https://i.imgur.com/lRmyFI6.jpg

Did you read the indictment?

No collusion.

I agree. I think they just need more evidence to ensure a proper conviction.

Uh, requesting and receiving dirt on your opponent from a foreign intelligence operation is the literal definition of collusion. It's also a crime.

Is t that what Hillary did with the infamous dossier?

If they were leaked I’m not sure that counts as stolen.

Wasn’t the dossier funded by Hillary?

The report is out, 12 Russians indicted for the theft of the DNC and Podesta and other Democratic and Democratic emails and computer systems along with other digital invasions into the U.S. election system.

Yes that is the allegation. Was any evidence presented?

It will be in trial, that's how these things work

Will the Russian nationals show up for trial?

Probably not but Manafort, Flynn, Papadapolous, Gates, Pinedo, Cohen and now it looks like Stone will too! There's more coming

Yes although those charges seem to be separate from allegations of Russian interference

The charges against foreign nationals are the foundation for the conspiracy that Mueller is following, it's a far stretch to think all these guys lying about talking to Russians, all while they were being fed dirt on an opponent, arent covering up for more

So far their charges have been fir corruption unrelated to Russian interference.

We also don’t know they were being fed dirt on an opponent by Russians.

Manafort was at the Don Jr Trump tower meeting, Flynn made trips to Moscow same with Page, Papadapolous met with Russian operatives in Greece.. This information will come out, we've come a long way from "we never talked to Russians, there was never any interference"

Ok so you don’t like that Trumps team met with Russian citizens. I thought the allegations were against the Russian government?

Those citizens happen to be working for the Kremlin...

Can you show that? If not, your whole story crumbles

Sergei Kislyak is literally Russias ambassador, there was that Russian lady who I can't Veslnetskya from the tower meeting. Its all going to come out, more and more of the dossier comes true as Trump supporters just keep moving goalposts and handwaving

Yea so not much.

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-is-more-fiction-than-fact/

That article is outdated, take this:

Noting the “absence of any proof” and “hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack,” The New York Times concluded that the intelligence community’s message “essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’” That remains the case today.

Was just proven wrong today...

How so?

Because now the DOJ says they have enough evidence to prosecute over Russia hacking the DNC and Clinton... If they had nothing this investigation would have ended a while ago

It would’ve ended or they would’ve fabricated evidence to fit the ore conceived narrative

The latter doesn't seem like a credible theory at all so...

New to this sub? Those type of things have happened many times before

Anyone really expect any Russian nationals to go to jail??

There was enough evidence to indict them, that means the judge said there was enough evidence to order their arrest and trial.

We do have that rule, innocent until proven guilty, well except for Hillary, /s.

There is not much chance those 12 who were indicted will ever be tried.
They are citizens of Russia and the Russian government will not be sending them over for some nice 'murican justice.

The email evidence is in the indictments. The OP quoted from them. Did you take the time to even read them?

I saw a summary but no evidence presented. Did I miss it

Ya, you did.

What evidence was presented

The emails. Jeez dude, you have the attention span of a dust mite.

What emails are you referring to? Why so defensive

I'm not being defensive, you're playing dumb. Go read the damn indictments for yourself.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

I see allegations but not much evidence. I bet you still think there are WMDs in Iraq huh?

Try reading the actual document where the evidence is presented in the key points of that indictment.

I never believed there were WMD's in Iraq and this has nothing to do with Iraq.

I literally put the documents in front of your face. Quit trying to deflect and distract.

Have you always been so trusting of the intelligence community? What makes you so willing to believe this?

What makes you so willing to deny it? The evidence was presented. You're purposely ignoring it. At least you've finally accepted that the evidence exists you're just choosing to deny that it's real.

It obviously had enough veracity to end up an indictment in our Justice system. At some point you're going to have to confront reality. Maybe you should read the goddamn document before completely dismissing it out of hand.

I read the document.

In psychology we say the biggest predictor of future behavior is past behavior. The intelligence community has a long history of lying to the American people in order to manufacture consent for unpopular courses of action, like Iraq, fir the camper.

I’m wondering if you’ve always been so trusting of the intelligence community. And why you’re so willing to trust them now?

I'm a fast reader and even I couldnt read it, so I call bullshit on your claim you actually read it.

But I get it.

