The Right Side of the News

Where does it say that? SHOW US!Oh, specifically it said that, you claim. Fine, then you should have no problem at all showing us precisely where the Mueller Report "specifically concluded that they found [no collusion]".So then show us where the Mueller Report is supposed to have stated that "specific conclusion". Give us the page number (look at the text, not at the page number of the PDF, or if you use the PDF page number then explicitly state that that is what you are doing). Quote that text to us.You have made a claim, so support it! IOW, what are the facts? You know what facts are, those pesky things that you hate so much because they keep proving your crazzy claims wrong. If you have facts to support your claim, then present them! If you don't have any such facts, then admit it!HINT: the right-wingnut bullshirt liies told you by the Fake News Network and its accomplices do not count as facts. SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM!You've never done it before, so I have no doubt that you will not do it here. The evidence in the Mueller Report quite clearly shows rampant collusion. So far, your claim of "no collusion" (now elevated to "specifically concluded that they found none") has had zero evidence to support it.Furthermore, the existence of our evidence and your lack of evidence has been demonstrated to you repeatedly such that there is no way that you could possibly not realize that. So you are repeating those bullshirt right-wingnut liies knowing full well that they have nothing to support them. Knowingly repeating liies that you know to be liies is lyeing. 
PSYour persistent practice of completely ignoring the facts (especially the ones presented to you) is not an excuse. If anything, it only condemns you all the more.Edited by dwise1, : additional qsEdited by dwise1, : PS

Except that it's the gist of the report that there was tons of collusion, just that they could not find the evidence to prove conspiracy and co-ordination.Plus, it is well known that Barr misrepresented the Mueller Report and that Mueller wrote a letter to Barr complaining how Barr misrepresented the report in such a way as to mislead the public.
NPR
CNN
Wikipedia (Wikipedia page includes a PDF of Mueller's letter to Barr):

quote:

---

Barr Letter -- Reactions -- Robert Mueller:

​

On March 25, a day after the Barr letter was released, Robert Mueller himself reportedly wrote a letter to Barr, as described in the New York Times as "expressing his and his team's concerns that the attorney general had inadequately portrayed their conclusions". In USA Today it was described that Mueller "expressed his differences with Barr".

​

On March 27, Mueller sent Barr another letter describing his concerns of Barr's letter to Congress and the public on March 24. Mueller thought that Barr's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the findings. "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations." Mueller also requested Barr release the Mueller Report's introductions and executive summaries. This was first reported on April 30, 2019.

​

The next day on March 28, Mueller had a phone call with Barr and reportedly expressed concerns about public misunderstandings of the obstruction investigation due to a lack of context released by Barr's letter. In their phone conversation, Barr reportedly said that his letter was not intended to be a summary, but rather only as a description of the principal findings of Mueller's report, and said he preferred not to release more information until a more complete redacted version of the report could be prepared. Barr then sent a subsequent letter to Congress in which he reiterated that his letter had not been intended as a summary of the Mueller Report and volunteered to testify before Congress in early May.

---

Clearly, Barr's letter (which, contrary to your characterization of it here, even Barr said was not a summary) is not a reliable source for determining what the Mueller Report says. The only reliable source for such a determination is the Mueller Report itself.The Mueller Report shows clear evidence of collusion. Besides pages of instances listed in the table of contents (see Message 2886 again, which I'm certain you chose to not read or even look at) let's look at the specific case of Manafort giving the Russians campaign data while working on the Trump campaign -- such data can be used to help the Russians target demographics in their attack, though the investigations not able to establish just exactly how the data was used.From the Mueller Report, pages 129-131:

quote:

---

Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee , 839 to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign-including internal polling data, although Manafort claims not to recall that specific instruction. Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska . Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.

​

Manafort also twice met Kilimnik in the United States during the campaign period and conveyed campaign information. The second meeting took place on August 2, 2016 , in New York City. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a message from former Ukrainian President Viktor Y anukovych, who was then living in Russia. The message was about a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort has since acknowledged was a "backdoor " means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine. Several months later, after the presidential election, Kilimnik wrote an email to Manafort expressing the view-which Manafort later said he shared-that the plan 's success would require U.S. support to succeed: "all that is required to start the process is a very minor ' wink' ( or slight push) from [Donald Trump ]." 840 The email also stated that if Manafort were designated as the U.S. representative and started the process, Yanukovych would ensure his reception in Russia "at the very top level."

