It is precisely what’s in the report.
It is precisely compatible with the lack of evidence in the House testimony.
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Equating strongholds (perhaps Trump meant terrorist culture’s sites) and promoters of terrorism to baby seals is the very definition of jumping the shark.JonNC:
“He didn’t say he’d club ALL the baby seals! Just a few. There’s a BIG difference!”
Let’s be clear, though, that Trump never used the words “cultural sites.” He specifically said “Iranian sites” … some …important to Iran & the Iranian culture."
The AQR Foundation, for example, owns culturally important lands, gardens, wells, aqueducts and other places, because it is a key “religious foundation,” but also one that finances terrorism, fundamentalism and particularly recruits professional spies and mercenaries without attracting any attention or being held accountable because it provides cultural cover for and finances to the Quds Force.
Perhaps Trump was signalling something to the Iranian regime regarding what the US military knows and can easily target to take out the regime’s propaganda capabilities?
The Role of Astan-e Quds Razavi, a Key “Religious Foundation”, in Iranian Regime’s Terrorism, Extremist Policies, And Recruitment of Western Spies - NCRI
Executive summary: The mullah’s regime uses NGOs to attract terrorists, recruit spies in the West, and fund its fundamentalist policies. But this strategy
www.ncr-iran.org
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
If you had, at long last read it, you would realize otherwise.
The House case, is cirumstanial, but the evidence is plentiful.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
“Oh, no, I can’t have spicy food. It hurts my stomach”
“What? I didn’t say let’s go have some spicy tacos. I said let’s go have tacos, some of which are spicy! C’mon, big difference!!”
And just to spell it out - a “Site… important to Iranian culture” is the same thing as an Iranian cultural site. It is patently ridiculous to insist that “sites, some of which are important to culture” doesn’t mean that at least one cultural site.
Threatening to target even just one measly little site important to any culture is, by our own definition, threatening a war crime. We should be holding ourselves to higher standards (the ones we set for ourselves) even if our enemies won’t.
That’s a lot of perhapses and maybes and mental gymnastics to try and justify the American President thoughtlessly threatening war crimes while empty sabre-rattling. Perhaps we should go off what the President said - that he intends to do war crimes. At least, until the Pentagon clarified that no, the United States Military is not going to do what the Commander in Chief threatened. And thankfully it has.
Last edited:
I did. BTW, apparently so did Mueller, and it seems no collusion was his determination, too.
The House case is nonexistent. There was only one witness who had any first hand knowledge, and claimed only an assumption.
The others either didn’t like his policies or had their feelings hurt, but had no evidence. The alleged target says there was no pressure, no quid pro quo.
Like I said, there’s nothing except orange man bad.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I think that you have tipped your hand. Anyone who has read Mueller know that:
A) there pointedly no legal determination whatsoever on the collusion, which is not a legal issue
B) there was much evidence of collusion documented
Not in reality, no matter how often the claim is made.
lol. The only kind of collusion that matters is the legal kind: conspiracy collusion. I’m guilty of collusion all the time, in lots of different settings. They didn’t do a two year investigation to see who Trump talked to. They (claimed) to be looking into a conspiracy to influence the election. A conspiracy. There was no collusion.
On the other hand, the Clinton campaign paid for false information from Russia. Their very intent was to influence the election. That was the conspiracy collusion.
Your attempt to parse words is a reflection of your weak argument.
There was no collusion.
All of it involving Clinton, the DNC, FusionGPS, the Russians, and later the FBI.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
I disagree agree. From the first delivery of the Muller report I suggested that if Trump’s collusion does not make for a legal case against him on conspiracy, we should tighten the laws on contact with foreign governments seeking to interfere in our elections. Legislation to that effect is stalled by McConnell, who apparently prefers short-term political advantage of integrity of the electoral process. In the meantime, Trump has doubled down and has invited foreign interference.
The manifold collusion of the Trump team in the Mueller report has summarized in previous threads point by point. There is no honest denial of it.
I have an idea. Let’s start with preventing candidates from paying foreign nationals to dig up false narratives about their opponents. Let’s make sure that federal agents aren’t making up “insurance policies “ to undermine elections. Can we agree that those would be good starts?