You're choosing to deny the evidence and spin the outcome. How would this be manufacturing consent? How do you resolve this with all the other evidence and public admissions from members of the administration about their meetings with Russians and trying to get ahold of Hillary's emails so they could use it for their campaign? It's pretty damning when Donald Trump Jr admitted taking a meeting with Russians, along with Manafort, Flynn and Kushner, to get these very same emails. Roger Stone bragged about getting the emails from the guys talked about in this indictment. That corroborates the veracity of this evidence. Finally, we have Donald Trump himself requesting Russia to hack those documents on TV.

I mean at some point your argument holds no water. It's denial for the sake of denial.

Why would Trump jokingly ask Russia to recover Hillary’s 33,000 deleted emails if he was secretly colluding with them? That doesn’t make sense.

Yes members of Trumps team met with some Russian citizens apparently because they were trying to lobby Trump to lift the Magnitsky Act. But I thought we were talking about collusion between Trump and the Russian government. Do you have any evidence emails were offered in that meeting?

I understand it. You hate Trump, you can’t understand why he got elected, and you’re desperately searching for an explanation, so you’re willing to overlook any and all inconsistencies.

Why would jokingly say he's going to build a wall? Or ban muslims?

He isnt joking. We've seen that by his actions.

The evidence is corroborated by actual emails and previous prior admissions. Donald Trump Jr's emails didnt mention the Magnitsky Act, they mentioned Hillary's emails. He made it very clear that was his priority. The fact they keep bringing an adoption act as a cover for their meetings they had originally failed to disclose is a farce. The evidence is literally in front of your face.

I understand you support Trump, slavishly, and refuse to accept any evidence he might guilty. That's your choice. It's willful ignorance and you have an agenda to spin the evidence to deflect and cast doubt on it because you refuse to Trump might be guilty.

You're the one willing to overlook the evidence here, not me. Quit projecting. You pretty much made your agenda clear.

Oops, no I don’t support Trump whatsoever. In fact, I’m on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum than him. Maybe that’s why I’m able to see things more objectively? I do support better relations with Russia though.

I do not think he was joking about the wall or the Muslim ban. But he’s clearly joking about the emails. Watch the video.

It's pretty clear you do support Trump despite you saying you dont. I can read your comment history always trying to deflect in defense of Trump and apologizing for his administration or supporting the undermining of the investigation into Russia's involvement with the election.

Look at the evidence. Be objective based on the evidence.

I support better relations with Russia, but make no mistake, they are an adversary and private citizens meeting with them to talk about the release of illegally obtained emails in order to influence an election is collusion as it is defined. This evidence connects a bunch of dots, many of which from prior disclosures by the people implicated in Trump's campaign.

In your mind, the email evidence is tainted because of the intelligence community, and the public admissions are just jokes. That's a pretty pathetic defense.

You're not being objective in the slightest.

I don’t support Trump at all. Why would a socialist support Trump?

I don’t see Russia as an adversary. It’s be great if we got along with other countries.

and private citizens meeting with them to talk about the release of illegally obtained emails in order to influence an election is collusion as it is define

And again, we just do t have the evidence to support that. We can’t assume things without evidence; it’s just not how it works.

There are no admissions Russian interference or colluding with Russia to influence the election.

And again, we just do t have the evidence to support that. We can’t assume things without evidence; it’s just not how it works

We do have the evidence to support that. Donald Trump Jr provided it himself!

I support better relations with Russia. I do t think that’s the same as supporting Russia. How is that supporting Trump by proxy anyway?

I guess this is why you support not getting along with our existing allies in Europe as you defended Trump wanting to withdraw from NATO earlier this week.

I don’t remember talking about NATO at all. I think you’re being disingenuous.

I guess since you’re a neocon you also support war, poverty, and corporatism.

We do have the evidence to support that. Donald Trump Jr provided it himself!

Show me

I'm not a neocon. I'm a liberal. I'm completely against Trump's policies and the Russian interference in our election is the greatest conspiracy in American history.

I don't support war, poverty and corporatism, which is why you said I was anti-Trump in the first place. So why do you keep making statements that you support Trump's policies that have driven poverty and increased the power of corporations over the American citizen?

As far as Trump Jr's dislosures in your continual campaign to play ignorant to the facts, here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/donald-trump-jr-email-chain-russia-hillary-clinton

I assumed you were against Trump because, like most neocons/neoliberals, you support conflict with Russia and more wars and Trump wasn’t giving you that.

I never once said I support Trumps policies. I am against almost all of them. Why are you lying?

