Disturbing timeline of events re: Trump-Russia that supports FBI investigation

[Green Line]

Sounds like the Maobama cult of 2009.  Both sides do it!!

[Inmate Trump]

Sounds like the Maobama cult of 2009.  Both sides do it!!

I've never seen either side show such blind devotion to anyone like the GOP are doing to Trump.

This isn't an ideological issue. It's not about politics. This is about whether or not the president has committed treason. All sides should be infuriated and interested in investigating it.

[Green Line]

Sounds like the Maobama cult of 2009.  Both sides do it!!

I've never seen either side show such blind devotion to anyone like the GOP are doing to Trump.

This isn't an ideological issue. It's not about politics. This is about whether or not the president has committed treason. All sides should be infuriated and interested in investigating it.

It's ALREADY being investigated.  What, do you want mob justice??

[EnglishPete]

It's the attempts to destroy evidence and coordinate a story that look so bad.

Any evidence to back up the MSNBC claim that you're repeating that evidence is being destroyed. Comcast cable news reporting that an anonymous source alleges that unnamed persons are destroying evidence does not count as evidence. So any evidence to back up your allegation?

I don't think any source we cite will matter to you.  I mean, you're someone who uses Breitbart articles to support your position, so anything short of that will just be called fake news.

The source doesn't matter. MSNBC, CNN, Breitbart, New York Times whatever. I'll accept evidence from any of those sources.

The thing is though is that it has to be evidence.

On the record witness statements with specific information = evidence

Documentary evidence = evidence

Forensic evidence = evidence

Doesn't matter if the source is the New York Times or the Gateway Pundit. If they can provide evidence of the one or more of the above types then that is evidence for their claims. It may not be proof but it would be evidence

Anonymous sources make vague statements about unidentified persons = not evidence

I don't care who the source is Breitbart or CNN. If their case is based solely on this type of assertion then there is no evidence for that case. Hearsay is inadmissible in court for very good reason

So having clarified that point I would ask again. What evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law (i.e. excluding all hearsay ) is there for a Trump/Russia conspiracy?

[Inmate Trump]

It's the attempts to destroy evidence and coordinate a story that look so bad.

Any evidence to back up the MSNBC claim that you're repeating that evidence is being destroyed. Comcast cable news reporting that an anonymous source alleges that unnamed persons are destroying evidence does not count as evidence. So any evidence to back up your allegation?

I don't think any source we cite will matter to you.  I mean, you're someone who uses Breitbart articles to support your position, so anything short of that will just be called fake news.

The source doesn't matter. MSNBC, CNN, Breitbart, New York Times whatever. I'll accept evidence from any of those sources.

The thing is though is that it has to be evidence.

On the record witness statements with specific information = evidence

Documentary evidence = evidence

Forensic evidence = evidence

Doesn't matter if the source is the New York Times or the Gateway Pundit. If they can provide evidence of the one or more of the above types then that is evidence for their claims. It may not be proof but it would be evidence

Anonymous sources make vague statements about unidentified persons = not evidence

I don't care who the source is Breitbart or CNN. If their case is based solely on this type of assertion then there is no evidence for that case. Hearsay is inadmissible in court for very good reason

So having clarified that point I would ask again. What evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law (i.e. excluding all hearsay ) is there for a Trump/Russia conspiracy?

I don't know. Ask the FBI. It's not like the evidence is just flowing everywhere like a Russian pee tape. I can't google and find the proof. The evidence being looked over is not accessible to just anyone with an internet connection. But there has to be something, otherwise there wouldn't be an investigation in the first place. What is easily accessible, however, is info on a series of events which all point to there being a connection worth investigating and scrutinizing carefully. The overwhelming circumstantial evidence is all that we need to know to know that this is not simply a topic we should just drop, until the investigation is completed. If true, the implications are too great to ignore it--it would be something this nation has never seen and it could very well cripple us from the inside out. If you can't see all the many odd coincidences connecting to possible collusion then I can't help you.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Sounds like the Maobama cult of 2009.  Both sides do it!!