​

Manafort communicated with Kilimnik about peace plans for Ukraine on at least four occasions after their first discussion of the topic on August 2: December 2016 (the Kilimnik email described above); January 2017; February 2017; and again in the spring of 2018. The Office reviewed numerous Manafort email and text communications, and asked President Trump about the plan in written questions. 841 The investigation did not uncover evidence of Manafort's passing along information about Ukrainian peace plans to the candidate or anyone else in the Campaign or the Administration. The Office was not, however, able to gain access to all of Manafort's electronic communications (in some instances , messages were sent using encryption applications). And while Manafort denied that he spoke to members of the Trump Campaign or the new Administration about the peace plan, he lied to the Office and the grand jury about the peace plan and his meetings with Kilimnik, and his unreliability on this subject was among the reasons that the district judge found that he breached his cooperation agreement. 842

​

The Office could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period. Manafort {REDACTED -- Grand Jury} did not see a downside to sharing campaign information , and told Gates that his role in the Campaign would be "good for business" and potentially a way to be made whole for work he previously completed in the Ukraine. As to Deripaska, Manafort claimed that by sharing campaign information with him, Deripaska might see value in their relationship and resolve a "disagreement"- a reference to one or more outstanding lawsuits. Because of questions about Manafort 's credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it. The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort 's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts.

---

There is nothing in Manafort's actions that could remotely be considered "innocuous". That was collusion at the very least, and very likely much more. And that was just one instance out of a hundred in the report. Uh, have you even bothered to read that article? All it says about collusion, indeed the only mention of that word (or any form of it) occurs only twice: first in the article's title and second at the end when it directly quotes Trump's false claim of "complete and total exoneration". Nowhere in the article does the author ever attempt to support the title's claim of "Mueller finds no collusion with Russia". It does mention the question of co-ordination and conspiracy, which are a different question from collusion, albeit related. To engage in a conspiracy and to co-ordinate, there must be some kind of explicit agreement between the parties involved. In order to prosecute a case of conspiracy and co-ordination, you must be able to obtain evidence of such an explicit agreement. The Mueller reported that they could not find that evidence, but such a finding can be very difficult to find in most cases of conspiracy. And none of that addresses the question of collusion.Furthermore, the article's major source was the Barr letter, not the Mueller Report itself. We already know that the Barr letter is not a reliable source, since it misrepresented the Mueller Report's findings. For that matter, when was that article written? I can find no date for it. There were weeks of delay between the Barr letter and the release of the redacted report. If the report had already been released, then why didn't the article reference it? Why would the article restrict itself to the Barr letter? An obvious assumption would be that the article was written before the release of the Mueller Report and hence the author could not have had any knowledge of what the Mueller Report actually said.That article does not support your claim. Again, in Message 2887 you stated: You have been called upon to support your claim of "... but it specifically concluded that they found none." Your claim that the Mueller Report "specifically concluded" that there was no collusion.You have failed to support your claim. You must support it! You must quote the Mueller Report where it is supposed to have said what you claim, along with the page number (a trivial requirement to meet when you are copying the quote). SHOW US!Show us! Edited by dwise1, : "gist of the report"

No, not essentially synonymous, but rather "largely synonymous" according to Mueller (Mueller Report, Volume 1, C. Russian Government Outreach and Contacts, 1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion, pp 180-181):

quote:

---

As an initial matter , this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" appears in the Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute , 18 U.S.C. 371. See Black 's Law Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is "[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain something forbidden by law"); 1 Alexander Burrill , A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object."); 1 Bouvier 's Law Dictionary 352 (1897) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.").

​

For that reason, this Office 's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion."

