Remember we told you so!

[Value Buy]

Two years ago a few of us told all of you right here there was no Russian collusion.
Every liberal here told us we were drinking the kool aid.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-panel-has-uncovered-no-direct-evidence-of-conspiracy-between-trump-campaign-and-russia/ar-BBTuvTd?li=BBnb7Kz

Two years totally wasted. Even a democrat who wanted to remain unamed (for good reason) admitted they were never going to find the dagger deripped in blood.
Now we wait for Mueller to admit it publicly too.

[mroped]

First of all, they are not done so anything is possible. Don’t count your chickens yet!
And even if it proves that there was no collusion, this investigation was by no means fruitless or useles.It uncovered corruption and fraud and improprieties of all sorts. And the funds tha were recovered are more then enough to cover for the investigation itself so we get to clean house for free!

[billisonboard]

From the link:

Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context.

"We were never going find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.

[Value Buy]

Feb 12, 2019 14:31:30 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

From the link:

Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context.

"We were never going find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.

That is not what every Democrat claimed two years ago.
Notice he refused to go on the record for fear of not folowing democratic rhetoric.

[countrygirl2]

Air is a waste on him, whatever they find. The things he has done to kids is beyond immoral.

[billisonboard]

Feb 12, 2019 14:39:49 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Feb 12, 2019 14:31:30 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

From the link:

Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context.

"We were never going find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.

That is not what every Democrat claimed two years ago.
...

True. There were a few who did claim something similar to that. Those few were fools.

[billisonboard]

Feb 12, 2019 14:39:49 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

...
Notice he refused to go on the record for fear of not folowing democratic rhetoric.

Staffers rarely go on record. It isn't their job to upstage elected officials. They are like backup singers who don' do lead vocals.

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Let the record indicate that I never said collusion was a definite. 
However, I don't have a problem with there being an investigation. Yes, my democrat-leaning mind believes the investigation is justified. That belief doesn't mean I am guaranteeing one way or the other what the investigation would find. 
I would actually prefer that there not be any collusion.
I prefer to live in the bubble that says the USA is awesome opossum and wouldn't do something like that.

[Value Buy]

Feb 12, 2019 14:54:52 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 12, 2019 14:39:49 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

...
Notice he refused to go on the record for fear of not folowing democratic rhetoric.

Staffers rarely go on record. It isn't their job to upstage elected officials. They are like backup singers who don' do lead vocals.

No, they are usually the leakers who leak on their own or as ordered to dothe leaking.
As far as being "staffers", from the original quote, one sentence says "Senate investigators" who did not dispute the announcement and the latter, says "aides" so it is confusing to say the least. I interpret investigators as being Senate members, but could be incorrect.


Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context.



"We were never going find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.

[hurley1980]

You can't really say "I told you so" until the Mueller investigation is complete.  If it completes and there is no evidence of collusion, they I will admit you were right.

[billisonboard]

Feb 12, 2019 15:09:31 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

...
As far as being "staffers", from the original quote, one sentence says "Senate investigators" who did not dispute the announcement and the latter, says "aides" so it is confusing to say the least. I interpret investigators as being Senate members, but could be incorrect.


...

Considering that "Senators" is used quite commonly to refer to "Senators", I don't find it confusing at all that it is not referring to Senators.

[happyhoix]

Feb 12, 2019 15:09:31 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Feb 12, 2019 14:54:52 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Staffers rarely go on record. It isn't their job to upstage elected officials. They are like backup singers who don' do lead vocals.

No, they are usually the leakers who leak on their own or as ordered to dothe leaking.
As far as being "staffers", from the original quote, one sentence says "Senate investigators" who did not dispute the announcement and the latter, says "aides" so it is confusing to say the least. I interpret investigators as being Senate members, but could be incorrect.


Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context.



"We were never going find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.

They have over 100 contacts between Russians and members of Trump's campaign. Yes, none of them include the words "Hey, lets work together to screw up the 2016 US election.'  But did Russians collude with some of them?

It's all going to come down to what you consider 'collusion.'

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Feb 12, 2019 15:59:21 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Feb 12, 2019 15:09:31 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

No, they are usually the leakers who leak on their own or as ordered to dothe leaking.
As far as being "staffers", from the original quote, one sentence says "Senate investigators" who did not dispute the announcement and the latter, says "aides" so it is confusing to say the least. I interpret investigators as being Senate members, but could be incorrect.


Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context.