I've never seen either side show such blind devotion to anyone like the GOP are doing to Trump.

This isn't an ideological issue. It's not about politics. This is about whether or not the president has committed treason. All sides should be infuriated and interested in investigating it.

It's ALREADY being investigated.  What, do you want mob justice??

An investigation not run by a member of the cult.

Special prosecutor or select committee with trust-able members. Nunes does not qualify to investigate Trump. Neither does the DOJ under Sessions, whether he recuses himself or not, particularly when that investigation is then led by the already-disgraced Comey. (Hell, Trumpers who think their guy is innocent should be steaming mad that Comey, who has an incentive to vindicate himself by taking down Trump, too is in charge of investigating their gilded messiah.)

[EnglishPete]

It's the attempts to destroy evidence and coordinate a story that look so bad.

Any evidence to back up the MSNBC claim that you're repeating that evidence is being destroyed. Comcast cable news reporting that an anonymous source alleges that unnamed persons are destroying evidence does not count as evidence. So any evidence to back up your allegation?

I don't think any source we cite will matter to you.  I mean, you're someone who uses Breitbart articles to support your position, so anything short of that will just be called fake news.

The source doesn't matter. MSNBC, CNN, Breitbart, New York Times whatever. I'll accept evidence from any of those sources.

The thing is though is that it has to be evidence.

On the record witness statements with specific information = evidence

Documentary evidence = evidence

Forensic evidence = evidence

Doesn't matter if the source is the New York Times or the Gateway Pundit. If they can provide evidence of the one or more of the above types then that is evidence for their claims. It may not be proof but it would be evidence

Anonymous sources make vague statements about unidentified persons = not evidence

I don't care who the source is Breitbart or CNN. If their case is based solely on this type of assertion then there is no evidence for that case. Hearsay is inadmissible in court for very good reason

So having clarified that point I would ask again. What evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law (i.e. excluding all hearsay ) is there for a Trump/Russia conspiracy?

I don't know. Ask the FBI. It's not like the evidence is just flowing everywhere like a Russian pee tape. I can't google and find the proof. The evidence being looked over is not accessible to just anyone with an internet connection. But there has to be something, otherwise there wouldn't be an investigation in the first place.

Good grief.  I pity any defendant that has you sitting on his jury. There's any number of reasons why an investigation might happen or not to happen. When we're looking at this high level of politics then the reality is that those reasons will always be more to do with politics than with underlying evidence. That's just the sad reality of human nature.

[emailking]

Good grief.  I pity any defendant that has you sitting on his jury.

That's not a good analogy, honestly. Juries (and the judge) have a duty to presume innocence and not change that conclusion until presented with evidence compelling enough to make the presumption unreasonable. Nobody else has any such duty. I'm pretty sure all/most of us would need to see a lot more hard evidence before convicting someone of a crime. It's very different from just discussing on a message board that we think something fishy must going on.

[Silent Hunter]

There seems to enough circumstantial evidence here that a serious independent investigation is needed. Surely Trump supporters themselves would want this put to bed if it's false.

[I Won - Get Over It]

There seems to enough circumstantial evidence here that a serious independent investigation is needed. Surely Trump supporters themselves would want this put to bed if it's false.

FBI is pretty independent, no?


I'm totally for a serious independent investigation. But if one part keeps leaking vague data day'n'night... is still a serious investigation? Let FBI (or whatever agency/committee it is) make their job.

[Inmate Trump]

It's the attempts to destroy evidence and coordinate a story that look so bad.

Any evidence to back up the MSNBC claim that you're repeating that evidence is being destroyed. Comcast cable news reporting that an anonymous source alleges that unnamed persons are destroying evidence does not count as evidence. So any evidence to back up your allegation?

I don't think any source we cite will matter to you.  I mean, you're someone who uses Breitbart articles to support your position, so anything short of that will just be called fake news.

The source doesn't matter. MSNBC, CNN, Breitbart, New York Times whatever. I'll accept evidence from any of those sources.

The thing is though is that it has to be evidence.

