidence and are basically just taking the piss, somehow spin this as a reason why I am deserving of mockery for pointing out that you have no evidence, throw out a few more insults, false accusations, and assertions at me in lieu of evidence, and call it a day.

I have provided numerous sources backing up my points. You have mostly ignored them, or just repeated your assertions and claimed that I am a liar, and then actually had the hypocrisy to accuse me of refusing to back up my positions. You have in fact outright responded to one of my posts (which I posted in response to a false claim of dishonesty on your part) by saying that it "refutes itself", and admitted that you are not providing evidence, and yet you assert that it is I who am I liar and who refuse to back up my points. You have repeated, without providing any additional evidence, claims that I have already rebutted, such as the Kremlinist/Trumpian lie that Russian Collusion was an allegation created by Clinton to justify her defeat (I guess she had a time machine then, seeing as how the allegations were already out there and under investigation before the election ended). You have, in short, violated the standards of honest debating that this site used to at least pretend to uphold, engaging in broken-record debating, ignoring evidence, and refusing to back up your own claims, and relying on personal attacks to try to cover it up.

We used to have a term for this. What was it? Oh, yes...

Concession accepted.

Reg. Roger Stone: alright, Mueller's indictments alleged that Stone tried to coordinate with Wikileaks, which was working with the GRU, and that the GRU worked with unnamed Americans, while being unclear on how far Stone succeeded in doing so. Is that better, or am I still a liar for not simply agreeing with your Kremlinist agit-prop?

It comes as no surprise that when the rubber hits the road you give up on rebutting points and instead launch into a generalized piss-weak polemic to cover up for your weakness on the actual issues at hand - which really is a great metaphor for the Russiagate tactic of choice.

"-The allegations being created by Clinton (proven false, as I have already demonstrated in this thread)."

Strawman. The hysteria was incited by the Clinton and her partisans. The hysteria amplified the (ridiculous) allegations and gave them oxygen.

"The allegations all being based on the Steele dossier (also proven false: the FBI was already investigating Papadopolous separately from the Steele dossier, among other things, and in any case this claim contradicts the previous falsehood)."

At no stage did I say the allegations are all based on the Steele dossier. You introduced that joke of a document into this discussion and I attacked it, and now you're lying your ass off - yet again! with a new statement I didn't make.

"-That nothing in the Steele Dossier has been corroborated (also false- https://www.businessinsider.com/steele- ... t-hasn't-2 )."

Another strawman. I never said nothing in the Steele dossier has been corroborated, I said none of its collusion allegations had been - because that's actually true.

There are things in the Steele dossier that have been corroborated. Wanna know why? Cos they were already public knowledge (i.e. had already been reported in the media) before the dossier was released. Wonder why that is (*whispering*: its because the dossier is dogshit).

There's really no need to go into your ridiculous extended paragraph making all sorts of rhetorical flourishes about how wrong and dishonest I am (particularly hilarious is your absurd denial that you don't believe Trump is a Russian agent based on some obvious contortions about Trump's nuclear talks in North Korea) but I like this bit:

"Reg. Roger Stone: alright, Mueller's indictments alleged that Stone tried to coordinate with Wikileaks, which was working with the GRU, and that the GRU worked with unnamed Americans, while being unclear on how far Stone succeeded in doing so. Is that better, or am I still a liar for not simply agreeing with your Kremlinist agit-prop?"

It's great because you just go and totally shoot yourself in the dick - with a bazooka - thereby flat out admitting that your original characterisation was a total lie - and actually attack me and refer to "Kremlinist agit-prop" for making you do so!

It's amazing. Like - you flat out think holding you to actual facts is "Kremlimist agitprop". Facts don't matter to you at all. All you care about is holding onto your precious insane conspiracy theory. If it undermines it, then in your mind it must be Kremlin propaganda - even if its the fucking truth!

Your revised paragraph is still bollocks though. Let me fix it for you:

"Reg. Roger Stone: alright, Mueller's indictments alleged that Stone tried to coordinate with Wikileaks, which some allege without ever offering a shred of evidence, ever was working with the GRU, and some allege without ever offering a shred of evidence, ever that the GRU worked with unnamed Americans, while being unclear on how far Stone succeeded in doing so, and also this is a pointless distraction because there's no way - even if any of these transparently self-serving bullshit GRU allegations were true - that the Trump campaign or Roger Stone knew any of this at the relevant time!"

