Why were MSNBC et al.. and liberals so wrong about claims of Russian collusion with Trump

[Subduction Zone]

Except that only publicly presented request for help looked very tongue in cheek.
If every joke by every politician were taken seriously, this would be interesting.
In any event, what independent evidence of collusion has yet been found?
Without it, the claim is as cromulent as Obama's being a Muslim secret agent.

Yep, it was a rather stupid thing for him to do since to many it appeared to be very serious, but that ill considered plea was not evidence of him colluding. Was it evidence that Trump is not that bright? Yes I would say that, since it could only come back to hurt him.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It may be impossible to prove Collusion with Russia
But Russia was certainly active on Trumps behalf during the election.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep, it was a rather stupid thing for him to do since to many it appeared to be very serious, but that ill considered plea was not evidence of him colluding. Was it evidence that Trump is not that bright? Yes I would say that, since it could only come back to hurt him.

I've noticed that Trump has a poor sense of impressions he makes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem here is that we aren't supposed to use dicey investigations in order to go on fishing expeditions. It's against the whole idea of the law. I'm not sure it's not downright unconstitutional, frankly.

Something about 'the fruit of the poisonous tree...' where evidence of a crime that is discovered by doing unlawful searches being inadmissible in court?

I know that there are other examples of when this sort of thing turns around and bites the investigators on the behind, but the one that springs immediately to mind with me is the raid on the FLDS compound in 2008. I'm familiar with that because I was taking a class at the time in ...I forget the class, actually. Whatever, I ended up writing a paper on it, doing the research as it happened. Now the FLDS are major embarrassments to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, the church I belong to. It is a polygamous offshoot, with a leader who absolutely is one of the nastiest pedophile creeps on the planet. I don't agree with their doctrine or their practices.

Just wanted to get that out there.

Well, the state of Texas Child Protection Agency got a call from a women who claimed to be calling from inside the FLDS compound, claiming that she was a prisoner and needed rescuing. As it happened, that call was really from a woman in Wyoming who had a habit of making such calls in order to get groups she hated in trouble. Here's the fun and important part: the CPA KNEW that call was phony before they invaded the compound. They knew it almost as soon as they got it. They used it anyway as an excuse to send SWAT teams, tanks, K-9 corps and snipers after the folks in the compound, and carted away all the women and children in Baptist Buses. BTW, that's the part that caught my attention. Over the next weeks and months Texas had the children separated from the mothers, claimed that 22 year old women were really fourteen and victims of child abuse, put those kids in foster care....and they used what they learned in the process to justify keeping the women in detention centers, and to gather evidence against their husbands and sons.

They kept doing that even after the courts told them to turn everybody loose and leave them alone. Their excuse for not doing so was that if they did, they wouldn't be able to fish around for more stuff to use against the group. Eventually, the Texas CPA was forced to turn the women loose and give them back their children, and almost all the evidence gathered through this process was thrown out. The FLDS women are still fighting, because the Texas CPA just doesn't seem to want to give up.

I predict, however, that every man who was indicted and convicted as a result of that raid and the aftermath will end up freed, if they can afford to kick the cases upstairs, and Texas would be in for one heck of a lawsuit. If, of course, the state legislature approves. Texas can't be sued unless the legislature allows it. Somehow I don't think, given the probable outcome, that it will.

This thing with Trump is the same thing. Doesn't matter whether you agree with him or not. Doesn't matter if you like him or not. What is happening is a real miscarriage of justice, and the Dems should think ahead. If they get away with this, someday the Republicans WILL be in the position to do the same thing to their leader. What defense can they make when that happens?

That would put the burden of proof upon Trump and company to prove that the investigation was illegal. It does not appear to be. That Russia attempted to interfere in the election has been shown to be the case. That Trump said stupid things that made it look like he might have been colluding is also rather obvious. Lucky for Trump he was merely stupid in what he said and not in what he did. If there was reasonable cause for the investigation then anything turned up in a legal investigation is still legit. At least by my understanding of the law. Perhaps we have a lawyer here that can clarify this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may be impossible to prove Collusion with Russia
But Russia was certainly active on Trumps behalf during the election.