---

Also, in the Mueller Report, Introduction to Volume 1, page 2:

quote:

---

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons , the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express - between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

---

So then, no, Mueller was not talking about collusion, but rather about conspiracy and co-ordination which are a different matter.By conflating them, you are trying to mislead us. You must be an apologist.Faith claimed quite specifically that the Mueller Report specifically found there to have been no collusion. That claim is completely and utter false! The Mueller Report specifically decided to not investigate the matter of collusion and therefore never arrived at the conclusion that Faith falsely claims. Furthermore, Faith has been fully informed of what the Mueller Report actually says, with direct quotes, so she should know better. Therefore, since she chooses to continue to repeat the liies despite her knowledge of their false nature, she's lyeing to us. Well, certainly nothing new there.And the reason why Faith refuses to show us where the Mueller Report is supposed to have said what she claims is because she knows full well that the report does no such thing. So she tries to cover up that inconvenient fact while doubling down on the liies. Further evidence that she knows full well what she is doing.Edited by dwise1, : corrected incomplete citation

To quote an American philosopher: "Not hardly."Trump's swamp monsters have their own histories which can be very enlightening. For example:

quote:

---

In 1989, at the beginning of his administration, President George H. W. Bush appointed Barr to the U.S. Department of Justice as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), an office which functions as the legal advisor for the President and executive agencies. Barr was known as a strong defender of presidential power. He wrote an advisory opinion justifying the U.S. invasion of Panama and arrest of Manuel Noriega. He wrote legal justifications for the practice of rendition, so that the FBI could enter onto foreign soil without the consent of the host government to apprehend fugitives wanted by the United States government for terrorism or drug-trafficking. Barr declined a congressional request for the full opinion, but instead provided a document that "summarizes the principal conclusions." Congress subpoenaed the opinion, and its public release after Barr's departure from the Justice Department showed he had omitted significant findings in the opinion from his summary document.

---

Sound familiar? Refusing to provide the actual document but instead providing a "summary" which ends up omitting significant findings and misrepresents the actual document all for the purpose of serving the political needs of the President.Which is exactly what Barr did again with the Mueller Report. And he is still keeping Congress from getting needed access to the full unredacted report. Maybe now with the impeachment inquiry they'll be able to gain that access that they vitally need.Like the quoted old women in the black church say: "The Devil don't have no new tricks." (or possibly "no new ideas"; I'm quoting from memory) IOW, he just keeps using the same old tricks that worked before. Like Trump keeps doing and like his minions like Barr keep doing.As Attorney General, Barr is tasked with enforcing the laws of the USA. Indeed, that is what his oath of office requires of him. Instead, all he's doing is to provide cover for the Trump Administration's repeated violations of federal law. Which includes not enforcing the power of subpoenas.Barr, honest? What a sick joke!

And there you go again.Funny how you keep reverting to Collins, whom I assume is Rep. Chris Collins, a Trump sycophant (eg, he was the first to endorse Trump). As such, he would be expected to want to twist Mueller's testimony by literally putting words in his mouth. BTW, today Collins submitted his resignation from Congress, effective 01 October 2019, in connection with changing his plea to insider trading to guilty.Do you have any similar questioning by other members of Congress? Such as by Democrats? Would you even dare to present quotes of such questioning? I didn't think so. Yes, you are conflating them even while you point out that they are not the same! Make up your mind!Of course they are not the same! That is what I keep saying! And that it what you yourself are admitting!So then just what the hell is quoting about conspiracy supposed to have to do with simple collusion?Here is what you are doing:

1. You conflate collusion and conspiracy.
2. You demonstrate that conspiracy could not be proven.
3. You conclude (falsely!) that that proves that collusion did not happen.