[Ziggy Stardust]

Vympel, for all of the accusations you are leveling against TRR, I'm not seeing you actually post very many facts or supporting evidence, here. I'm not even trying to say you are wrong on every point, because I don't admit to following the details of the cases closely enough to know the ins-and-outs, but as an observer to this debate I am just seeing you throwing around more claims of TRR having no evidence than you have actually providing evidence.

I'm also, in all honesty, having a hard time even deciphering what some of your specific arguments even ARE, because every point you are making is so wrapped up in sarcasm and insults towards TRR it's tough to unravel. I can't tell if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying or if you are conflating different facts or what. For example, you keep bringing up the Roger Stone case and how Wikileaks had already publicly leaked material. Which is true, but is also irrelevant, because the charges weren't over whether he coordinated with Wikileaks on the release of that material to begin with. The entire point of the charges against Roger Stone are the allegations that he contacted Wikileaks in response to these public leaks in order to determine what other information they had and whether they could then coordinate the release of this other potential material to maximize the political benefit. Literally everyone involved in the case recognizes readily he wasn't involved in the leaks that came before, everyone is trying to figure out how Stone and Trump's team tries to capitalize on those leaks. It's totally fine if you don't think these charges are true (as I said, I haven't followed the facts closely enough to even have a strong opinion on them myself), but it also seems like you are misrepresenting the details of the case in a way that makes it difficult to discern what you are basing any of your conclusions on.

[Vympel]

Vympel, for all of the accusations you are leveling against TRR, I'm not seeing you actually post very many facts or supporting evidence, here. I'm not even trying to say you are wrong on every point, because I don't admit to following the details of the cases closely enough to know the ins-and-outs, but as an observer to this debate I am just seeing you throwing around more claims of TRR having no evidence than you have actually providing evidence.

That would be because the burden of proof isn't on me. At all. It's incumbent on those making the allegation that Donald Trump 'colluded with the Russians' and/or is a Russian agent to substantiate those allegations with evidence. It's not incumbent on me to prove a negative. All I need to do is point out how their supposed 'evidence' doesn't substantiate jack shit.

I'm also, in all honesty, having a hard time even deciphering what some of your specific arguments even ARE, because every point you are making is so wrapped up in sarcasm and insults towards TRR it's tough to unravel. I can't tell if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying or if you are conflating different facts or what. For example, you keep bringing up the Roger Stone case and how Wikileaks had already publicly leaked material. Which is true, but is also irrelevant, because the charges weren't over whether he coordinated with Wikileaks on the release of that material to begin with. The entire point of the charges against Roger Stone are the allegations that he contacted Wikileaks in response to these public leaks in order to determine what other information they had and whether they could then coordinate the release of this other potential material to maximize the political benefit. Literally everyone involved in the case recognizes readily he wasn't involved in the leaks that came before, everyone is trying to figure out how Stone and Trump's team tries to capitalize on those leaks. It's totally fine if you don't think these charges are true (as I said, I haven't followed the facts closely enough to even have a strong opinion on them myself), but it also seems like you are misrepresenting the details of the case in a way that makes it difficult to discern what you are basing any of your conclusions on.

None of that means anything. It's totally irrelevant to establishing that Trump 'colluded' with the Russians. Because wikileaks isn't synonymous with Russia, despite self-serving claims by the liars, assassins, coup plotters and drug dealers that make up the US intelligence community and bureuacracy generally (who have despised wikileaks for over a decade) - and even if it was, it certainly can't be proven that anyone in the Trump campaign either knew or believed that at the time.

Clinton's dead enders might be really upset that Trump had an interest in getting dirt on Clinton from wikileaks, but if they did so, they didn't do anything which could reasonably attract a criminal penalty or an allegation that they were 'colluding' with Russia. It's a horseshit, irrelevant sideshow.

[The Romulan Republic]

So... you came in and posted a link to some random news story quoting some random Congressman talking about other concerns they might pursue in addition to the Mueller probe, spun that as proof that the Mueller probe is part of a Democratic plot and has nothing (along with a bunch of subsequent claims), but you assert that you have made no claims, and have no burden of proof, while repeatedly mocking me for pointing out that you have jack and shit to support your position? And yet you have the nerve to accuse me of never backing anything up, despite my posting links to about half a dozen different sources in support of my claims, which you have frequently ignored so you can repeat your false assertions.

Tell me, why should I take you seriously, or bother to engage with you at all, when it is clear that you are debating in bad faith?

By the way, on the claim that the Mueller probe is totes wrapping up right now and there will definitely be nothing new to show for it... This really couldn't be better timed:

https://time.com/5554708/robert-mueller ... extension/

(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team says it won’t be able to meet a court deadline this week in part because of the “press of other work.”