That Russia clearly favored Trump does not make Trump guilty. It only means that we need to watch Trump very closely in any dealings with Russia. Countries often have a preference in a rivals leadership. I am anti-Trump, but I never based my claims on the collusion charges but on the additional information dug up by the various investigations.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That Russia clearly favored Trump does not make Trump guilty. It only means that we need to watch Trump very closely in any dealings with Russia. Countries often have a preference in a rivals leadership. I am anti-Trump, but I never based my claims on the collusion charges but on the additional information dug up by the various investigations.

His business affairs in the UK put me off him long before he stood for office.

 

[dianaiad]

That would put the burden of proof upon Trump and company to prove that the investigation was illegal. It does not appear to be. That Russia attempted to interfere in the election has been shown to be the case. That Trump said stupid things that made it look like he might have been colluding is also rather obvious. Lucky for Trump he was merely stupid in what he said and not in what he did. If there was reasonable cause for the investigation then anything turned up in a legal investigation is still legit. At least by my understanding of the law. Perhaps we have a lawyer here that can clarify this.

The problem is that the reason for many of the searches was absolutely illegal...and proven to be so; remember that false document? Even if the search was legal (debatable) anything found that doesn't have anything to do with the think under investigation is not supposed to be allowed.

You know....like the way a search warrant that allows the cops to search for a murder weapon...a knife, say...does not allow them to go tearing the house apart, looking for anything else, after they found that knife.

Oh, and just as a side issue; why weren't there a whole bunch of liberals insisting on special prosecutors and FBI investigations after Obama said to Medvedev (basically, to Putin) 'I'll have more flexibility after the election." If that wasn't collusion and a solicitation to interfere with the election I don't know what is. It's certainly more blatant than anything the Trump folks have been accused of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that the reason for many of the searches was absolutely illegal...and proven to be so; remember that false document? Even if the search was legal (debatable) anything found that doesn't have anything to do with the think under investigation is not supposed to be allowed.

You know....like the way a search warrant that allows the cops to search for a murder weapon...a knife, say...does not allow them to go tearing the house apart, looking for anything else, after they found that knife.

Oh, and just as a side issue; why weren't there a whole bunch of liberals insisting on special prosecutors and FBI investigations after Obama said to Medvedev (basically, to Putin) 'I'll have more flexibility after the election." If that wasn't collusion and a solicitation to interfere with the election I don't know what is. It's certainly more blatant than anything the Trump folks have been accused of.

Please be clear. Why was the investigation illegal? I need specifics and links to reliable sources. If a there is a warrant search of a house and the person is found to be innocent of the crime that they were charged with but other evidence is found that evidence is legal as long as the warrant was legal. It would have to have been based on probably cause. In this case the additional information turned up long before the "search" was over. The "knife" in this case was not found. There would be no end to the search but that criteria.

 

[Riders]

Uh where did you get your info? Muellers report says it neither exonerates him and makes him guillty, hes not exonerated and several other agency's are investigating collusion too and Dems will investigate for themselves sorry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh where did you get your info? Muellers report says it neither exonerates him and makes him guillty, hes not exonerated and several other agency's are investigating collusion too and Dems will investigate for themselves sorry.

No, it says that he is exonerated of collusion charges. On the rest of ways that is has not found enough info either way. He is exonerated of collusion charges only. Obstruction could, please note that is a could, still be proven:

Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction

 

[Twilight Hue]

Uh where did you get your info? Muellers report says it neither exonerates him and makes him guillty, hes not exonerated and several other agency's are investigating collusion too and Dems will investigate for themselves sorry.

I suppose that's okay as long as they don't mind belonging to an openly vindictive and petty minded political party that's poorly informed and don't think things out too well. I'd say go for it full steam. If you only knew how the Democrat Party actually looks to people now with so much egg on their face acting as if they got a handle on things .

