U.S. Mainstream Media is Having a Meltdown

[EyeBRollin]

i did. Or maybe you can share the part where you think it said there was collusion.

Strawman. Where did I say there was collusion?

 

[samspade]

What's on page two?

 

[EyeBRollin]

From page 2:

In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other
instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons , the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express - between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Danger can’t read.

 

[samspade]

No need to get personal pumpkin.

It's all right there. No collusion.

Even if there were, since it's not a legal term, it's a moot point. EBR even boldfaced that for us. More importantly, there was no criminal conspiracy.

 

[samspade]

A moot point, but merits repeating since that was the mantra for two years.

Liberals don't get to make up crimes, blast them with megaphones for two years, and then throw tantrums when we use their own terms and point out they were wrong.

No collusion.

Haha well exactly. Before the report: There was collusion. After the report: Collusion isn't a legal term so we can't indict him with it. Imagine spending 22 months pursuing allegations of crimes that don't exist in the criminal or federal code! What's next, someone accuses Trump of "whoever smelt it dealt it," or violating bros before hoes?

There was obviously skullduggery, like there is in every campaign, equally so in HRC's with her dirty laundered money. Meanwhile Russia is allowed to interfere all it likes on its own. I don't think there was enough in this report to warrant the arrest of Russia.

 

[EyeBRollin]

A moot point, but merits repeating since that was the mantra for two years.

Liberals don't get to make up crimes, blast them with megaphones for two years, and then throw tantrums when we use their own terms and point out they were wrong.

No collusion.

Collusion as a term was started by the right.. but nice try.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Haha well exactly. Before the report: There was collusion. After the report: Collusion isn't a legal term so we can't indict him with it. Imagine spending 22 months pursuing allegations of crimes that don't exist in the criminal or federal code! What's next, someone accuses Trump of "whoever smelt it dealt it," or violating bros before hoes?

There was obviously skullduggery, like there is in every campaign, equally so in HRC's with her dirty laundered money. Meanwhile Russia is allowed to interfere all it likes on its own. I don't think there was enough in this report to warrant the arrest of Russia.

That’s a strawman argument because you know damn well liberals didn’t coin the terminology and I made a point for months that collusion is not a legal term. The crime was conspiracy, under which several on the Trump campaign were found guilty of. The gist of the report is that they were unable to find enough evidence of full coordination with the Russian government, but there were plenty of unethical practices. It also showed that obstruction of justice likely had intent but Trump was saved by those in his own administration refusing to break laws for him.

 

[EyeBRollin]

LOL!!!

That is why clapper and Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow all talked collusion constantly?

Clapper on Trump/Russia: If "Active Collusion" Wasn't Proven We Have A Case Of "Passive Collusion"

In an interview Thursday night with CNN's Anderson Cooper, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suggested that despite special counsel Mueller's conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, there may have been "passive collusion." JAMES CLAPPER: I do think...

www.realclearpolitics.com

Trump story changes on collusion, obstruction

Rachel Maddow points out that Donald Trump's lawyers' arguments about Trump's legal liability in the Russia scandal have changed from denying Trump's actions to excusing them as not illegal. Also noted is that Mike Pence's lies about Mike Flynn need a new explanation.

www.msnbc.com

Is that your way of addressing what I said?

 

[logicallefty]

I’m extremely happy with the outcome of the Muller report and that Trump is in the clear. But was disappointed in Barr’s press conference Thursday. I wanted to hear what the future held regarding punishing those who started the whole mess, mostly Hillary. I decided I’m no longer going to follow this story. Unless Trump is convicted of a criminal act he will have my vote in 2020. All of these committees and special councils trying to impeach Trump can fabricate reality as much as they want. I’m done caring.

 

[samspade]

That’s a strawman argument because you know damn well liberals didn’t coin the terminology and I made a point for months that collusion is not a legal term. The crime was conspiracy, under which several on the Trump campaign were found guilty of. The gist of the report is that they were unable to find enough evidence of full coordination with the Russian government, but there were plenty of unethical practices. It also showed that obstruction of justice likely had intent but Trump was saved by those in his own administration refusing to break laws for him.

