It was a yes/no question. Here is the opening paragraph of Rosenstein's appointment letter of an SC. He goes on to give Mueller the authority to invetigate the Trump Campaign as it relates to the opening paragraph. Mueller found >200 touchpoints between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. He concluded there was a desire to collude (see Papadopolous and Trump tower meeting examples) but no evidence that anything of "value" was exchanged thus a crime was not committed. I've accepted that conclusion as I stated I would when Mueller was appointed. Trump's obstruction is pretty clear and should be handled appropriately, most importantly by sending Trump back to Trump tower permanently with the ballot box.
This whole investigation was dubious at best. A lot of what you believe now won't hold over time. As I said, Mueller knew what was going on at the FBI and decided to go along with the charade.
Based on what we know now there was PLENTY of smoke to justify an investigation (examples cited above) of which people went to jail for lying about. We are all fortunate there wasn't a fire. Let's take this to the base fact. Do you believe Russia interfered in the 2016 election? Keep in mind, the original conspiracy advanced by JoeFan was that Seth R was murdered for leaking DNC email, not that Russians hacked them.
Which happened under Obama. What does it have to do with Trump? Again, a few malefactors on social media is interference?
What you know is not necessarily fact. There is evidence that Papadopolous was set up. Trump jr. trying to get dirt on Hillary is hardly attempted collusion. If that's true Hillary would have been charged a long time ago. Russia interfered in the election(lightly). They also interfered with every election before 2016. Let's be honest here. The left didn't care (including you) until you lost an election and used it as an excuse.
I'm still quaking in my boots at fear of the Flynn entrapment you promised. I missed your mea culpa on that one. Will you redeem yourself with the Papadopolous prediction or simply move on predicting other conspiracies without ever reflecting on previous claims? I've had a few mea culpa myself over the 20yrs here but posters that admit they were wrong is rare on the West Mall.
Is that a yes you believe Russia interfered in the 2016 election? I'm trying to determine if we can agree on a basic fact.
The judge did chew out Muller's team for their actions in this case. It might not have been entrapment to that judge but it was a grey area where another judge might have ruled differently. I know a lot of lawyers who thought it was entrapment.
I had to reread this quote? This is the equivalent of Bill Clinton debating the definition of "is". Here is the most pertinent part of the email that Trump Jr released just prior to the NYT story on the Tower meeting. From Rob Goldstone to Don Jr. Emphasis is mine.
Affirmative. They do at every election. However, there doesn't seem to be very much and sure as hell didn't have much influence on the election.
Then the judge admonished Flynn's lawyer for insinuating entrapment at which point the lawyer completely reversed course. That's what occurred even if inconvenient for the narrative one wants to believe.
I'm so happy that you believe in transparency. I welcome you advocating for all of Trump's campaign communications to be public, your personal voter information to be public (to be used for ulterior motives) and openly embrace any misinformation campaigns put forth by foreign powers. Don't worry, none of thoae things can impact the 2020 election. We're all good. GO!
From The Hill: "Flynn’s attorneys explained they did not believe Flynn had been entrapped by the bureau but chose to include details about his interview so that the judge could compare Flynn’s case to others who have been charged and sentenced for the same crime in connection with Mueller’s investigation, arguing Flynn deserved a lesser sentence."
Even Rosenstein said that they had very little impact. Of course you didn't care all of those years in which Russia "affected" the election until you were told to care.
Really don't want to spend much time on this but here is a link. The judge references the "conspiracy theories" surrounding the Government's case as a reason for making the 302's public.
I really don't care about much of the Facebook misinformation. That was small potatoes. Hacking the DNC and attempted hack of voting apparatus (successfully accessed 2 FL county voter rolls) is pretty serious. Your attempt to diminish the importance of these actions is a blatantly unpatriotic act. I'd say the same thing were Trump's campaign the victim.
That's a lot different than "admonishing Flynn's lawyers" and what The Hill said. That's what occurred even if inconvenient for the narrative one wants to believe.
What occurred? That Trump's lawyers said he wasn't entrapped? Then why are you inferring he was? The "conspiracy theories" the judge refers to are the same you are pushing here and mchammer was previously convinced would result in the judge dismissing the government's case against Flynn. The same judge that previously chastised the prosecution only to ultimately ask if they considered charging Flynn with treason. Why do you continue to push the conspiracy theories when so much contrary evidence exists?
Now I'm unpatriotic. LOL! How many votes were affected? We can't even be 100% sure those were Russians doing some of them. A good hacker can make it look like the Russians were doing it.
First of all, no one was admonished. Second of all: "After a brief recess, the judge walked-back the incendiary question, saying "I wasn't suggesting he committed treason!" "There are a lot of conspiracy theorists out there. I am not taking the elements of any of the uncharged offenses under consideration at the time of sentencing,” he said." Read the second paragraph with the first one in mind. They are in the correct order. You're wrong.
The CIA coined the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" in the 50s to smear people who accused them of wrong doing. It has worked really well. Conspiracy just means people work together toward a common goal. That is unequivocal in regards to the FBI case and surveillance of the Trump campaign.