Finally, some real news about the Mueller indictments

Again, how do you know his opinions are factual?

I think I will never forget the horror of having to listen to you defend the slicing open of pregnant mothers and infants in the name of the Biblical Jihad that is the book of Joshua for great promise and reward. I think I'll never get over it as long as I live. You are correct in that clinical insanity is not a requirement. The point is that any bloodthirsty enough God with unquestioning loyalty from unthinking enough followers will result inevitably in evil actions, such as this monster's; or evil thoughts and words, such as yours. How can you even be so without shame that you could bring yourself to talk about this? Edited by Aussie, : No reason given.Edited by Aussie, : No reason given.Edited by Aussie, : No reason given.

There is no such publically available evidence. There is plenty of evidence that his family and campaign workers had an astounding number of suspicious contacts with Russians, some of which were almost certainly illegal.The investigation isn't finished, and what we do know indicates it must continue.We have seen far less evidence than Mueller has.If Trump is innocent, so be it. If he's guilty, so be it. As of now nobody outside the investigation has anything resembling the full story and should not be claiming to know.

When a candidate makes bad promises, I'd rather have him break them.

I don't think what Trump does is gaslighting. That would imply some long-term plan.I think what Trump does is just plain ad hoc lying.

Naturally. There is however evidence that Russia attempted to influence the election in Trump's favour. Cui bono? It might be that Russia felt it benefited them enough for them to do it alone. It might be that Russia felt it could have a bigger impact if they acted in concert with the Trump camp. There is evidence that there was some deception about Russian communications from the Trump camp. The timings of certain statements suggest that Trump had foreknowledge of information gathered and subsequently released by Russian groups. There is evidence that Trump declined to release information regarding his finances.So there is smoke, it's certainly a good idea to investigate the existence of a fire. And if the President was complicit in starting the fire - that is important. The consequences are such that it would be a good idea to be as certain of the truth of the issue as possible.The consequences of a President not being eligible for the Presidency seems less consequential than if the President owes Russia - or if Russia has some leverage over the President. The dossier was not invented by Democrats. The Republicans paid Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. Then the Democrats started paying Fusion GPS. Either Fusion discovered the facts, or they invented them, or they discovered other people's inventions. Not the Democrats. The right wing media should start reporting this, rather than talking about the Uranium deal, then.

It's obvious you're not even reading my posts. You're just repeating your talking points like a parrot.Mueller was appointed by Trump appointee Rod Rosenstein. In effect you're claiming that Trump's White House appointed Mueller to carry out the investigation so that he could instead cover Hillary Clinton's "tracks" and his own. Why on earth would the Trump White House do that? You're not making any sense.You didn't reply to my Message 53, so I'm still wondering:

• How could you possibly know the difference between an opinion piece and a news article if, "News these days is really just opinion?"
  ​
• How do you reconcile my break down of half a new article from the NYT in my Message 44 showing that it was all truth, no lies, and no opinion, with your claim that, "News and opinion are so blurred on the left anyway it hardly matters."?
  ​
• Why are you still using the word collusion when, as I said in Message 53, "By the way, apparently from a legal standpoint collusion isn't a crime, while conspiracy is. Likely Mueller will be trying to prove conspiracy."
  ​
• What are the "irrelevant truths" covering up the "big truths" in the NYT article (Trump Belittles Aide Caught in Russia Inquiry; Calls Him ‘Liar’)?
  ​
• Where is an example of this "fake news" reporting you claim exists? News that reflects poorly on your guy is not "fake news".
  ​
• Given how often and determinedly Trump lies, what makes you think he's right that the Mueller probe is a witch hunt?
  ​
• If Trump and his campaign is innocent, why isn't he determined that the special counsel that his administration appointed get to the truth of things and prove everyone innocent? By the way, the likelihood of proving everyone innocent at this point is nil given that George Papadopoulos has already pled guilty.
  ​
• Why does it make any sense for Trump to respond to developments in the Mueller investigation with accusations against Clinton that are totally unrelated? Do you think judges are reading Trump's tweets and reasoning, "Mueller's request for indictments fulfill all legal requirements, but I'll rule against them because no one is investigating Clinton."? What sense does that make?

--Percy

Plus, Trump, his family, and his inner circle have repeatedly lied about contacts with Russians, publicly, in sworn testimony in front of Congress, and on security clearance forms. They have had numerous financial dealings with Russians, including criminals and oligarchs that were lied about.Trump has refused to implement the sanctions against Russia that he signed into law and that were supposed to start on October 1.Trump and his gang's behavior sure looks like guilt and fear of exposure. The blind gullibility of their supporters in the face of the largest criminal enterprise ever pulled off in America is what I find astounding.

