udaydanceparty

I'm aware of the Papadopoulos angle in all of this. Doesn't change what happened with the dossier. Without the dossier, we don't have this special council.

Care to explain what's false about my statement? It is my understanding that the dossier was created as part of opposition research conducted by fusion GPS . That research was paid for originally by Jeb Bush and then the Clinton Camp started paying them. It was carried out by a former British spy who used his contacts in the Ukrainian and Russian governments to create the dossier. That's my basic understanding of how that document came into being. If something is factually incorrect, i'm open to having my mind changed.

The piss dossier was opposition research and was the basis for the entire investigation getting started. Then you had the average joe FBI agents do their job while others in the IC and a senile Senator with a brain tumor decided to leak information to the press. If it wasn't for Jake Tapper at CNN, the piss tape story would have never made it to the mainstream and you guys would have been doing something much more productive over the past 2 years other than furiously masturbating over political clickbait.

You are right.. the piss tape is on par with the Michele Obama having a penis conspiracy theory. The Russia collusion conspiracy as a whole is much closer to Bush's WMD in Iraq hoax. A lot of people believed that as well.

From page 1 this was about impeaching the president for treason that never happened.

This is the same issue I have with releasing it to the public. I think it should be released to Congress for sure. There needs to be some level of discussion among the leaders of both parties about how far the public disclosures need to go.

I think the odds are pretty good it gets released in full and it basically hands Trump 2020.

I took a long break from Surly specifically because of how hostile the politics forum was to conservatives that even slightly pushed back at this insane conspiracy theory. I thought it was a waste of my time to argue since certain posters were going full on tin foil. Now even after "Mueller Time!" completely clear the President and his campaign of collusion you are still grasping for straws. Take the L.

Get help

What does Putin have on Glenn Greenwald?

Jacob Wohl wins this round

Where are the pictures of the pre-dawn raid?

How long till the creepy porn extortionist flips?

Considering it's all in your head, both scenarios are equally as irrelevant.

Creepy uncle Joe doesn't want Michele Strahan as a running mate. He squashed that rumor already.

The people that are still peddling "the president colluded with Russia to win the election" are tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists at this point. If you are holding out hope that there is something in that report that shows something radically different than what the AG announced, you are delusional. The chances that there is something materially different than what the AG said are about zero.

Congress will get to see it for sure. Not sure how much of it should be made 100% open to the public. There is a certain level of privacy that the accused deserve, even if they hold public office.

This is what the French call saisir à la paille.

Yes but the report probably doesn't materially differ from the summary provided. Suggesting that at this point is bonkers. Do you not see how this is 9-11 truther shit at this point? No matter how much information is released, there are going to be people that will find another direction to take this nonsense.

The entire investigation revolved around squeezing people for information and charging them with unrelated crimes in order to get them to cooperate. Flynn, Cohen and conspiracy nutjob Roger Stone were part of a fishing expedition. This thread is filled with regurgitated "facts" from clickbait articles. Meanwhile, MSNBC and CNN went full on Infowars and no one seemed to notice.

Imagine how much time was wasted on this Russian conspiracy nonsense. It's 12+ hours of posting per day for over 2 years. With that kind of effort, he could have gotten a law degree or maybe even found the cure for cancer. Instead it was completely worthless. He practically gave the politics forum cancer.

Matt Taibbi released a chapter from his upcoming book Hate Inc which details the Russiagate hoax and great disservice this this conspiracy theory has done to the credibility of the press. Get out while you still can. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it Note to readers: in light of news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation is complete, I’m releasing this chapter of Hate Inc. early, with a few new details added up top. Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media. As has long been rumored, the former FBI chief’s independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no “presidency-wrecking” conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman’s definition of “collusion” with Russia. With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of the Mueller investigation was best expressed by the New York Times: A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments. The Times tried to soften the emotional blow for the millions of Americans trained in these years to place hopes for the overturn of the Trump presidency in Mueller. Nobody even pretended it was supposed to be a fact-finding mission, instead of an act of faith. The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members singing “All I Want for Christmas is You” to him featuring the rhymey line: “Mueller please come through, because the only option is a coup.” The Times story today tried to preserve Santa Mueller’s reputation, noting Trump’s Attorney General William Barr’s reaction was an “endorsement” of the fineness of Mueller’s work: In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a “witch hunt,” Mr. Barr said Justice Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step. Mueller, in other words, never stepped out of the bounds of his job description. But could the same be said for the news media? For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia “contacts,” inviting readers to keep making connections. But in a separate piece by Peter Baker, the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press: It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress, for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole… This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing, emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting “We don’t need to read the Mueller report” because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: “Have journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?” The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like itself made galactic errors by betting heavily on a new, politicized approach, trying to be true to “history’s judgment” on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse, in a brutal irony everyone should have seen coming, the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020. Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a “witch hunt.” Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller’s final report might leave audiences “disappointed,” as if a President not being a foreign spy could somehow be bad news. Openly using such language has, all along, been an indictment. Imagine how tone-deaf you’d have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without pants. There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn’t prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters! There’s an ongoing grand jury investigation, and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and… Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse. For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Now, even Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is out, unless something “so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan” against Trump is uncovered it would be worth their political trouble to prosecute. MORE at the link near the top..