Russian Troll farms

[ChunkMonk]

He was clearly interested in getting dirt on Hillary and was willing to get it from Russian citizens. I don’t know if this proves an active attempt to collude with the Russian government. Big difference there.

It’s good to be clear about what the facts actually say and what they don’t.

One thing we do know is that the US government, under Obama, was willing to use an obviously fake Russian misinfo dossier to launch multiple investigations into Trump and his associates. We also know the Susan Rice was illegally unmasking and leaking said info to the press. We also know that James Comey is financially wrapped up with the Clinton Foundation. And finally, we also know that the Deep State Intel agencies were clear about their intention to punish Trump for crossing them, and engaged in multiple felony leaks.

Obama ran his government like a typical strong-man Soviet-style dictator. No surprise, considering his party affiliation.

 

[Jig_Saw]

He was clearly interested in getting dirt on Hillary and was willing to get it from Russian citizens. I don’t know if this proves an active attempt to collude with the Russian government. Big difference there.

It’s good to be clear about what the facts actually say and what they don’t.

Did you read the emails? It was clear that the information was coming from the Russian government.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Boy, that’s a relief, because he seems to say a lot of things that I would expect a Russian troll to say in covering up the possibly criminal behavior of the Trump campaign, where I would disagree are actually reasonable.

And nearly a year and a half later, and millions spent by the DNC, the liberal media, and Mueller, they still haven’t found a crime.

It doesn’t take a “Russian troll” to notice the lack of anything substantiating any kind of criminal “collusion” with Russia; not that “collusion” in itself is a crime except in antitrust law.

Besides, if I were a Russian troll, I would be doing everything I could to undercut the administration.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Did you read the emails? It was clear that the information was coming from the Russian government.

Except that there was no information actually offered on Clinton. It’s not illegal to listen to what some Russian has to say about anything at all. If it was, plenty of senators, congressmen, lobbyists, government officials and every Secretary of State now living would now be in prison.

 

[Jig_Saw]

And nearly a year and a half later, and millions spent by the DNC, the liberal media, and Mueller, they still haven’t found a crime.

It doesn’t take a “Russian troll” to notice the lack of anything substantiating any kind of criminal “collusion” with Russia; not that “collusion” in itself is a crime except in antitrust law.

Have they said no crime was committed? I must have missed that. It looks like the investigation is ongoing to me.

Besides, if I were a Russian troll, I would be doing everything I could to undercut the administration.

That’s exactly what I would expect a Russian troll to say.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And nearly a year and a half later, and millions spent by the DNC, the liberal media, and Mueller, they still haven’t found a crime.

It doesn’t take a “Russian troll” to notice the lack of anything substantiating any kind of criminal “collusion” with Russia; not that “collusion” in itself is a crime except in antitrust law.

Have they said no crime was committed? I must have missed that. It looks like the investigation is ongoing to me.

Ridgerunner:

Besides, if I were a Russian troll, I would be doing everything I could to undercut the administration.

That’s exactly what I would expect a Russian troll to say.

As soon as somebody identifies a crime, I’m sure I’ll learn of it. But if Mueller does, it won’t be “collusion” with the Russkies, because there is no such crime as “collusion” except in antitrust law.

Your second assertion about what you would expect a Russian troll to say makes no sense. But I guess it’s just an attempt to name-call on your part, so I guess it doesn’t have to make sense.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Careful, that is what he would expect a Russian troll to say.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Careful, that is what he would expect a Russian troll to say.

It is. Of course, what you just said would be something that I would expect a Russian troll farmer to say if they didn’t want to seem like a Russian troll farmer.

 

[Jig_Saw]

As soon as somebody identifies a crime, I’m sure I’ll learn of it. But if Mueller does, it won’t be “collusion” with the Russkies, because there is no such crime as “collusion” except in antitrust law.

We’ll have to wait and see.

Your second assertion about what you would expect a Russian troll to say makes no sense. But I guess it’s just an attempt to name-call on your part, so I guess it doesn’t have to make sense.

A Russian troll farmer would say something to deflect from the current investigation, so I think what you said would be consistent with a Russian troll. It isn’t name calling - it’s just a fact. Besides, some here have stood up to say that you are most certainly not a Russian troll farmer, so I guess you’re not. Unless they are too and covering up for you.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As soon as somebody identifies a crime, I’m sure I’ll learn of it. But if Mueller does, it won’t be “collusion” with the Russkies, because there is no such crime as “collusion” except in antitrust law.

We’ll have to wait and see.

Ridgerunner:

Your second assertion about what you would expect a Russian troll to say makes no sense. But I guess it’s just an attempt to name-call on your part, so I guess it doesn’t have to make sense.

A Russian troll farmer would say something to deflect from the current investigation, so I think what you said would be consistent with a Russian troll. It isn’t name calling - it’s just a fact. Besides, some here have stood up to say that you are most certainly not a Russian troll farmer, so I guess you’re not. Unless they are too and covering up for you.