That’s according to court papers filed Tuesday in a case brought by The Washington Post.

The filing doesn’t provide additional details so it’s unclear whether the cryptic reference is related to Mueller’s timeline for concluding his Russia investigation or to unrelated responsibilities of his team members.

The newspaper is seeking sealed materials in the case of the former campaign chairman to Donald Trump, Paul Manafort. Mueller’s team says it needs until April 1 to respond and to consult within the government.

The filing comes amid signs that Mueller’s Russia probe is wrapping up as team members have left or announced their departure.

Mueller asks for a nearly two-week extension on releasing documents pertaining to Manafort's sentencing, citing a "press of other work."

So, it may or may not be about to come to an end, but there's clearly something that they're still working on. I wouldn't be surprised if Mueller saves the best for last.

[The Romulan Republic]

In fact, given that Mueller is still trying to get documents from that mystery company, plus the glut of sealed indictments in the DC court system, and the fact that Don Jr. is on record saying he expects to be indicted for lying to the FBI but hasn't yet been... there's almost certainly more dramatic shit coming. If I had to speculate, I would say that its plausible that some of Trump's family members either are going to be or have already been indicted, but Mueller isn't going to tip his hand until he's got everything else wrapped up, because there's a pretty good risk that once he indicts any of the Trump family, Donald goes ballistic and tries to order the whole thing shut down. That or indicting certain people would reveal information about parts of the investigation that are still ongoing that they don't want revealed yet. Either way, I would be quite surprised if this ended without any more indictments.

Its possible that Mueller will be unable to prove collusion by Trump personally. I've said that pretty much from the outset. But at the very least, I expect more indictments, and a report laying out a case for obstruction of justice against Trump personally (because come on, you could charge him for obstruction based on what's public record).

[Vympel]

So... you came in

Oh god, just stop. You've already done this grossly dishonest, distortion-laden polemic. It's tiresome, and full of blatant lies. I mocked a goalpost shift by the 'collusion' advocate proponents, and as usual you flipped out and the argument kicked off from there. I didn't 'spin' anything. But as for your indignant "you came in" above - let's get one thing straight - you don't own this thread, you don't run this thread, and anyone can "come in" at any time and offer any commentary on it that they want. You don't like it? Leave.

You haven't backed up any claims that are actually relevant to establishing 'collusion'. The one time you tried you humiliated yourself with some totally irrelevant Roger Stone & Wikileaks nonsense. Like - that literally just happened.

Furthermore, you have repeatedly distorted my position - lying that I've said that the Mueller probe is a "Democratic plot" as opposed to what I actually said - that:

a. you're an ideologue parrotting the bullshit propaganda of loser Democrats trying to find an excuse for losing the easiest goddamn election in history to a soup-brained racist; and
b. the Russiagate hysteria exists as a narrative that we know the Clinton campaign devised within 24 hours of losing the election.

There's a difference between a and b and the mere existence of the Mueller probe, genius. And you know there is, but you're a liar, so you want to keep fucking lying and conflate different things as a rhetorical shield for your brand of conspiratorial horseshit.

The only person debating in bad faith here is you, and transparently so.

Alternately, you're not a liar, but you're so confused you think every wildly un-informed dumb flight of fancy you think is true is synonymous with the fact that Mueller is working on something. It's laughable.

As for your scrambling for vague links about inconsequential minor bureaucratic shit (a 'deadline extension' for a thing we know literally nothing about! THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN!) - yeah, whatever dude. It's going to be over soon. Get used to it. Get ready to hang your hopes on Adam Schiff's* cockamamie circus instead, or whatever you plan to do with your time.

*You know, the person you called the "random Congressman", you wildly dishonest person. Let's consult the MSNBC article I referenced on that claim:

But legal experts, along with the congressman leading the House Russia investigation

"random Congressman". No biggie.

[The Romulan Republic]

So... you came in

Oh god, just stop. You've already done this grossly dishonest, distortion-laden polemic. It's tiresome, and full of blatant lies. I mocked a goalpost shift by the 'collusion' advocate proponents, and as usual you flipped out and the argument kicked off from there. I didn't 'spin' anything. But as for your indignant "you came in" above - let's get one thing straight - you don't own this thread, you don't run this thread, and anyone can "come in" at any time and offer any commentary on it that they want. You don't like it? Leave.

I don't own this thread, and you are welcome to comment, but that does not absolve you of a responsibility to back up your claims.

But if your defense is that you made a vapid, contentless post for the sole purpose of mocking people you don't like, then fine, I'll accept that.