You are practicing the crudest form of sophistry there! And you wonder why we normals have such low regard for apologists?  Today, I've been kicking this analogy around in my head that might help to explain some differences.There's a black market of illicit drugs. You have a network of suppliers and a network of distributors. They have negotiated terms of exchange of goods and payments for those shipments of illicit drugs. Those agreements are an example of conspiracy.You have a chain of illicit drugs going from manufacture to shipment to receipt to distribution. Like any well-oiled machine, every link of that chain has to know when and where and how to perform its function, even if any individual link has no knowledge of the original negotiated terms nor the details of any other link's operations. That all requires co-ordination which requires a lot of planning.Conspiracy and co-ordination require a lot of fore-thought and planning and working together towards a common nefarious goal. That in part is what makes those acts alone prosecutable (ignoring other collateral infractions).Now we're down on the street level with the pushers (the terminal points of the distribution network) and the customers. Now we're getting to collusion. The pushers have product, but (ideally) no pre-arranged customers. Customers want product, but don't necessarily know where to obtain it. I see this as the basic collusion level. Providers of dirt seeking recipients of dirt (eg, politically damaging information which Donnie Jr. was eager to get). Sellers of information to provide dirt seeking merchants in dirt (eg, Brad Pitt and Frances Frances McDormand in Burn After Reading with a CD full of useless data that they try to sell at the Russian embassy on May Day (01 May), Paul Manafort passing campaign data to the Russians). It hasn't necessarily been negotiated before-hand (or at least could not be proven) nor co-ordinated. People with a need wandering the streets looking for someone who can meet that need. And people with product looking for those who want it. It's not organized and it's not co-ordinated, but it does happen nonetheless.Faith wants to classify these nefarious actions "innocent contacts", but there is nothing at all innocent about them.Does that help you to understand the difference of what we are talking about?Or does your position depend on not understanding?Edited by dwise1, : Added non-blanking space ( ) to separate sections.

Uh, yes it does make a difference who's asking the question. If the one asking the question in a formal legal format is at all antagonistic to the witness, then we might expect an attempt to put words in the witness' mouth.The crudest example of this is to demand a yes-or-no answer to the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Restricted to a yes or no answer and nothing else, any answer the witness would give would condemn him, whereas if he were allowed to explore other options (eg, "I've never beaten my wife!") the outcome would be completely different.Mueller's position was centered around his Report, which he maintained answered all questions about the report. Trying to force him into yes-no answers that ignore the many qualifications and conditions of his report and of his responses would end up being an exercise in putting words into his mouth.Besides, all that talk was about conspiracy and not about our subject, collusion. So all your quoting of Doug Collins questioning Mueller means absolutely nothing at all. So why are you concentrating on that? Oh yeah, to redirect our attention away from the subject. Deflect and divert. The principal difference between conspiracy and collusion is that conspiracy requires explicit agreements between the parties, whereas collusion can be done with tacit cooperation, following someone else's lead, without a formal explicit agreement to do so. To prove conspiracy, you need to find evidence of that explicit agreement, which is what can make conspiracy cases so difficult to prosecute successfully. To prove collusion, you need only observe the parties' actions. An example would be one of the spy cases (the Walker case, I think) in which our counter-intelligence agents could tell what was going on, but they couldn't step in and arrest him until finally they observed him using a dead drop, which could only have been arranged through explicit agreements.The Mueller Report describes a large number of instances of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, many of which involved offering or seeking or accepting or exchanging information. Despite Faith's bad faith description of these meetings as "innocent", they were far from innocent.

That "(U)" indicates the classification level of that paragraph. Classified documents are required to be marked with their classification level. That parts that are to be marked are:

• Each paragraph, such as you see. Also illustrations, tables, etc.
• Each page, which is classified at the highest classification level of its contents; ie, if all the paragraphs are unclassified, then the page is unclassified, but if even one paragraph is mark as secret, then the entire page is secret.
• The entire document, which is classified to the level of the most highly classified page.

The levels of classification are:

• (U) -- unclassified
• (C) -- confidential
• (S) -- secret
• (T) -- top secret

There are additional qualifiers (eg, NOFORN for "no foreign access") which further determine how that classified material must be handled.Don't forget to sign the muster sheet to show that you've received your annual security refresher training.  Sea story:
After I was discharged from the Air Force, I affiliated with the Navy Reserve. As an OSVET (other-service veteran), I was required to complete the rate training manual (RTM) correspondence courses. Mine (DS -- Data Systems Technician) came in two volumes: Vol 1 with 230 pages and Vol 2 with 87 pages. One of my ratings duties was to maintain the Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS), which was classified. There were about a dozen pages in Vol 1 that contained one to four paragraphs that were marked (C), so the entire page they were on was also marked (C). As a result, the entire RTM was classified confidential -- even though Murphy was an Air Force officer, his Murphy's Law is also applicable in the Navy, so of course it had to be the thick RTM that was classified. Because of the required handling, I was not allowed to take that RTM home to work on. Instead, I had to take a week of vacation from work just so that I could commute 30 miles to base and sit all day in PSD (Personnel Support Detachment, the controlling office for this classified) doing that course. Shortly after that I took the advancement exam based on that material and I made DS1 (E6) first time.