As far as Trump Jr's dislosures in your continual campaign to play ignorant to the facts

Yes, it looks like Trump Jr. got duped and he looks pretty dumb for it.

Trump is most definitely corrupt, just like Hillary, and just like most people in power. I fed want to vote him out. But in getting him out, I’m not sure we should side with the intelligence community. They’re farr more dangerous and corrupt than Trump.

There's nothing I've said that suggests I support conflict with Russia or more wars. In fact, I fear Trump's policies will eventually lead to war in Iran.

So now you're going back to the pathetic deep state argument and dropping Hillary as a deflection to say they are more corrupt than Trump and therefore it's ok?

You're pathetic dude. After being given all of the evidence you go back to tired bullshit memes for which there is no evidence.

You’re getting defensive. I’m striking a nerve.

Your position suggests you support conflict with Russia.

So now you're going back to the pathetic deep state argument and dropping Hillary as a deflection to say they are more corrupt than Trump and therefore it's ok?

I didn’t say any of that. You’re getting increasingly disingenuous.

Did you read the interview?

I'm not going down you irrational rabbit hole of the deep state conspiracy because you refuse to accept the evidence.

I don't support war in Syria. When we got committed to the conflict I thought the only viable solution was to leverage Russia to force Assad to step down and have free elections. Now you're trying to fabricate shit I dont even believe out of thin air and calling me a neocon. I have nuanced views and I know why I believe them. All your doing now is projecting shit you cant back up.

Your agenda has been exposed.

You don’t know Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn greenwald?

I do, but it's also you deflecting to the deep state narrative and excusing away the evidence of Russian involvement with Trump's campaign.

Christopher Steele is a private citizen, not a government agent, and was hired by another private for profit organization, also not a government agency.

The invistigation conducted by Steel is not in any way equivalent to

our own intelligence agency finding that the Russian government did interfere in the U.S. 2016 election.

Steele got his info from Russian "intelligence".

I think Steele got his information from former insiders of the Russian government. The Russian government did not provide the information and again, Steele was working as a paid private citizen not as an agent of any government.

If he went to the records dept of a Russian agency to check some data, would that make him an agent of the Russian government?

Why would talking to someone who is a Russian citizen, turn Steele into a Russian government agent?

Paid by Fusion GPS (who is used to run smear campaigns) through Perkin Coie on behalf of the Clinton Camp. Collusion??

I don't think my opinion is going to confirm your own already held belief. So I will withhold it.

Those are facts. Truth is truth regardless of "belief".

What is factual about your last sentence, the one word question that appears to reflect your own opinion?

>Collusion.

And Collusion with whom for what purpose?

Paying someone for information is not collusion, is not illegal and does not automatically indicate any kind of collusion.

Thanks for pointing out collusion isnt illegal.

So Hillary hired a private citizen to collude with a foreign government with the purpose of getting dirt on her opponent? That’s just an extra step.

intelligence agency finding that the Russian government did interfere in the U.S. 2016 election.

As of now, we don’t have evidence to support that claim.

As of now? How do you think Mueller was able to get 12 indictments if there is no evidence?

1. A campaign service organization hired Steel at the request of the owner of the Washington Beacon,(opposed Trump candidacy) after the convention of course he was no longer interested.

2.It is at that time the research was offered to the DNC, I don't think you can show it was specifically the Clinton Campaign who paid thought I don't know.

"Hillary hired him," is just a false talking point. Not true from any level.

Wow so you’re saying Hillary’s campaign benefited from interference from a foreign government? Damn

I didn't say that, why did you?

The indictments say the Russians interfered with the 2016 election. I haven't read them, did you? do they say that? Did Rosenstein say that today?

A campaign service organization hired Steel at the request of the owner of the Washington Beacon,(opposed Trump candidacy) after the convention of course he was no longer interested.

2.It is at that time the research was offered to the DNC, I don't think you can show it was specifically the Clinton Campaign who paid thought I don't know

And where in all that is there even an indication that a foreign government is involved?

The indictment says there is no allegation, not that it didn’t happen. Two completely different things and your comment is purposefully misleading.

If it happened why no allegation?

Mueller is first establishing the fact that the Russians were deeply involved and it was directed by Putin.

We can’t say it’s a fact if there isn’t any evidence. As of now, there’s no evidence Russia interfered in the election.

I do not think it’s ok for candidates to collude with foreign governments whether it’s Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.

It’s amazing to me that Hillary’s campaign chair was a registered foreign agent on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Imagine if that was Trump.

