Farley Caught Obama

It's pretty simple

The FBI did its job here

"don't talk to Russians"

come on homie....
you're a lawyer,work it through.

The Mueller probe was set up to investigate any and all Russian interference in the 2016 election. Conservatives and even some liberals may not realize it was not designed to investigate Trump or his ‘16 election campaign specifically.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019)

However, it is undeniable fact that Trump’s campaign corresponded with Russians about seeking election dirt on HRC. See portion of DJT Jr.’s email chain.

So naturally, certain Trump campaign officials became persons of interest as well. And having become so, evidence of their lawbreaking in different respects was also unearthed.

DJT Jr. himself could have and frankly should have been deposed but likely not because of political sensitivity issues. Trump was breathing down the neck of the Mueller probe the entire time and investigating his son would have added fuel to the fire.

As for Trump himself: Sitting presidents cannot be indicted per OLC guidance. And as we saw from impeachment, Trump would have just ignored any subpoena directed his way regardless.

This is how investigating mob rackets and other corrupt organizations works. Prosecutors start at the bottom and work their way up.

Mueller’s probe was not a “hoax” in the slightest, but instead was successful at shining a spotlight on a whole web of election rigging and criminality.

That said, I’m not confident it found everything out. That task will be left to future investigative reporters and historians, and some nefarious activity may be forever lost to the sands of time.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5556331/mueller-investigation-indictments-guilty-pleas/%3famp=true

More smoking-gun evidence of, at the very least, *attempted* coordination with a representative of the Russian government.

How'd that impeachment work out for you????

Lol. We are still only talking about Russiagate, and Trump wasn’t even impeached for that.

In short: Impeachment with respect to Ukrainegate ran up against a Senate GOP totally uninterested in holding its own elected leader accountable and willing to aid and abet every attempt to obstruct a legitimate investigation.

So many subpoenas went unanswered it is not even funny. In the face of a holistically stonewalling Administration, is impossible to conclude Trump and his closest officials upheld the law.

That information alone is still sufficient to inform the votes of any thinking person in November.

And that’s before the Administration’s criminally incompetent response to Covid-19.

not really interested,

mainly cuz this site is horrendous in engaging on that level,and I have no time to waste on partisan punditry.

notice you did not include the testimony from the CEO of crowdstrike,or harper.

do you even consume ANY independent media?

I mean,i can understand someone still buying into the whole "russiagate" even up to a few months ago,but NOW? STILL?

change the channel homie.
you are being gaslit.
sure..trump is a disaster,but so is the democratic party,and there has been TOO much information that has come out recently to still believe in russiagate.

now you are free to believe what you wish,not here to evangelize anyone.

this ain't a left/right issue..that is the grift.
this has always been about power.

still think you cool peeps mate.
but you are missing the larger picture.
and it is an utter shitshow.

I showed you the smoking-gun email chain.

If you look at that and still conclude there wasn’t a there there, then I have nothing further to say.

let us take a different tact,one where we get garner a baseline of understanding to further our discussions.

who are your favorite dissidents,dissenters and journalists who pushback against the popular narratives being promulgated in our political discourse?

which historians,authors and academics do you admire and who have given a far deeper,and richer understanding of the current world we all reside in,and may have changed views you once held dear?

I ask these questions because in almost every interaction we have,you have consistently pushed the popular narratives that tend to narrowly portray a particular partisan flavor.

while not "wrong" per se',i would submit that your arguments tend to be...incomplete.

so I will offer a counter to your "smoking gun" argument,with a deep-dive examination to the very origins of "russiagate".

the sham prosecution of general Flynn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB26jj0jrjc&t=2378s

I don't really like links to YouTube, but I might get around to watching that.

I used to be quite libertarian, influenced Ron Paul whom I voted for in my first primary election ever in 2008. I read Chomsky in college and he gave me a rich understanding of the left-libertarian tradition and anti-war thought.

I was agnostic in the 2016 elections and voted for Johnson but if I could go back and do it again, would have voted for Clinton. Trump has been too much of a disaster to ignore.

My favorite sources are circled in this graph. I read and cite from both left and right-leaning sources. Sometimes I go as far left as MSNBC or HuffPo or as far right as Fox News but I do not stray much beyond that.

You are more likely to find nonsense that will waste your time.

Chomsky is almost a must-read to understand the media landscape,and yet...your choice of media consumption is decidedly partisan-power-centric.

but fair enough,and I always appreciate when you respond in a thoughtful manner.

notice anything missing from your sources?
actual dissenters and critics of the powerful,institutionalized and highly corporatized media monoliths.

the link is from glenn greenwalds new channel system update.
I figured you would appreciate a lawyers legal break down,and arguments.

I have read much of Chomsky,
but I also feel others such as Sheldon wolin,one of this generations best political theorists (my opinion) and his book "democracy inc" is just as much a staple as chomskys "manufacturing consent".

john Ralston saul is another must-read.

journalists and authors such as Thomas frank,chris hedges,henry Giroux should be indulged as well,having offered serious critique of our current political landscape that I feel is vital to the discussion.

in my opinion,for us to have a productive argument,we must first address,analyze and critique in an open and honest manner before we can ever get to the actual politics.

all politics "IS" is simply "what should we do"?
how can we ever get to that question if we are bickering over the partisanship?
we can't get to the politics if we ignore the more uncomfortable truths,which corporate media conveniently ignores and instead focuses on "manufacturing consent" predicated on partisan biases..be they cultural or ideological.

which is really all I am attempting to do in our exchanges.
get you to pull the camera back a bit,and put the partisanship aside to honestly assess the landscape.

and you will never be able to do that if you are unwilling to listen to the journalists and academics who are challenging common and comfortable narratives that serve the powerful.

you will never see Chomsky,or the like on morning joe,rachel maddow or sean Hannity.

and that is by design.

chris hayes is a complicit c**t.