“Deflect”??? Deflect from what? The investigation is a year old and more, and nothing has resulted. That’s not to say nobody will get indicted. Someone will, but not for “collusion” with the Russians, and it won’t be Trump either. Some lesser person who can’t afford to spend millions on defense of some other charge, the way Mueller is spending millions on trying to prosecute someone, will be the new “Scooter Libby”.

 

[Jig_Saw]

“Deflect”??? Deflect from what? The investigation is a year old and more, and nothing has resulted. That’s not to say nobody will get indicted. Someone will, but not for “collusion” with the Russians, and it won’t be Trump either. Some lesser person who can’t afford to spend millions on defense of some other charge, the way Mueller is spending millions on trying to prosecute someone, will be the new “Scooter Libby”.

Holy cow! The three question marks now place serious doubt about you not being a Russian troll. I think that’s in the manual. Let me see: “if someone questions your view, act outraged and place excessive punctuation in your comments”. That’s between use a lot of American flag emojis and always deflect in case you are wondering.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Holy cow! The three question marks now place serious doubt about you not being a Russian troll. I think that’s in the manual. Let me see: “if someone questions your view, act outraged and place excessive punctuation in your comments”. That’s between use a lot of American flag emojis and always deflect in case you are wondering.

I think perhaps you’re confusing Alinsky’s rules with your own fevered imagination. Easier than dealing with the reality of the situation, though, I guess.

 

[Jig_Saw]

I think perhaps you’re confusing Alinsky’s rules with your own fevered imagination. Easier than dealing with the reality of the situation, though, I guess.

Talking about Alinsky’s rules constantly is on page 17 of the manual, though you did not mention it in conjunction with either Clinton in this case.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Talking about Alinsky’s rules constantly is on page 17 of the manual, though you did not mention it in conjunction with either Clinton in this case.

Easier to make snarky personal remarks than explaining how no crime has been pinned on Trump and how “collusion” is a crime, when it isn’t.

 

[niceatheist]

“Deflect”??? Deflect from what? The investigation is a year old and more, and nothing has resulted. That’s not to say nobody will get indicted. Someone will, but not for “collusion” with the Russians, and it won’t be Trump either. Some lesser person who can’t afford to spend millions on defense of some other charge, the way Mueller is spending millions on trying to prosecute someone, will be the new “Scooter Libby”.

You keep saying “nothing has resulted” but what precisely is that based on?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You keep saying “nothing has resulted” but what precisely is that based on?

No indictments. No leaks of any actual crimes.

Now, again, I do believe there will be at least one or two people indicted for something-or-other. That’s how “special prosecutors” work. They always charge somebody with something, however remote from the ostensible purpose of the investigation. It will be somebody who can’t afford multi-million dollar representation like the taxpayers are paying Mueller and his team.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

You keep saying “nothing has resulted” but what precisely is that based on?

No indictments. No leaks of any actual crimes.

Why would their be indictments before an investigation has finished?

Now, again, I do believe there will be at least one or two people indicted for something-or-other. That’s how “special prosecutors” work. They always charge somebody with something, however remote from the ostensible purpose of the investigation. It will be somebody who can’t afford multi-million dollar representation like the taxpayers are paying Mueller and his team.

So you’ve already decided the investigation is somehow unfair before it has even concluded. It strikes me that you are the one being unreasonable. And why exactly are you so interested in declaring an ongoing investigation both invalid and some unjust prior to any findings of any kind being released? What is your expertise that you can make declarations as to how long an investigation should take, what the appropriate number of leaks should be, etcetera? Are you an expert in Federal law or Federal prosecutions?

 

[Ridgerunner]

So you’ve already decided the investigation is somehow unfair before it has even concluded. It strikes me that you are the one being unreasonable. And why exactly are you so interested in declaring an ongoing investigation both invalid and some unjust prior to any findings of any kind being released? What is your expertise that you can make declarations as to how long an investigation should take, what the appropriate number of leaks should be, etcetera? Are you an expert in Federal law or Federal prosecutions?

Am I being unreasonable? The Whitewater investigation ended up being all about a blue dress and perjury, which was not the purpose of the investigation. The Valerie Plame “unmasking” investigation turned into a conviction that the key witness later disavowed, while the actual “unmasker” skated. And, of course, it turned out Plame wasn’t “unmasked” as a covert agent at all.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Easier to make snarky personal remarks than explaining how no crime has been pinned on Trump and how “collusion” is a crime, when it isn’t.

Yes, I am waiting for the investigation to be done. You aren’t. Most Russian trolls aren’t either.

I think the attempt at collusion is a crime. You don’t. Most Russian trolls don’t either.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, I am waiting for the investigation to be done. You aren’t. Most Russian trolls aren’t either.

I think the attempt at collusion is a crime. You don’t. Most Russian trolls don’t either.

Oh, I think we’re all waiting for the investigation to be done. It will be interesting and possibly tragic to see what tangential person Mueller indicts for something unrelated to “collusion” with Russia to influence the election.

Go ahead and give us your citation from the U.S. Code where it says “collusion” is a crime other than in antitrust law. You won’t, of course, because it’s not. And of all your name calling won’t make it one, however much you wish it would. How very typical of the left. Don’t want to face the fact that you have accused a person of a crime that doesn’t exist, so resort is made to name-calling.