You haven't backed up any claims that are actually relevant to establishing 'collusion'. The one time you tried you humiliated yourself with some totally irrelevant Roger Stone & Wikileaks nonsense. Like - that literally just happened.

Its not irrelevant- you are simply ignoring evidence. Again.

Furthermore, you have repeatedly distorted my position - lying that I've said that the Mueller probe is a "Democratic plot" as opposed to what I actually said - that:

That's not a lie, its a summary (granted, not your exact words) of your position. An accurate one.

a. you're an ideologue parrotting the bullshit propaganda of loser Democrats trying to find an excuse for losing the easiest goddamn election in history to a soup-brained racist; and
b. the Russiagate hysteria exists as a narrative that we know the Clinton campaign devised within 24 hours of losing the election.

"Its not a Democratic plot, it was just invented by the Clinton campaign!"

You are also once again repeating the assertion (that's one of the claims you have a burden to back up) that the collusion allegations were created by the Clinton campaign after the election to justify their loss. Something laughably false, which I have disproven, and which you have ignored. Repeatedly.

There's a difference between a and b and the mere existence of the Mueller probe, genius. And you know there is, but you're a liar, so you want to keep fucking lying and conflate different things as a rhetorical shield for your brand of conspiratorial horseshit.

So your argument is "Saying the reason for the Mueller probe is a democratic conspiracy is not the same thing as saying the existence of the Mueller probe is, so you're a liar." That's at best ridiculous nitpicking, and if your arguments are that unclear, I can hardly be called a liar for misinterpreting them.

You have repeatedly libeled me in this thread, in addition to your blatant dishonest debating in general, and it is only great restraint that has kept me from reporting you thus far.

The only person debating in bad faith here is you, and transparently so.

Liar.

Alternately, you're not a liar, but you're so confused you think every wildly un-informed dumb flight of fancy you think is true is synonymous with the fact that Mueller is working on something. It's laughable.

Or I actually follow the news and the indictments, and don't just automatically dismiss them as a Western conspiracy against Glorious Leader Putin.

As for your scrambling for vague links about inconsequential minor bureaucratic shit (a 'deadline extension' for a thing we know literally nothing about! THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN!) - yeah, whatever dude. It's going to be over soon. Get used to it. Get ready to hang your hopes on Adam Schiff's* cockamamie circus instead, or whatever you plan to do with your time.

*You know, the person you called the "random Congressman", you wildly dishonest person. Let's consult the MSNBC article I referenced on that claim:

But legal experts, along with the congressman leading the House Russia investigation

Again I post evidence, again you ignore it, while asserting that you have no obligation to back up your claims, and mocking me and calling me a liar for suggesting that you do.

This is some of the most flagrantly dishonest debating I have ever seen on this board, which is saying something.

"random Congressman". No biggie.

It still doesn't mean what you say it means, and it is therefore irrelevant whether he is Christ Reborn or the drunken hobo on the next street corner.

[Vympel]

I don't own this thread, and you are welcome to comment, but that does not absolve you of a responsibility to back up your claims.

But if your defense is that you made a vapid, contentless post for the sole purpose of mocking people you don't like, then fine, I'll accept that.

Vapid, contentless post? Really? An article from MSNBC of all places stating flat out - amongst other things that:

1. "special counsel Robert Mueller has not accused any member of the Trump campaign of conspiring with the 2016 election interference effort";
2. "it's not clear whether he will"
3. One of the lead "Trump colluded!" provocateurs in Congress and the head of the House investigation suddenly shifting from 2016 election interference as less important than 'establishing whether he's under the influence of a foreign power now'.

is 'vapid' huh? Fascinating!

You've been sold a bill of goods. For two years the people who bought this horseshit have let the Democrats cozy up to discredited Bush-era warmongering neocons (who are now in good standing with The Resistance) suck the dick of the CIA and assorted other lying, murdering spooks, smear everyone who said otherwise as traitorous agents of a foreign power, and now the ride is about to stop and you're either:

a. going to be left feeling really, really foolish; or
b. going to go full Obama-Republican and talk about TrumpRussia! from now until the day you die, long after everyone else has moved on.

If you had been paying any goddamn attention to what these assholes have actually been doing while they've been dishonestly speculating that Trump is a foreign agent in front of cameras, you'd know that not a single one of them actually believe a word they've been saying.

Imagine thinking your head of state might be a traitor and then giving him vast, warrantless spying powers with no checks and balances. The Democrats in general and Schiff in particular did that. Imagine repeatedly voting to give him vast military budgets. Imagine accepting that his appointments - not just the Supreme Court - but anywhere - are actually valid. Imagine saying that impeaching him is off the table.