Above all else, Trump is desperate to remain in office as long as he possibly can in order to escape being indicted and convicted, which is a certainty barring any scenarios in which he's given a deal to leave office as soon as possible.I have to believe that somebody or some group has worked out a wargame which simulates and tests all the possible scenarios and how they could play out. What are all the possible scenarios and how could they play out?Wargaming has a long history and was more famously used by the Prussians.
For example, the Japanese used wargaming to test their plans for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Then (as I've read) they did the same for their Midway plan and it failed, so they changed some parameters to make it work -- my understanding is that it was the surprise appearance of the USS Yorktown, which by all rights should have still been undergoing repairs from Coral Sea, which turned that battle.In our current situation, I can see a scenario in which Trump is removed from office (eg, through impeachment and removal, the 25th Amendment, getting voted out of office) and chooses to flee the country for a safe haven such as Russia. If it's getting voted out of office, I can see him fleeing in Air Force One.Hopefully, those seeking justice will have done their own wargaming in order to anticipate every possible scenario and to have plans in place to prevent Trump's escape from justice.

Completely false!Without having to think hard (plus I'm in a hurry):

• Violation of campaign finance laws surrounding his payoffs to Stormy Daniels and that dumb bunny for which Michael Cohen is in prison and for which Trump has been named an "unindicted co-conspirator". There is undoubtedly a sealed indictment waiting with Trump's name on it.
  ​
• Innumerable counts of obstruction of justice.
  ​
• Tax fraud and insurance fraud.
  ​
• Violating election finance laws by soliciting a foreign government for things of value.
  ​
• Issuing a false weather warning.
  ​
• Falsifying an official weather map.

That list is by no means exhaustive. And of course, that does not include potentially treasonous acts that will undoubtedly be uncovered once we can examine his financials which he is so incredibly desperate to keep covered up.And that does not count the innumerable impeachable offenses which might not be criminal in nature (eg, emoluments violations from International Hotel in DC (just one case to the tune of about $725 million) and golf trips to his various resorts (costing the gov't more than $10 million) and Saudis using Doral, abuse of office).Trump has committed so many crimes, so if he goes to jail it will be because he so richly deserves it. 
ABE:
Under crimes committed, I'm sure that it must be a crime to order others to violate federal law. Such as the laws regarding the release of IRS tax records to Congressional committees upon request (IOW, "shall" does indeed mean "shall"!). Such as honoring congressional subpoenas.And, of course, Trump's innumerable corruption violations.Edited by dwise1, : ABE

Completely false!Without having to think hard:

• Violation of campaign finance laws surrounding his payoffs to Stormy Daniels and that dumb bunny for which Michael Cohen is in prison and for which Trump has been named an "unindicted co-conspirator". There is undoubtedly a sealed indictment waiting with Trump's name on it.
  ​
• Innumerable counts of obstruction of justice.
  ​
• Tax fraud and insurance fraud.
  ​
• Violating election finance laws by soliciting a foreign government for things of value. Specifically, that's that Ukraine phone call in which the White House admits that Trump did it. Please note that this is separate from any quid pro quo questions. In his interview with Stephanopoulos, Trump stated that he would listen to any dirt that a foreign government had on his opponent, which would also violate that federal law, so he has displayed a willingness to violate the law.
  ​
• Ordering his minions to openly violate federal law; eg:
  • Block the release of Trump's income tax returns to the appropriate congressional committees as explicitly required by law.
    ​
  • Refuse to honor congressional subpoenas.
    ​
  • Pressure their subordinates into refusing to honor congressional subpoenas.
  ​
• Issuing a false weather warning. This is a direct violation of federal law punishable by imprisonment.
  ​
• Falsifying an official weather map. AKA "SharpieGate". This is a direct violation of the same federal law that forbids issuing a false weather warning.
  ​
• Innumerable instances of corruption, including:
  • Pocketing campaign contributions by running campaign offices in Trump-owned properties serviced and catered by Trump-owned businesses. Including Trump-owned properties that were never ever occupied by campaign workers but were paid for nonetheless.
    ​
    Interesting to note is that Trump filed for re-election as soon as was possible, just so he could keep that cash cow going for as long as possible.
    ​
  • Accepting massive donations for his inauguration, including a ball at Trump International organized by Ivanka and for which she was over-charged (ie, what kind of discount does the owner of the hotel get? He gets over-charged, meaning even more donated money flows into his pocket).
    ​
    Trump's inaugural fund was very much larger than Obama's, spent far far less, and has left tens of millions of dollars unaccounted for. (we need an update on this one, but it is being investigated)
    ​
  • Every single time Trump takes a golfing vacation to one of his resorts (I do not know of him ever going anywhere else) he brings in a lot of government money, the profits of which go directly to his own pockets. Every single time he goes golfing, his entire party including him, his staff, security and support troops, and whatever guests need to be housed and fed, all of which is paid to Trump's own resort and hence to Trump himself (minus expenses). Of course, that does not include greens fees and cart rentals and whatever else a golf course charges (I'm not a golfer). What kind of discount does the owner and his party receive? Well, judging from the Inaugural Ball, they must get overcharged, resulting in even more profit for Trump.
    ​
    Please remember how apoplectic conservatives would get over Obama's golf trips. Also remember how campaign Trump strongly criticized Obama for going golfing and swore that he wouldn't have any time for golfing. Well, in just two years Trump far exceeded Obama in time spent golfing. Furthermore, Obama went golfing at local military bases for the cost of a motorcade and derived no monetary profit from it, while Trump only goes to his own resorts at far greater transportation costs as well as exorbitant expenses while there which flow into Trump's own pockets. Last I heard a couple months ago, Trump's golf trips have cost the US government more than $100 million. Well, hypocrite, where is your fucking outrage at that?
    ​
  • Every guest at Trump's International Hotel in DC is putting money into Trump's pockets. Early in the Trump Administration, there was a bill before Congress that Saudi Arabia opposed, so they basically bribed Trump to the tune of about $725,000. They bought a block of rooms at the International Hotel and invited US veterans to come and stay there and dine there at no personal cost to themselves so that they could speak out against this bill.
    ​
    Trump's Doral hotel is wholly owned by him and cannot make a profit, always operating in the red. So a large Saudi party stayed at the hotel and the hotel proudly announced having operated in the black that one quarter. Why would the Saudis go there instead of to Puerto Bans? To grease Trump's palm, of course.
    ​
  • Trump's choice of his own property, Doral, for the G-7 meeting (formerly the G-8 before Russia was kicked out over their invasion of the Ukrain, apparently soon to be the G-6 after the USA gets kicked out over Trump). After overwhelming push-back over that blatantly corrupt choice, Trump backed down.
    ​
    Consider, though, what Trump was trying to line up there:
    • The conference would take place off-season, when the hotel would be operating at its greatest loss due to so many vacancies (who wants to golf in southern-most Florida in the summer?). Having such a massive number of bookings during such a slump would change a huge loss into a much smaller loss, even when pricing accommodations "at cost". IOW, the false claim of "no profits being made here" rings very hollow indeed.
      ​
    • The resort is not in the best of repair. For example, there are only two presidential suites, so what are the other five heads of state supposed to do, bunk together? Obviously there would be a need to upgrade the accommodations. Who would foot that bill? The US government, AKA "us". Then after the G-7 meeting, Doral would have been greatly upgraded at government expense, but only because the owner, Trump, had chosen it.
      ​
    • There will be expanded need for helipads. For that matter, by scanning the grounds on Google Earth I see no evidence of any helipads. Where would those helipads be placed? Obviously, on the golf greens.
      ​
      So after the conference is over, what will happen to those helipads? They will have to go away and the golf greens would need to be restored. Word I hear is that the grounds are in need of refurbishing, which can cost upwards of $10 million. So in the "restoration" of the greens when the helipads are removed, the entire golf course would get a complete refurbishment at US government expense.
      ​
      You worry so much about newly arrived immigrants needing basic support and here's Trump literally taking multiple millions of dollars away from you for his own personal gain.
    ​
  ​
• Questions of national security (many of which could be considered treasonous in the general sense (the legal definition is much stickier)), many of which are under counter-intelligence investigation.