There is only honest denial. There was no collusion.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I have great reservations about murdering a military leader of a nation.
We are not at war with that nation.
D
dvdjs
Guest
A better idea is to focus not on the empty deflections and memes of the echo chamber, but to focus on the actual threats to the integrity of our elections. Ops research is not it. Investigations kept quiet during the campaign are not it. Sharing polling data with foreign govenrments that are taking unprecedented precision disinformation campaigns - that is it.
That could be honest if if one were ingnorant of the Mueller report.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Bin Laden orchestrated attacks that killed thousands of civilians, engaged only in their daily lives, on America soil.
From what has been published, but also challenged, Soleimani orchestrated attacks that have killed hundreds of personnel active in war zones in the regions far from the US but close to Iran.
It is war fever to hold these men “on par”.
Last edited:
d
I see. You think he was just a military leader. I disagree. He was involved in terrorist activities that targeted American citizens. He actively led, financed and armed proxy terrorist groups who are actively attacking our ally, Israel.
He was in Iraq orchestrating attacks on our embassy there.
Those are not the actions of a mere military leader. They are the actions of a terrorist.
We haven’t been at war since WWII
You must be talking about foreign nationals here illegally who end up voting. I agree.
When Trump does it, its collusion. When a Democrat does it, its Ops research.
When Democrat operatives in the FBI turn that Ops research into a dishonest investigation, that undermines our republican system of elections and governance.
He orchestrated the attack on our embassy. He orchestrated attacks on the Israelis, including citizens. His attacks on American soldiers were in Iraq, not Iran. The Iraqi government permits our troops to be there. It was none of Iran’s business, and the attacks on them were unprovoked.
The attacks last night were an act of war on Iraq.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Not only is it untrue that I must be. In reality, I am not.
Rather than using pronouns like “it” , it would be better to spell it out.
Trump has engaged agents and officials of foreign governments to help his campaign.
Clinton’s campaign engaged a firm to do ops research. That firm engaged expert help that also engaged contacts.
The risk to the nation in the former interaction is serious and in the latter trifling. But you know this.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
If we counted all the perhaps and maybes, based upon his exact quote – “Iranian sites … some …important to Iran & the Iranian culture," the number of your “perhaps and maybes” are no fewer than mine.
No, “Site
Again, my point was that Trump may have been sending a message to the Iranian regime regarding what US military intelligence knows regarding how the regime is using “culture” as a cover for terrorism.
The difference between my post and yours, is that yours is pure rhetoric whereas I have provided something that at least resembles evidence.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You do understand that evidence implies anything that corroborates the potential and not necessarily the actual guilt of someone. Evidence may or may not be incriminating (strongly linked to a crime), and may or may not be sufficient to determine guilt.
You merely walking into a bank before it was robbed counts as evidence towards your potential guilt until there is sufficient evidence to the contrary.
So to claim there is “much evidence” in the Mueller Report for collusion implies next to nothing. The sheer quantity means very little if all of it is very weak. It is the strength, quality, relevance, and completeness or sufficiency that are far more important, and clearly Mueller determined that the “much evidence” amounted to insufficiency, despite that some who are politically inclined are prone to take whatever they can find, even crumbs, to feed their voracious appetite to find Trump guilty of something.
Last edited:
Oh, sorry. I thought you were expressing concern for the integrity of our elections.
Untrue. Or, at least, no evidence.
That firm used individuals with close ties to the Kremlin. That firm worked with Russian government ties to influence the election for Clinton.
But that is small potatoes compared to DNC operatives in the FBI using the lies in the Clinton/Russian Dossier to manipulate the FISA court.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I was and am. But you wandered off that topic.
True of his campaign; there is plenty of evidence of that in the Mueller report.
The Muller report and the Senate Intelligence committee report document the effort fothe Russian government to swing the election to Trump. Perhaps you can provide evidence of that charge.
Foreign nationals voting illegally is the biggest threat to our republican system of elections.
A continuation of a misrepresentation of the results of the Mueller report.
There’s lots of it. For example:
Links to FusionGPS (Clinton campaign) and the Kremlin.
- Status