Obama on Russia: Who can?????t Forget!

[_subgenius]

“Strongly suggested” is they quite clearly caught Roger Stone doing that, but some of the material on the matter is redacted as he is being prosecuted. I will gladly revise the “strongly suggested” to “did.”

revise it to whatever presupposition you prefer, the facts have not influenced yet, wht start letting them now?
So by "Trump Team" you mean just one guy "Roger Stone".

[_EAllusion]

“Strongly suggested” is they quite clearly caught Roger Stone doing that, but some of the material on the matter is redacted as he is being prosecuted. I will gladly revise the “strongly suggested” to “did.”

revise it to whatever presupposition you prefer, the facts have not influenced yet, wht start letting them now?
So by "Trump Team" you mean just one guy "Roger Stone".

Heh. You haven’t even read what you are trying to gainsay. You might want to look up if Roger Stone talked to anyone about said coordination and if that resulted in Trump campaign foreknowledge of leaks.

[_Kevin Graham]

“Strongly suggested” is they quite clearly caught Roger Stone doing that, but some of the material on the matter is redacted as he is being prosecuted. I will gladly revise the “strongly suggested” to “did.”

[_subgenius]

Heh. You haven’t even read what you are trying to gainsay. You might want to look up if Roger Stone talked to anyone about said coordination and if that resulted in Trump campaign foreknowledge of leaks.

"Heh", you may want to check your context for what propose as being "strongly suggested"...."they" does not translate to "Roger Stone".

but please, continue with your flabbergasted-ness...

[_moksha]

Interesting that anyone could accuse Obama of being soft on Russia while at the same time giving blanket support to Putin's bedmate, even if said bedmate runs starkers around the bedroom shouting, "No coowusion, no coowusion!"

[_honorentheos]

I stand by my comparison. Asking for evidence out of the Mueller report that demonstrates Trump or members of his campaign didn't go to the FBI when the Russians approached them is ignoring that this is why the Mueller report exists in the first place.

It shows a comprehensive lack of understanding on the subject.

If you have a understanding, it should be fairly easy to point me to a cf where Trump knowingly colluded with the "Russians" in order to help him get elected in the report. The Report, or at least the parts that I read do not make that claim.

You're very difficult to converse with, Markk. For many reasons, but most critically because there is a problem in the continuity between a reply to your post and your response.

Starting from the post on page two where you first asked if EA, Mak or I had read the OP and if we had any comments on Obama I answered by pointing you to page 1 where it was discussed. You then asked for a link which I provided to my post. That all happened on page 2.

When you then asked again for a reference, and I reiteraited that had been provided, you moved to making it about my follow-up comment about why it didn't bother you that Trump didn't go to the FBI without really making it clear you had moved on from your last request. If it's a mistake that you do this, I hope you can understand why it's impossible to engage that non-linear ambiguous posting in a meaningful way. If it's intentional, well, that would make you a dick. I'll go with unintentional for now.

Now, I find it a bit flabbergasting that you want me to point you to the part of the Mueller report where it says, "Trump never came to the FBI with information on Russian attempts to influence the election." The reason being, had Trump gone to the FBI with that knowledge there wouldn't have been an FBI investigation seeking to determine if Trump colluded with Russia or tried to obstruct that investigation. Why? Because the FBI would have known he was cooperating with the FBI in their investigation. The existence of the Mueller report is basically your cf.

[_Markk]

You're very difficult to converse with, Markk. For many reasons, but most critically because there is a problem in the continuity between a reply to your post and your response.

Starting from the post on page two where you first asked if EAllusion, Mak or I had read the OP and if we had any comments on Obama I answered by pointing you to page 1 where it was discussed. You then asked for a link which I provided to my post. That all happened on page 2.

When you then asked again for a reference, and I reiteraited that had been provided, you moved to making it about my follow-up comment about why it didn't bother you that Trump didn't go to the FBI without really making it clear you had moved on from your last request. If it's a mistake that you do this, I hope you can understand why it's impossible to engage that non-linear ambiguous posting in a meaningful way. If it's intentional, well, that would make you a dick. I'll go with unintentional for now.

Now, I find it a bit flabbergasting that you want me to point you to the part of the Mueller report where it says, "Trump never came to the FBI with information on Russian attempts to influence the election." The reason being, had Trump gone to the FBI with that knowledge there wouldn't have been an FBI investigation seeking to determine if Trump colluded with Russia or tried to obstruct that investigation. Why? Because the FBI would have known he was cooperating with the FBI in their investigation. The existence of the Mueller report is basically your cf.

Your post is just about me....you asked me a question, I want to answer, but I simply want to understand the context...so please give me the CF (link) to what your question was derived from.

Everybody or anybody with a laptop and and opinion can say the report is the cf...I am most simply asking you to support your assertion, which you seem to be unable to do....a blanket assertion that the report shows that Trump should have reported the Russians to the FBI can’t be supported in my reading of the report. So, show me in the report were Trump alone is guilty of knowing of tampering with the election, and that the FBI. Obama folks, or anyone else, including the press, do not know about it.

I am not being dick, I am asking you to support your assertion...and if it has merit, I will respond. I am not in any way married to Trump as folks seem to accuse me of.

[_Some Schmo]

I am not in any way married to Trump as folks seem to accuse me of.

It's a fair mistake, given the way you talk. You may not be a Trump fan, but it appears you're listening uncritically to people who are.

[_canpakes]

...I am most simply asking you to support your assertion, which you seem to be unable to do....a blanket assertion that the report shows that Trump should have reported the Russians to the FBI can’t be supported in my reading of the report.

Hmm. You are looking for an actual line from the report that states, “Trump should have reported his son’s meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower to the FBI”. Do I have that right?

And if that line cannot be found within the report, then you assert that the meeting represented nothing worth reporting to the FBI? Or that this acceptance of the Russian overture is expected and permissible behavior (if not encouraged, anyway) for Presidential candidates to directly engage in?

You should be clear about what the point is, or what you believe this lack of the specific line you want to see means to you. If you believe as I’m asking above, then I’d like to hear more about why you believe that there’s nothing out of the ordinary with this meeting or the failure to report it to the US intelligence community.

So, show me in the report were Trump alone is guilty of knowing of tampering with the election, and that the FBI. Obama folks, or anyone else, including the press, do not know about it.

And here, am I correct in interpreting that you believe that Obama may have known about the Trump Tower meeting, and that this being the case (in your opinion) that this signals that there was nothing odd with the meeting, or that it was not cause for concern?

I am not being dick, I am asking you to support your assertion...and if it has merit, I will respond. I am not in any way married to Trump as folks seem to accuse me of.

You might also respect his response to this by following up with your own assertions that depend upon his response. Otherwise, it pretty much just looks like you are dodging a plain discussion on this verified event while attempting to distract with your own unproven assertions about Obama and others supposedly knowing about that event. I can’t imagine why you’d do that, right? ; )

[_Markk]

I am not in any way married to Trump as folks seem to accuse me of.

It's a fair mistake, given the way you talk. You may not be a Trump fan, but it appears you're listening uncritically to people who are.

Hey Schmo,
Or you (others with different political views) with others, given the way you write, which is why Hor should clearly back up his assertion. Just making a blanket statement, based on ideological opinion, and assuming it is a given, is not really a convincing argument with others with a different world view, ideology, or perspective... might disagree.