On the record witness statements with specific information = evidence

Documentary evidence = evidence

Forensic evidence = evidence

Doesn't matter if the source is the New York Times or the Gateway Pundit. If they can provide evidence of the one or more of the above types then that is evidence for their claims. It may not be proof but it would be evidence

Anonymous sources make vague statements about unidentified persons = not evidence

I don't care who the source is Breitbart or CNN. If their case is based solely on this type of assertion then there is no evidence for that case. Hearsay is inadmissible in court for very good reason

So having clarified that point I would ask again. What evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law (i.e. excluding all hearsay ) is there for a Trump/Russia conspiracy?

I don't know. Ask the FBI. It's not like the evidence is just flowing everywhere like a Russian pee tape. I can't google and find the proof. The evidence being looked over is not accessible to just anyone with an internet connection. But there has to be something, otherwise there wouldn't be an investigation in the first place.

Good grief.  I pity any defendant that has you sitting on his jury. There's any number of reasons why an investigation might happen or not to happen. When we're looking at this high level of politics then the reality is that those reasons will always be more to do with politics than with underlying evidence. That's just the sad reality of human nature.

You aren't getting it.

Who knows if this entire story is true or not? I don't and neither do you. There seems to be some evidence that is being looked over. I don't have it, you don't have it, and neither of us can gain access to it no matter how hard we try because it is not available to the public. It's an ongoing investigation; the hard evidence isn't going to be something that just anyone can access until after the investigation is finished (to answer your earlier request for evidence).

So since all I can go on is what our intelligence agencies tell us, then I believe something happened. What that something is, I have no idea, but it sure looks like there was some cooperation that occurred between Trump's campaign and Russia. Read the timeline of events (all of it) posted at the beginning of this thread and tell me you don't think anything happened.

Investigations like this (treason) are NOT just politics. The accusation is that the president has literally betrayed the nation. Obama never faced an investigation like that. Nor President Bush before him. Each had plenty on the opposition side that detested them. But even then, treason is not an accusation you make based purely on politics alone. There has to be something to back up the accusation, and it appears that there is--which is why there's an investigation!

The accusation exists based on circumstantial evidence (which has been piling up over the last year or so), and not just on somebody's whim. So it has to be investigated. It wouldn't matter if Hillary was the president right now facing the same accusations with the same circumstantial evidence centered around her campaign. If there's enough to warrant looking into (see the timeline at the beginning of this thread), then it better be seriously looked into.

And if I were on a jury, I would have access to the evidence. Right now, nobody in the public has said evidence. If I was on a jury against President Trump, and all I had was circumstantial evidence then I couldn't say with 100% certainty that he is a traitor to the United States. But again, that's why there's an investigation--because there's a lot of circumstantial evidence and it all points to the same conclusion; we need to get to the bottom of it, one way or the other. But anyway, you are either for an investigation or not. If the accusation is the president committing treason, why wouldn't you be for an investigation? Why would anyone be against such an investigation, if there's circumstantial evidence to back up the claim? No matter the party, if my president is a traitor, I would want to know; and you should too.

[EnglishPete]

You aren't getting it.

Who knows if this entire story is true or not? I don't and neither do you. There seems to be some evidence that is being looked over. I don't have it, you don't have it, and neither of us can gain access to it no matter how hard we try because it is not available to the public. It's an ongoing investigation; the hard evidence isn't going to be something that just anyone can access until after the investigation is finished (to answer your earlier request for evidence).

Actually we do know what triggered this investigation since its been publically discussed by the main players. DNC hired Crowdstrike who, by co-incidence, told them what they wanted to hear i.e. it was the Russians! There's also the massively melodramatic and implausible 'dodgy dossier'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well lets look at the timeline you posted at the start of this thread but cut out all the things that aren't verified and come from potentially biased sources i.e. The crowdstrike claims, the FBI and Obama admin taking actions as a result of taking Crowdstrike at their word, the dodgy dossier.

Lets also cut out all the things that are not really circumstantial evidence as they are things that would be expected anyway.