 

[Riders]

I suppose that's okay as long as they don't mind belonging to an openly vindictive and petty minded political party that's poorly informed and don't think things out too well. I'd say go for it full steam. If you only knew how the Democrat Party actually looks to people now with so much egg on their face acting as if they got a handle on things .

I think there lots of proof hes committed several crimes but I think the sitting president influenced perception and partly that Mueller did not feel it was his duty to do this investigation.

Considering the fact that 5 other groups are investigating him I believe you are wrong celebrate all you want he was be investigated by several other people including the fbi oh you guys didn't know that? apparently not with he way you are laughing and celebrating but O knew Mueller would have nothing from the get go. Strange yall are acting like your surprised I already knew and not holding onto Mueller finding anything at all.

 

[Riders]

Why attack Dems Dems are doing the best they can with President from planet MArs.

 

[dianaiad]

Please be clear. Why was the investigation illegal? I need specifics and links to reliable sources. If a there is a warrant search of a house and the person is found to be innocent of the crime that they were charged with but other evidence is found that evidence is legal as long as the warrant was legal. It would have to have been based on probably cause. In this case the additional information turned up long before the "search" was over. The "knife" in this case was not found. There would be no end to the search but that criteria.

If the investigation is based upon fraudulent documents (and it was) then it is illegal.

Try reading the fourth amendment.

And why isn't anybody addressing Obama's remarks to Medvedev?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the investigation is based upon fraudulent documents (and it was) then it is illegal.

Try reading the fourth amendment.

And why isn't anybody addressing Obama's remarks to Medvedev?

It depends upon the source of the fraud. Please support your claims. Links are your friend.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lie, I think.

But I hope we will see a lot more of the Mueller report and be better informed.

Considering things again, to say Trump is lying is an unreasonable stretch.
Let's look at what "exonerate" means.....
Exoneration - Wikipedia

Exoneration occurs when the conviction for a crime is reversed, either through demonstration of innocence, a flaw in the conviction, or otherwise. Attempts to exonerate convicts are particularly controversial in death penalty cases, especially where new evidence is put forth after the execution has taken place. The transitive verb, "to exonerate" can also mean to informally absolve one from blame.

Clearly, there was no court verdict to overturn. Nay, there was never even a trial,
except in the court of leftish public opinion. This would make his proclamation
metaphorical. As far as their primary accusation, Russian collusion, goes,
the info we've seen so far pretty much does "absolve one [him] from blame",
because they found no evidence upon which to try him.

 

[dianaiad]

It depends upon the source of the fraud. Please support your claims. Links are your friend.

Sure:

Years later, Trump dossier still frustrates verification efforts

And

Did FBI get bamboozled by multiple versions of Trump dossier?

and
The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why

there are more, from the Washington Post and the New York Times, but I absolutely refuse to subscribe to either one, and I won't reference them to those who also might not subscribe. It is well known, even by the left (and it was known at the time) that most of that 'dossier" was 'fake news,' unverifiable and pretty much supermarket tabloid junk. Still it was used to obtain warrants.

This makes those warrants illegal by any measure, and anything found as a result is tainted. Especially when the bounds of the warrants themselves were so broken and used as fishing expeditions. This whole thing has been an exercise in political game playing. I resent that our justice system has been used so.

....and I call 'em as I see 'em, whether I like the target of such shenanigans or not. Remember the 'birther' thing? I really did not like Obama's politics or policies. I did not vote for him. However, when a bunch of idiots started in on the legality of his birth as a 'natural born American Citizen," I let 'em know that they were idiots.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure:

Years later, Trump dossier still frustrates verification efforts

And

Did FBI get bamboozled by multiple versions of Trump dossier?

and
The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why

there are more, from the Washington Post and the New York Times, but I absolutely refuse to subscribe to either one, and I won't reference them to those who also might not subscribe. It is well known, even by the left (and it was known at the time) that most of that 'dossier" was 'fake news,' unverifiable and pretty much supermarket tabloid junk. Still it was used to obtain warrants.