Of course, there are also questions about the sources of Trump's income flows. If they turn out to be Russian, then that could help to explain why with Trump all roads lead to Putin.As a brief aside, let us review the espionage methods for recruiting assets: MICE -- Money, Ideology, Compromise/Coercion, Ego/Extortion. In my 35 years in the US military, I have received standard counter-intelligence training many times. One theme that kept cropping up was that most Americans who sell out their country do so for money; that makes Americans just about the easiest ones to turn just by throwing enough money at them.Of course, Trump is all about the money. And anything that fluffs his ego (reference to porn film fluffers) will definitely have his attention -- eg, reference the at least twice daily "fluffer briefings" especially prepared for Trump to show him all the positive press supporting him. And of course Trump has no ideology.But then there's the matter of compromise. Just coming in the first day, Trump was compromised by Russia. All during his campaign, Trump was supposed to have no financial ties with Russia. Yet all that time, he was still negotiating his Moscow Trump tower with the necessary powers, including Putin. He lied to the people and to the government about having financial ties to Russia. Russia knew that he was lying. Trump knew that Russia knew that he was lying. Putin is KGB ("Committee of Public Safety", if you read the actual Russian which I used to be able to do after a fashion). The KGB knows MICE very well indeed and are artists in its use. Putin knows what compromise is and how to exploit it.Even just with that one "Moscow Tower" lie, Trump was compromised from the very beginning.There still remain far too many questions about Trump's income stream, all of which must still be investigated. Yet Trump insists on preventing all such investigation. So what is he trying to cover up? 
So, Faith. Do you really think that Trump has committed no crimes? Then what are your answers to every single point I raised?

What fucking book are you babbling about?A guy owns a business.A guy gets elected to a high office in the government.A guy sends all government business to that business he owns.That guy is thoroughly corrupt.What the fuck else is there to say? The truth has been presented.That rancid orange piece of shit has presented himself as being guilty of multiple crimes, but because of his office he is technically protected from prosecution for those crimes. Oh you better fucking believe that the truth will come out! And you will find yourself on the side of the Russian traitors opposing AMERICA!!!

IOW, you are being lied to. Repeating the truth shouldn't be so hard. Yes, lies can indeed be very difficult to keep track of. Maybe you should switch to keeping track of the truth instead. A complete and utter lie as I have already described. Once again:

So why is it that while we keep piling the facts on you, you keep running back and hiding under the lyes of your blatantly false shtupid ideology?

Nixon was never impeached. He resigned before Congress could get that far. Ken Starr's investigation against Clinton was a true witch hunt. He kept trying to tie Clinton to that Whitewater death and couldn't, so Brett Kavanaugh talked Starr into asking extremely salacious questions about Clinton's affair and trapped him with perjury. Of course, Kavanaugh came up with the questions, which speak for his lack of character. Trump has committed many crimes in plain sight! But that doesn't matter for impeachment, which is not a criminal procedure and so does not require actual criminal activity, though actual crimes do help make a case for impeachment.The entire question of Trump having committed actual crimes, actual violations of laws, is looking at what awaits him once he is removed from office. And it really looks very very bad for Trump.

So your only response, besides delusional denial, to an enumeration of Trump's wrongdoings including actual violations of laws is to change the subject. In doing so, you are admitting that you have no defense for Trump, that deep down you know that he's guilty as hell.And try to remember that his criminal activity is not the basis for his impeachment. He is being impeached for having violated his oath of office and for his flagrant abuse of the power of his office. And his flagrant violations of the US Constitution. And his flagrant corruption. And his obvious collusion with Putin and other Russian oligarchs.His criminal activity will come to bear once he's out of office and no longer under that OLC memo's protection from prosecution.