Its not irrelevant- you are simply ignoring evidence. Again.

How is it not irrelevant? How could this story be relevant to the suggestion that Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election? At all?

I asked this once before and of course you didn't answer, but on what planet does Roger Stone sniffing around wikileaks to try and get Clinton emails do anything other than fly directly in the face of the notion that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia? Why the fuck does someone colluding with Russia need to go asking wikileaks for shit? To involve more people in the conspiracy and thereby needlessly complicate everything?

That's not a lie, its a summary (granted, not your exact words) of your position. An accurate one.

No, it's a fucking lie. You keep turning "Russiagate hysteria" into "the Mueller probe" and act like they're the same. It's patently dishonest, and only a drooling imbecile wouldn't immediately see right through it. Who do you think you're fooling?

You are also once again repeating the assertion (that's one of the claims you have a burden to back up) that the collusion allegations were created by the Clinton campaign after the election to justify their loss. Something laughably false, which I have disproven, and which you have ignored. Repeatedly.

The exact same lie you just told - but using different words.

So your argument is "Saying the reason for the Mueller probe is a democratic conspiracy is not the same thing as saying the existence of the Mueller probe is, so you're a liar." That's at best ridiculous nitpicking, and if your arguments are that unclear, I can hardly be called a liar for misinterpreting them.

"It's your fault I can't read for shit." Hilarious. Also, I like it how you think a bunch of loser centrist Clinton campaign fuckheads who lost to a reality TV show host running around screaming "Russia!" in public qualifies as a 'conspiracy' in any sense of the term.

But no, you're still lying. The Mueller probe isn't the issue. The hysteria surrounding the entire fucking issue - Russiagate - is. Mueller isn't the one running around claiming that Trump is a Siberian Candidate - you and your ilk are.

You have repeatedly libeled me in this thread, in addition to your blatant dishonest debating in general, and it is only great restraint that has kept me from reporting you thus far.

Says the guy whose go-to response to every single uncomfortable idea is to call them an agent of the Kremlin?

Liar.

He said, while continuing to brazenly lie.

Or I actually follow the news and the indictments

Yeah dude, you "follow the news and the indictments", which is why you just humiliated yourself on the Roger Stone issue a few posts ago, isn't it? You know them so intimately that you randomly linked to a CNN article and didn't even know what the fuck it actually says.

and don't just automatically dismiss them as a Western conspiracy against Glorious Leader Putin.

"I am engaging in great restraint for not reporting you for libel!"

Again I post evidence, again you ignore it, while asserting that you have no obligation to back up your claims, and mocking me and calling me a liar for suggesting that you do.

This is some of the most flagrantly dishonest debating I have ever seen on this board, which is saying something.

What you posted isn't evidence, for fuck's sake. It's not 'ignoring' evidence to directly describe it as what it actually is: a deadline extension on something you know literally nothing about. Like, you're so transparently ignorant of court work you think it's somehow significant or noteworthy for a lawyer to ask the court for an extension because of some random unidentified thing in some random unidentified matter.

Just fucking read it:

... it’s unclear whether the cryptic reference is related to Mueller’s timeline for concluding his Russia investigation or to unrelated responsibilities of his team members ...

The filing comes amid signs that Mueller’s Russia probe is wrapping up as team members have left or announced their departure.

That's what's actually material in what you quoted. It's a nothingburger. And in the same article it says exactly what I said. This thing is almost over.

It still doesn't mean what you say it means, and it is therefore irrelevant whether he is Christ Reborn or the drunken hobo on the next street corner.

"I called one of the foremost Democratic congressmen as a rando, now watch me pretend it's irrelevant that I did so now that I've been pantsed on it."

You're really covering yourself in glory here champ.

[Vympel]

This just looks worse and worse the longer it goes on.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/pl ... ing-413618

WHY MUELLER IS ONLY THE BEGINNING … IF YOU TALK TO CAPITOL HILL DEMOCRATS PRIVATELY, you will hear something surprising about what they expect from ROBERT MUELLER: Many of them expect absolutely nothing. Several top Democratic lawmakers and aides tell us privately that they are certain the report will be a dud.

There's only one explanation that makes sense. PUTLER has gotten to Mueller.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well it's finally been completed: Special counsel Robert Mueller concludes probe into alleged Russian collusion with Donald Trump.

[Solauren]

IF the initial reports are true, disappointing, but not surprising.

Trump has run 'questionable' businesses too long to be careless enough to leave an easily traced trail.