This makes those warrants illegal by any measure, and anything found as a result is tainted. Especially when the bounds of the warrants themselves were so broken and used as fishing expeditions. This whole thing has been an exercise in political game playing. I resent that our justice system has been used so.

....and I call 'em as I see 'em, whether I like the target of such shenanigans or not. Remember the 'birther' thing? I really did not like Obama's politics or policies. I did not vote for him. However, when a bunch of idiots started in on the legality of his birth as a 'natural born American Citizen," I let 'em know that they were idiots.

Sorry, this does not help you. Just a sec. Let me get off of my tablet and into a desktop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@dianaiad okay, on a proper computer. It makes it so much easier to link etc.. You claimed that the info could not be used due to fraud. That is not true and a misunderstanding of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree concept. The investigation into Trump itself was not fraudulent or unconstitutional. That they may have been motivated by bad sources, and I doubt if that is all that their investigation was based upon, that does not make their investigation itself fraudulent, at worst it makes their investigation misguided. That concept does not apply there.

"Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[5] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine. The testimony of a witness who is discovered through illegal means would not necessarily be excluded, however, due to the "attenuation doctrine"[6], which allows certain evidence or testimony to be admitted in court if the link between the illegal police conduct and the resulting evidence or testimony is sufficiently attenuated.[citation needed] For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself."

Fruit of the poisonous tree - Wikipedia

The "searches" were not unconstitutional. Even with your worst case scenario the searches were only based upon false claims that others made, not that the searchers themselves made. That would be an unconstitutional search and anything turned up would be not usable. Even if you claim that there was no "probably cause" that does not matter. There are four clear exceptions to this and that is one of them:

"
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions.[citation needed] The tainted evidence is admissible if:

1. it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
2. it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
3. the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
4. the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception)."

As long as the investigations were done in good faith, and given that the investigation cleared Trump of collusion with the Russians that is rather obviously the case, that exception applies. It is quite clear that you are not using the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree correctly.

 

[dianaiad]

@dianaiad okay, on a proper computer. It makes it so much easier to link etc.. You claimed that the info could not be used due to fraud. That is not true and a misunderstanding of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree concept. The investigation into Trump itself was not fraudulent or unconstitutional. That they may have been motivated by bad sources, and I doubt if that is all that their investigation was based upon, that does not make their investigation itself fraudulent, at worst it makes their investigation misguided. That concept does not apply there.

"Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[5] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine. The testimony of a witness who is discovered through illegal means would not necessarily be excluded, however, due to the "attenuation doctrine"[6], which allows certain evidence or testimony to be admitted in court if the link between the illegal police conduct and the resulting evidence or testimony is sufficiently attenuated.[citation needed] For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself."

Fruit of the poisonous tree - Wikipedia

The "searches" were not unconstitutional. Even with your worst case scenario the searches were only based upon false claims that others made, not that the searchers themselves made. That would be an unconstitutional search and anything turned up would be not usable. Even if you claim that there was no "probably cause" that does not matter. There are four clear exceptions to this and that is one of them:

"
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions.[citation needed] The tainted evidence is admissible if:

1. it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
2. it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
3. the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
4. the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception)."

As long as the investigations were done in good faith, and given that the investigation cleared Trump of collusion with the Russians that is rather obviously the case, that exception applies. It is quite clear that you are not using the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree correctly.

I disagree. The investigations were NOT done in good faith. That one should be obvious even to the most partisan of left wingers. The timing and the people providing the 'evidence' are pretty obvious.

that the investigation cleared Trump (btw, the Democrats certainly don't think it does...) is an 'in spite of,' thing, not 'because of.' What makes it fraud is that those who used it knew that it was tainted before they used it.