"We were never going find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.

They have over 100 contacts between Russians and members of Trump's campaign. Yes, none of them include the words "Hey, lets work together to screw up the 2016 US election.'  But did Russians collude with some of them?

It's all going to come down to what you consider 'collusion.'

VB's great and all, but I'd prefer that it come down to what a federally appointed judge determines is "collusion". 

[Tennesseer]

One should read more than the opening paragraph.

The second paragraph:

"But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent on social media."

Which party made up the majority of the senate panel members?

[dondub]

  So what! As Rudy said collusion is not a crime.   I'm more interested in the criminal meat of money laundering, tax evasion, campaign violations, charitable skimming, and

other frauds so endemic to the white collar criminal class.

[Value Buy]

Feb 12, 2019 16:07:20 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Feb 12, 2019 15:59:21 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

They have over 100 contacts between Russians and members of Trump's campaign. Yes, none of them include the words "Hey, lets work together to screw up the 2016 US election.'  But did Russians collude with some of them?

It's all going to come down to what you consider 'collusion.'

VB's great and all, but I'd prefer that it come down to what a federally appointed judge determines is "collusion". 

So if Mueller does not charge him, that is not good enough for you

[dondub]

www.justsecurity.org/59158/mueller-lacks-authority-indict-trump/

[Value Buy]

Feb 12, 2019 23:34:33 GMT -5 dondub said:

www.justsecurity.org/59158/mueller-lacks-authority-indict-trump/

I thought we had many threads on this where the liberals here insisted Mueller could indict him.
Were liberals wrong about this?
Am I incorrect?

[dondub]

  Show us those many threads then.

 He's like a detective...investigates, presents evidence to a charging authority, expects charges to be brought.

 So far many charges have been brought and convictions have occurred with more to follow. Unbeknownst to you that makes this investigation a rousing success already.

 Anytime corrupt slimeballs on the right go down it's just a great day VB.

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Feb 12, 2019 23:29:01 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Feb 12, 2019 16:07:20 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

VB's great and all, but I'd prefer that it come down to what a federally appointed judge determines is "collusion". 

So if Mueller does not charge him, that is not good enough for you

As in if Mueller determines that Mueller's investigation doesn't warrant someone being charged, I'd be upset? No, I would not be upset.

I think Robert Mueller is an intelligent, well-educated, rational individual. I would equate being appointed FBI Director to being appointed a federal judge. 

I did, in this thread's path, assumed that we were talking about actual charges. If charges reach a trial in a federal court of law, I was assuming a federal judge would be the one defining collusion--not the masses. 

[happyhoix]

Feb 12, 2019 23:29:01 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Feb 12, 2019 16:07:20 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

VB's great and all, but I'd prefer that it come down to what a federally appointed judge determines is "collusion". 

So if Mueller does not charge him, that is not good enough for you

Mueller ISN'T going to charge him, I don't think - I don't think that's how these investigations work (I could be wrong. I often am). I think he can charge the people around Trump, but not the president.

My understanding is that when Mueller finally finishes the report, he will submit it to Congress. If we still had an all GOP Congress, chances are, it would stay 'confidential' and never see the light of day. Since we have a Dem controlled House, however, I think his report will actually get out into the public realm. At that point, though, there will be an intense debate about what to do with the findings. If the report actually finds something blatant and egregious, I think the Dems will be joined by enough GOPers to push for impeachment. More likely, I think the report will find blatant and egregious acts by members of Trump's campaign staff, but not directly by Trump himself (or at least, nothing that can be documented).  Even if it does show collusion, Giuliani has already started making statements like 'there's nothing wrong with collusion.'

At that point, I think it will get very interesting. Dems will certainly use the findings against him in 2020. If not much was uncovered, the GOP will use the cost and time involved in the investigation against the Dems in 2020.  A lot will depend on what Mueller has found, and which party does the better job spinning those findings.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 12, 2019 14:10:19 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Two years ago a few of us told all of you right here there was no Russian collusion.
Every liberal here told us we were drinking the kool aid.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-panel-

thanks for saving me any further reading by getting this out of the way after 3 sentences

[countrygirl2]

I think there are all kinds of unlawful acts.  But they have evidence to pin it on his minions but whether they can ever get enough to get him is debatable.  A crook like him will likely slither away, but I think they will get the kids.  Wouldn't surprise me if he will let them hang. He will likely pardon them down the road.  That's why none of them are worried.