Do Trump supporters believe that the rule of law should now be "forgive and forget"?

No. But I am sure the Mueller Report is on-line, so I'll look there.

 

It's in Volume I, pages 44- 61. Stone told members of the Campaign that he was in contact with Assange. On page 44, same Volume, under "3. Use of Wikileaks," it states "in order to expand its interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections, the GRU units transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to Wikileaks."

 

You asked for a list, I gave you a very thorough list. I even classified them for you depending on the volume of evidence available. Now you don't need to ask "What crimes?" anymore. That does deserve a "thank you" from you. Yes.

It's the proper thing to do.

 

I was expecting a list of indictments or active investigations, not your hope chest.

 

You told me Russians were tried in absentia for this, but the pages you referenced say nothing about that, nor does it indicate Stone was in cahoots with the Russians.

Just like the last couple of years, you guys keep swearing it's all in there somewhere, but can never point out exactly where.

You guys keep making my point.

 

You're not aware that some of the Russians were indicted and convicted in absentia? You should have read the report. Stone was tried and found guilty of various other charges such as lying, jury tampering, etc. They decided not to tie Stone into the Assange-Russian connection because they would have had to expose classified information (most likely information used in conjunction with the Russians). Now that Stone has been pardoned however, he may be interviewed again if the investigation is reopened.

 

If they did not find anything, it is not likely we would hear much.

 

Which relationships both stone and WikiLeaks deny...

 

Right, and Stone was convicted of perjury.

US Intelligence services determined the DNC servers were hacked by Russian Intelligence and sent the documents to Wikileaks. Mueller reports that Assange tried to hide his source by claiming his source was Seth Rich, but the team found the emails between Assange and the Russian persona "Guccifer 2.0":

On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email account to send WikiLeaks an email bearing the subject "big archive" and the message "a new attempt." The email contained an encrypted attachment with the name "wk dnc link I .txt.gpg." Using the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account, GRU officers sent WikiLeaks an encrypted file and instructions on how to open it. On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks confirmed in a direct message to the Gucci fer 2.0 account that it had "the 1 Gb or so archive" and would make a release of the stolen documents "this week." On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC computer networks.

Various witnesses from the Trump campaign (including Steve Bannon) identified Stone as the access point between the campaign and Wikileaks. Direct communications between Stone and Assange were found, and this established that Stone had committed perjury when he claimed to have had no direct communications with Assange. Mueller's team also found emails between Stone and various campaign officials regarding material Wikileaks would soon be releasing.

 

US investigators have the emails between Assange and Russian persona Guciffer 2.0., including the email that contained the stolen emails.

You're playing games with semantics. There is no justification for believing the Trump team conspired with Russia. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Russia interfered by stealing DNC emails, Social media advertising and interactions. It's also undeniable that Trump took advantage of that information, and his campaign was eager to get more (i.e. the Trump Tower meeting).

 

Oh I'm aware of the indictments. I've posted about those on this forum. It's the convictions in absentia I'm not aware of. Perhaps you could provide some sourced detail on that? I wasn't able to find anything searching on my own.

As for Stone, someone told you that he was never tied into an "Assange-Russian connection" because that would have exposed classified information? Uh, did you read those indictments you just mentioned?

So did Q on 8chan tell you that Stone was involved with the Russians? Is he still going to get his and you just have to trust the plan?

 

If you are now saying "There is no justification for believing the Trump team conspired with Russia" then...issue over. That's the same thing I've been saying.

Man you are all over the place on this. On the other thread, you went from skeptic, to believer, and now here back to skeptic again. It's hard to keep up.

Just a hint, but it's easier to go through life if you align your beliefs with data and evidence, rather than starting with some crazy belief and having to go on a quixotic quest to find "data and evidence" to back up your beliefs.

 

My mistake. The Russian individual hackers were NOT tried in absentia, but remain indicted.

 

You say hi to those nameless figments of your imagination

 

You expected a list of "investigations" but asked for "crimes"?

Looks like a vocabulary problem, then

 

Do Trump supporters believe that the rule of law should now be "forgive and forget"?

Given all the forgiving and forgetting after the riots in 2020, i suspect the shoe is on the other foot.

 

The crimes have to be based on something other than your fever dreams.

So ya got nothing then.

Once again.

 

Of course crimes are "based on something". Usually (as is likely the case) on lack of scruples.

But, again: you asked for a list of crimes Trump committed. Not for a psychoanalysis of the criminal.

Looks like you didn't even know what it was you yourself was asking for.

 

I knew that a crime had to be based on more than your say so, and that's all you've provided, which is exactly my point. Is there an indictment? Is there an investigation?

Not, what do you wish would happen.

 

What “evidence”? Real evidence shows the riots were planned days, if not weeks before. Evidence shows the rioter had breeeched the doors and were in the capable before Trump even told the audience to protest peacefully.

 

Irrelevant. If you tell someone to rob a bank, you don't get off the hook because somebody else is already robbing it.

And the people at the Capitol were tuned in to Trump's words. The text messages will be revealing

 

I never said there IS justification for believing Trump conspired with Russian. For example, I said:

I've been consistent. The problem is that you have conflated "conspiracy" with "collusion". Note the above in which I explicitly say "not criminal conspiracy" but that "collusion" is a subjective call, because it's not a legal term.

In epistemological terms: for a belief to be rational, it must be justified. I've argued that one could justify the belief "Trump colluded with Russians" by defining collusion in a manner that entails working toward a common goal. On the other hand, one can't justify that statement if one defines "collusion" as strictly synonymous with "criminal conspiracy". You were judging various people's belief as unjustified based on YOUR definition (collusion=conspiracy). That's why I pointed out that it was semantics.

But no, I don't believe one can justify the belief that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians. In general, there's a lot of unjustified political beliefs out there that are the product of interpreting evidence through a lens of hyperpartisan bias - assuming the worst about the other side.

 

Sorry, that’s just plain silly.

They were there before he called on the listeners to protest peacefully. Not sure what you expect the texts to say.

 

Yes totally silly. Why did you assert a silly argument?

People were communicating by text. We will see what they said.

 

Yes. Several investigations, as a matter of fact.