Hi Faith,Taq already replied to your message, but he was kind of brief and I'd like to examine your post in greater detail. Someone's sure bought a line, but I don't think it's Taq. The Flaherty opinion piece is full of "either false or unverified allegations." You seem to be accepting them unquestioningly. But that's not a fact. That's a fiction made up by the alt-right. How is it "fake news"? Isn't it true that Mueller obtained indictments of Mannfort and Gates? Isn't it true that Mueller obtained a guilty plea from George Papadopoulos? What is it, exactly, that you're alleging is fake? The "alt-right" calls everything fake news that they disagree with. Calling stuff fake news they've been very successful at, actually demonstrating fake news barely at all. That's because the problem of "fake news" is made up, not real. The Republicans control the executive branch and both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court again has a conservative majority. All the power lies on the side of the Republicans and the conservatives. If anyone has the power to suppress truth it is Trump and his administration, and they've been doing their darndest at it so far.--Percy

What evidence would that be? If the evidence says that nothing took place, why did George Papadopoulos plead guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian government? How are Breitbart, American Renaissance, Radix Journal, Daily Stormer, VDARE and The Right Stuff (to name some of the more popular alt-right websites) suppressed if their websites are out there for anyone to access any time they like? Flaherty affirmed nothing, merely propagating a popular narrative among the alt-right. So far you've been able to muster not a whit of evidence for any of it.--Percy

To be fair the Daily Stormer has had considerable trouble lately and last I heard they were off the web (although they could be back by now). But equally I don’t think that even Faith would be daft enough to use them as an example of the poor oppressed conservatives.

If you're not, as you say, "really stupid" and you realize that repeating opinions doesn't turn them into facts, then why do you keep attempting it? Running out of alternatives? Of course Flaherty's opinion is not just "one man's opinion." He's parroting the opinion of the alt-right. There was no need to make this obvious point, especially since the point Taq actually raised was that repeating opinions many times doesn't turn them into facts. You haven't answered anything. Will you at some point be describing at least some of this evidence, or will you continue stonewalling? Assuming that by "Trump" you actually mean the "Trump campaign," since that is what Mueller is investigating, and reminding you once again that collusion isn't a crime and that it is more likely that Mueller is seeking evidence of a conspiracy, if there were "absolutely NO evidence of any [conspiracy] between [the Trump campaign] and Russia" then why did George Papadopoulos plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts? Why were Mannafort and Gates indicted and placed under house confinement, since that means a grand jury was presented some pretty compelling evidence? Modulous has already explained your error here, but it bears repeating. The Republicans hired Fusion GPS first when they were working hard at preventing Trump from becoming the Republican nominee. That failed, and then the Democrats hired Fusion GPS. The information about Trump came from Fusion GPS, not the Democrats, and it was paid for by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Them's the facts. And that evidence would be? You're the one who mentioned this evidence. What is it, and please provided links to your sources?--Percy

I wasn't aware of the Daily Stormer's difficulties, but at least as of today their website seems to be alive and kicking.--Percy

They were kicked off of a number of hosts in the wake of their disgusting reporting on events at Charlottesville. When they started suggesting that CloudFlare supported them the boss of CloudFlare lost patience and kicked them off too.

Mueller's mandate is to investigate the Trump campaign, not Trump, so assuming by "Trump" you mean the "Trump Campaign", and assuming that by "colluding" you actually mean "conspiring", you're asking for evidence that the Trump compaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. (Actually, more accurately, Mueller's mandate is to investigate Russian interference in that election.)Why do you expect evidence now while the investigation is ongoing, before it has completed and generated a report and so forth? But as mentioned a couple times earlier, Papadopoulos has already pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians, so the evidence of his meetings with the Russians represents some of the evidence that exists already at this early stage of the investigation. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, admits to four meetings with the Russians during the 2016 campaign, and whatever details of those meetings that are uncovered will represent more evidence.It is possible that nothing may come out of the Mueller investigation regarding the Trump campaign, though it does kind of look pretty bad for Mannafort and Gates given all their money laundering activity, and Flynn seems on pretty thin ice, too.Whatever the eventual outcome of the Mueller investigation, one thing we can say with certainty is that Trump is very poor at selecting staff.--Percy