It would be expected that a Senator like Jeff Sessions would have a meeting set up with the State department with a foreign ambassador as part of his job as Senator. Its also to be expected that Senators will meet and greet and make small talk with foreign dignitaries at public receptions. Its also to be expected that if at a confirmation hearing Sessions is asked about campaign contacts with Russian officials and asked if he'd had any such meetings he says in his answer that is his role as a campaign surrogate he had no such meetings, phrasing it in such a way that meeting he had in his Senate role is not referred to.

It would be expected that if at an RNC platform committee meeting a single committee member (a Cruz supporter) proposed amending the platform to include sending arms to Ukraine that the other members of the committee would think that too specific and reject it.

It would be expected that Trump would make comments complimenting someone who has complimented him and also complimenting an authoritarian political leader. Its also to be expected that he would oppose military interventionism in US foreign policy. He's done all of those things for years and needs no prompting to do that.

Its also to be expected that a professional political muckraker like Roger Stone would contact various people, including a public twitter account and a publisher of a leaks website whose whereabouts are very well known, in order to get scoops to help his agenda. Nor would it be unexpected that he would then tweet out rather hit and miss rumours that he had gathered. Plenty of spin doctors and journalists engage in that type of behaviour in every election.

So lets see what is left and see if it adds up to much

Continued ....

[pbrower2a]

There seems to enough circumstantial evidence here that a serious independent investigation is needed. Surely Trump supporters themselves would want this put to bed if it's false.

FBI is pretty independent, no?


I'm totally for a serious independent investigation. But if one part keeps leaking vague data day'n'night... is still a serious investigation? Let FBI (or whatever agency/committee it is) make their job.

Good investigations are secretive. They leak only such evidence as might cause the people under investigation to squirm -- to expose the weaknesses of their positions -- to act guilty. If the Gestapo and the KGB could threaten a wretch as in the movie cliche "Vee haff vays to make you talk", the FBI can exploit the freedom to make grave indiscretions.

[EnglishPete]

Continued...

What we have left is the following

One rather minor campaign figure, Carter Page, an investment banker formerly based in Russia had some business dealings in Russia some time after he had left the campaign. No evidence of this being linked to the campaign.

Paul Manafort, Trump's sometime campaign manager and a professional lobbyist and PR man, had done some lobbying/PR work some years earlier for some high ranking Russians/Ukrainians. No evidence of it being linked to the campaign.

Wikileaks obtained and leaked some material. Despite all the allegations by Crowd strike the dodgy dossier and others that this was linked to either or both the Russians or the Trump campaign there has been no verification of these claims.

Amid all the Russian hysteria Trump makes a joke about Russia finding and handing over the emails. Just to be clear he could he was not suggesting that Russia hack the emails. The Clinton server had long been offline so could not be hacked. In context he was joking that if the Russians already had the emails somewhere in their records that they find them and give them back to the US, something that in fact they are technically legally obligated to do.

ARussian oligarchs plane lands in North Carolina at the same time as Trump's airplane. when questioned he gives a rather lawyerly answer that he wasn't there to contact Trump or any of his advisors, suggesting he was there to contact another person he didn't identify in his answer.

Putin decides not to retaliate to Obama sanctions and to flatter Trump instead in the hope that this would make it easier to get rid of sanctions later.

Michael Flynn has a routine phone conversation with the Russian ambassador as part of his job in the transition team but then, spooked by the Russia hysteria, rather stupidly decides to lie about it to Mike Pence and gets sacked as a result.

That's it. that's the sum total of the 'evidence' and even as circumstantial evidence it really doesn't add up to much.

[Inmate Trump]

I'm so tired of the denial of Trump voters. Is this really what our nation has come to?

It's sickening, annoying, sad, and embarrassing.

[EnglishPete]

I'm so tired of the denial of Trump voters. Is this really what our nation has come to?

It's sickening, annoying, sad, and embarrassing.

What's sickening, annoying, sad, and embarrassing is the way so many partisan Dems are getting swept up in the witch hysteria of this bogus narrative.

Please feel free to point out any errors in my last two posts if you can.