Gutfeld: This is why the hugest story on Earth must vanish

Where ere you be let your fart go free. In the church or the chapel Let it go let it rattle.

 

I can think of 2 subjects:
(1) Hating Trump
(1A) Defeating the influence of the GOP's main politician, er, the GOP's politician which most GOPs support in American gov't and actually siding with the direct opposition to the GOP.

 

There's this thing in philosophy that admonishes anyone from using the fallacy of shooting the messenger instead of the message.

 

Because it's true, it's an indisputable fact that trump has business interests in Russia, so you don't think that when he became a candidate for POTUS that the Russian govt might be interested?

 

Er, Trump's business interests were global. BTW, Hillary had political interests in the Ukraine.

 

Which does not negate the fact that trump has business interests in Russia.

 

For Democrats THOSE ARE THE ONLY CREDIBLE SOURCES....

 

So glad you brought that up. It's a misconception many in The Following have since they believe in so many lies. Mueller makes the distinction of nothing Trump did rising to the level of the legal definition of a criminal conspiracy.
https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/

But we know from the SIC's findings....

It is a bit of a mug’s game at this point to fight over whether what either Mueller or the Intelligence Committee found constitutes collusion and, if so, in what sense. The question turns almost entirely on what one means by the term “collusion”—a word without any precise meaning in the context of campaign engagement with foreign actors interfering with an election.

So rather than engaging over whether the Intelligence Committee found collusion, we decided to read the document with a focus on identifying precisely what the committee found about the engagement over a long period of time between Trump and his campaign and Russian government or intelligence actors and their cut-outs.

Whether one describes this activity as collusion or not, there’s a lot of it: The report describes hundreds of actions by Trump, his campaign, and his associates in the run-up to the 2016 election that involve some degree of participation by Trump or his associates in Russian activity. In this post—which we are generating serially as we read through the document—we attempt to summarize, precisely and comprehensively, what the eight Republicans on the committee, along with their seven Democratic colleagues, report that the president, members of his campaign and his associates actually did.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find

.........that just as a prez doesn't have to break the law to warrant impeachment, Trump's actions while not technically illegal were a betrayal of democracy, the spirit of the law, and the American people.

 

Dude, the Ukraine was at odds with Russia when Hillary was aligned politically with the Ukraine. Hillary inherently had interests in Russia.

 

Yes she did. Which STILL does not negate the fact that trump has business interests in Russia no matter how much you want it to.

 

Just responding to the third sentence of the first paragraph of your response: What, you (and Mueller) aren't interested in the legal definition for a criminal conspiracy? I mean, an alleged conspiracy by Trump to interfere in the Trump campaign investigation is not grounds for proof of a conspiracy (accept in yours and Mueller's eyes).
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not but you are) but wasn't Mueller tasked to find out if the Trump campaign worked with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election?...And Mueller wasn't tasked with determining if Trump allegedly interfered in said investigation?...BTW, the Trump campaign investigation wouldn't have even gotten off the ground if one were to use the standards imposed to determine if the 2020 election were to be investigated...You know, no credible facts no investigation.

 

I don't think this story should vanish at all .. we need to put more of these people in Jail .. Hillary to GITMO ..

 

Dude, Trump had business dealings around the world.

BTW, Biden's son had business dealings with the Ukraine and with China. Does that reflect badly on Biden?

 

If his son ran for or was POTUS yes it would.

 

So, if someone allegedly does something underhanded (like Roger Stone) it's OK since he wasn't running for president?

 

That's not what you asked. You asked, Biden's son had business dealings with the Ukraine and with China. Does that reflect badly on Biden?

 

...And you answered no if Biden's son (or Biden?) wasn't running for president.

 

You appear to have some issues with comprehending what you're reading. Aren't interested in the legal definition? Why would you say that when Mueller went out of his way to highlight it in his report. As I have done with another poster I suggest you go to the end of the Lawfare article and read the 10 conclusions they make based on the evidence provided in the SIC report. Allow me to provide the first few.

1. The Trump campaign and Donald Trump himself were certainly aware in real time of Russian efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election. The campaign had a heads-up that Russia had stolen Democratic emails. And Russian operatives sought and received a meeting with senior Trump campaign officials promising “dirt” on Trump’s opponent. As the campaign wore on, and the Russian efforts were increasingly made public, Trump personally and publicly encouraged them.
2. The Trump campaign was run for a time by a man with an ongoing business relationship with a Russian intelligence operative, to whom he gave proprietary internal polling data.
3. The Trump campaign did not discourage Russian activity on its behalf. In fact, it sought repeatedly to coordinate its messaging around WikiLeaks releases of information. The campaign, and Trump personally, sought to contact WikiLeaks to receive information in advance about releases and may well have succeeded.
4. The campaign sought to obtain disparaging information about Hillary Clinton from actors who either were Russian operatives or it believed were Russian operatives. It did so through a number of means—some of these efforts were direct. Some were indirect.

#3 in particular certainly walks to the water's edge of illegality. Mueller potentially could have charged Trump with a crime in this regard (in his report Mueller notes the refusal of a number of witnesses to cooperate with the investigation, including Trump himself, which hindered the investigation) if not for Stone's refusal to tell what he knew. A crime for which he was convicted and then pardoned in an egregious abuse of the pardon power by your orange MAGA god.
I should also point out Mueller decided not to prosecute Donnie J for his crimes regarding the Tower meeting because of Don's presumed ignorance of the law.....not because he didn't break one.

 

I'm interested in what you posted:

...And yet again, I need to clarify to you (and to Mueller) that alleged conspiracy (it's alleged conspiracy 'cause Mueller has no proof of conspiracy) isn't the same as actual conspiracy.

 

Have you ever asked yourself why, after all the contacts made between Russians and members of the campaign, and after both campaigns were briefed about the importance or reporting contacts from foreign entities to the FBI, the Trump campaign never did? Are you suggesting that if Chelsea Clinton was approached about receiving dirt on Trump directly from the Russian government........and agreed to take a meeting on it.........your hair wouldn't still be on fire? (don't bother bringing up the dossier as it is a completely false analogy)

 

I used to have a signature where I basically said I stopped responding to some posters because they don't seem to get it or don't want to get it.

 

Yep, Biden's son having business dealings with the Ukraine and with China does not reflect badly on Biden.

 

And yet again I need to clarify to you and fellow members of The Following that failing to uncover proof of a criminal conspiracy in no way exonerates Trump. The facts are Mueller did find Trump illegally obstructed the investigation and committed acts that would normally disqualify any person from seeking higher office. Acts The Following are in denial about to this day.

 

Dude, an alleged conspiracy doesn't prove conspiracy.

 

Dude, you are still in denial about what Trump did. I'm going to suggest you read this one last time https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find

knowing you won't because it will challenge if not extinguish your misguided beliefs.

Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line
https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/