Evidence was required to obtain the 12 Indictments.

Or do you think Mueller just said, Oh Ms Judge, would you charge these 12 with some crimes, pretty please?

Or do you think Mueller just said, Oh Ms Judge, would you charge these 12 with some crimes, pretty please?

So, exactly like the 13 Russians he charged and then delayed the trial when they actually showed up in court and asked him to show the evidence?

How’s that trial going?

Those charges stand or do you have a update from a credible source, (not some nobody on youtube).

I remember that but haven't paid attention to any updates if there have been any made.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/386348-mueller-team-seeks-delay-in-russia-indictments-case-report

Prosecutors on special counsel Robert Mueller's team are asking a judge to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities, according to court documents filed Friday.

But the motion revealed that lawyers for Concord Management made a series of discovery requests seeking records, including statements and electronic surveillance of the company's executives and employees, from Mueller's investigation.

Just like this new indictment, the indictment of the 13 Russians was just political theater and propaganda. When they actually showed up in court, Mueller was forced to delay the trial because they case will get dismissed on lack of evidence. The bar to get an indictment is extremely low.

What about Flynn and his son, serving as Russian advisor & lying to the FBI about his conversations with varIous Russian operatives? Selective memory much?

Yes, he probably was involved in corruption with Russia, similar to Hillary's Uranium One deal.

But corruption is not the same as collusion.

Since when do indictments prove anything? Indictments are claims made by the state to initiate a trial where the proof is presented and argued.

Every indictment ever proves its own point. Its the nature of an indictment. Indictments arent facts.

I didn't say, prove, I said Mueller is using the indictments to establish the Russian involvement as factual.

Ah, first you move from confirm to prove, then you dismiss the indictments.

Indictments are facts presented about illegal acts.

A trial is what is used to prove the for a conviction.

I wasn't speculating on the guilt or innocence of the the allegations if that helps you see my words more clearly. I am not fighting a side here.

The indictments are allegations. Plain and simple. They are alleged crimes. The facts presented in them can be argued and possibly disproved. We cant just throw around the word fact just because the government put it on a piece of papers.

I didnt move from confirm to prove anywhere in my statement, but even if I did I dont see a whole hell of a difference. I am not playing word games with you, or making a political argument here.

I am saying that an indictment is allegations. You cannot use an indictment to establish a fact as you claim in Mueller is doing.

I get it. You don't like Trump. But there is no reason to ignore common sense just because it helps your argument.

I used the word confirm, you upped it to prove.

Oh I see. Well there are synonyms. Not an upgrade. But yes I misquoted you. Wait, I didn't quote you at all did I?

Also didnt dismiss the indictments. They are a big deal. Just adding some sanity to the discussion.

Dammit, we aren't suppose to be rational with each other! Play by the rules. /s

Your the one that didn't get nasty! This was the comment to do it in man, and I was ready for it too!

This is a case of accidental civility here. I dont know where we fucked up, but we did.

Maybe next time. lol

No my comment was not misleading. Rosenstein stated at the press conference that their was no collusion. Glad to see what the msm spin and new talking points are.

"in THIS indictment"

To be honest even if the Russian collusion shit is real, which it’s not, I actually rather have Russian intelligence involved in our elections instead of mossad and these weird satanists who are currently controlling our gov/system. At least Russia doesn’t bomb every country who doesn’t bow down to them indiscriminately.

Important to remember that Rosenstein specifically said there's no evidence that the Americans mentioned knew they were talking to Russia. Which means this congressman requested his info from the super internet hacker Guccifer 2.0, without realizing he was actually contacting Russia. While I'm sure requesting illegally obtained documents is probably against some rule somewhere, this guy is clear from any kind of foreign collusion charge (for now).

If it happened why no allegation?

No my comment was not misleading. Rosenstein stated at the press conference that their was no collusion. Glad to see what the msm spin and new talking points are.

Yes that is the allegation. Was any evidence presented?

Ok so you don’t like that Trumps team met with Russian citizens. I thought the allegations were against the Russian government?

That article is outdated, take this:

Noting the “absence of any proof” and “hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack,” The New York Times concluded that the intelligence community’s message “essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’” That remains the case today.

Was just proven wrong today...

You don’t know Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn greenwald?

Those charges stand or do you have a update from a credible source, (not some nobody on youtube).

I remember that but haven't paid attention to any updates if there have been any made.