Actually, I didn't know that. Who started using the term "collusion" and why then? I doubt it was conservatives; why would they start using a weaker term when conspiracy sets a much higher bar for the DoJ?

With politicians and government, ethics and laws are always negotiable - including the Constitution.

 

[EyeBRollin]

If leftists a year ago were talking about collusion, they don't get to move goalposts now.

The accusers define the accusation. They have been saying collusion all along.

Nice try though.

Wrong. Take what I’m saying as a victory. “Leftists” to their own detriment argue against right-wing framing. The right wing media sphere started collusion, just like they started “Obamacare” and “crooked Hillary.” The framing always comes from the right, not the left.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I’m extremely happy with the outcome of the Muller report and that Trump is in the clear. But was disappointed in Barr’s press conference Thursday. I wanted to hear what the future held regarding punishing those who started the whole mess, mostly Hillary. I decided I’m no longer going to follow this story. Unless Trump is convicted of a criminal act he will have my vote in 2020. All of these committees and special councils trying to impeach Trump can fabricate reality as much as they want. I’m done caring.

Lol, he had your vote from the beginning. No need to rationalize.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The evidence is right there in my links.

The accuser starts the frame by setting the accusations. From the start CNN and Rachel Maddow led the collusion charge. As shown in my links.

Nope, your “evidence” doesn’t address any of what I just said in my last two posts. And if you reread page 2, it lays out exactly who the explanation of collusion vs conspiracy is directed to.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I read the pages. And you simply saying something does not make it "evidence".

To date I have two points supporting me....

• The accuser defines the frame, they set the accusation.
• I have provided video from a year ago showing CNN and Rachel pushing collusion.

You have provided ZERO evidence for your claim that the Right started the collusion claim.

The “accuser” (which is whom?) didn’t set the frame and video of pundits discussing collusion has nothing to do with the origin of that frame.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Of course the accuser sets the frame thats how any investigation is identified and pursued. You have to know the crime first.

Collusion isn't a crime.

 

[logicallefty]

Lol, he had your vote from the beginning. No need to rationalize.

If he had been found guilty in a court of law on the collusion he would have lost it. I’d probably just write in a vote for bugs bunny in 2020. Because I sure as hell never voting Democrat in any federal election. One thing that might surprise you though is that in local elections around where I live most of my favorite candidate are the Democrats. The Republicans around here are the really corrupt ones.

 

[ShadowFenix]

I mean sure the report said that there was no collusion. I'll admit I was pretty surprised, but good for him.

What isn't being discussed is volume 2 of the report that focused on obstruction of justice. If he is innocent, why did he do so much to try to shut down the investigation? The thing that comes to my mind is that he believed the investigation to be a hoax and a waste of time, and let his ego get the better of him and so he tried to impede it. There's definitely still something to be said about whether or not he obstructed justice, and how he acts.

Is someone that acts in that way really fit for high office?

 

[EyeBRollin]

If he had been found guilty in a court of law on the collusion he would have lost it. I’d probably just write in a vote for bugs bunny in 2020. Because I sure as hell never voting Democrat in any federal election. One thing that might surprise you though is that in local elections around where I live most of my favorite candidate are the Democrats. The Republicans around here are the really corrupt ones.

Exactly. You were always going to vote Republican.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I mean sure the report said that there was no collusion. I'll admit I was pretty surprised, but good for him.

That's not what the report said.

What isn't being discussed is volume 2 of the report that focused on obstruction of justice. If he is innocent, why did he do so much to try to shut down the investigation? The thing that comes to my mind is that he believed the investigation to be a hoax and a waste of time, and let his ego get the better of him and so he tried to impede it. There's definitely still something to be said about whether or not he obstructed justice, and how he acts.

The report did not say Trump was innocent. It said there was insufficient evidence, and specifically articulated at the beginning of the document that absence of such evidence is not considered evidence that there was no wrong doing.

On conspiring with the Russian government, there were unethical practices but insufficient evidence of coordinated organization between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. On obstruction of justice, intent was likely yet foiled by members in Trump's own administration that refused to break the law despite the President's direct orders to do so.

Is someone that acts in that way really fit for high office?

That's why Mueller didn't treat the investigation as a way to convict the President... rather to let Congress decide if it is impeachable and the voters to decide of Trump deserves another term.