Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

Which track?  This mess of a thread looks like Penn Station and Grand Central combined.

I say that we cancel this train to nowhere.

"On track"?  What kind of train?  This is from on this thread back in February -

nohero said:
And Mr. Surovell gets his own walk-up song, as determined by Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept

cramer said:

"banned"? My god. You are on the crazy train."

https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/964568647950880768

You need to pull that down! The Ambassador may show up.

Why can't a person start a thread on a topic they are interested in and discuss it with whomever wants to comment?  I thought that was how community message boards were supposed to work.  Why is this thread such a threat that people who don't even contribute to the discussion are calling for it to be shut down?  

nan said:
Why can't a person start a thread on a topic they are interested in and discuss it with whomever wants to comment?  I thought that was how community message boards were supposed to work.  Why is this thread such a threat that people who don't even contribute to the discussion are calling for it to be shut down?  

 It's simple. They are threatened by ideas and information that dissent from their establishment bubble. You could call it intellectual cowardice.

nohero said:
"On track"?  What kind of train?  This is from on this thread back in February -

nohero said:
And Mr. Surovell gets his own walk-up song, as determined by Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept

cramer said:

"banned"? My god. You are on the crazy train."

https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/964568647950880768

 

Gee, it's a gratuitous "South_Mountaineer" Go-After-Paul-on-Twitter post -- by @nohero! By the guy who said:

In my long experience on this message board, when a thread has gone off the rails like this, and devolves into just some poster complaining about other posters and making it all about him, it has reached the end of its useful life.  Just sayin' ...

With regard to the Tweet, Jeremy calmed down and if you look at the subsequent tweets, we had a good dialogue.

Aside: Jeremy, like Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter and Matt Hoh, spoke at a South Mountain Peace Action event (on the US bombing of Yugoslavia).  Coincidentally, Masha Gessen has a piece in the New Yorker about how US war crimes in Yugoslavia (we bombed many civilian targets) caused a rift between Clinton and Yeltsin laying the foundation for the US-Russia split which has evolved into a new Cold War.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-undoing-of-bill-clinton-and-boris-yeltsin-friendship-and-how-it-changed-both-countries

sbenois said:
Which track?  This mess of a thread looks like Penn Station and Grand Central combined.


I say that we cancel this train to nowhere.

 Fear of ideas.

nan said:
Why can't a person start a thread on a topic they are interested in and discuss it with whomever wants to comment?  I thought that was how community message boards were supposed to work.  Why is this thread such a threat that people who don't even contribute to the discussion are calling for it to be shut down?  

And why can't a person comment on social media without having a disagreement called an attack?  Or even without having it be called "weird"?

paulsurovell is describing himself with this comment:

paulsurovell said:

It's simple. They are threatened by ideas and information that dissent from their establishment bubble. You could call it intellectual cowardice.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/14/woodward_no_evidence_of_collusion_between_trump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

Hugh Hewitt: So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?

Bob Woodward: I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard. And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.

Hugh Hewitt: But you’ve seen no collusion?

Bob Woodward: I have not.

paulsurovell said:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/14/woodward_no_evidence_of_collusion_between_trump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

Hugh Hewitt: So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?
Bob Woodward: I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard. And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.
Hugh Hewitt: But you’ve seen no collusion?
Bob Woodward: I have not.

 The book is called "Fear: Trump in the White House".  I'm glad that Woodward didn't see any collusion going on in the White House.  It doesn't prove anything.

It's like this.  Manafort plead guilty to the crimes he was charged with.  It doesn't prove anything about collusion.  So don't listen to these guys.

Rudy Giuliani on Manafort plea deal: "The reality is, [there is] no evidence of collusion. All you have to do is look at the plea. The plea is to crimes that have to do with Manafort's past." #Hannity https://t.co/AcUJB7xhAL pic.twitter.com/5CLplQ1kv6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 15, 2018

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:
Which track?  This mess of a thread looks like Penn Station and Grand Central combined.


I say that we cancel this train to nowhere.

 Fear of ideas.

Fear of the little cowboys out there getting stuck on the ole wagon train to nowhere partner.    

Time to feed the horses so I gotta go.    

Gallop on!   

paulsurovell said:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/14/woodward_no_evidence_of_collusion_between_trump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

Hugh Hewitt: So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?
Bob Woodward: I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard. And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.
Hugh Hewitt: But you’ve seen no collusion?
Bob Woodward: I have not.

 As it turns out, that's not the only point in the interview where Hewitt asked Woodward about collusion.  The article that paulsurovell relied on says at the end -

Hewitt would once again ask Woodward about collusion at the conclusion of the interview.

"Very last question, Bob Woodward, I just want to confirm, at the end of two years of writing this book, this intensive effort, you saw no effort, you, personally, had no evidence of collusion or espionage by the president presented to you?" Hewitt asked.

"That is correct," Woodward said.

But that's not Woodward's complete answer.  The article left out an important part - it seems deliberate, to give a false impression of what Woodward's position is.  There's a transcript provided by Hugh Hewitt -

http://www.hughhewitt.com/bob-woodward-on-his-new-book-fear/

- with Woodward's complete answer:

HH: That’s the best part of the book in terms of, I mean, if the Trump people had read the book, they would have seized on that. Very last question, Bob Woodward, I just want to confirm, at the end of two years of writing this book, this intensive effort, you saw no effort, you, personally, had no evidence of collusion or espionage by the president presented to you?

BW: That is correct. But here’s what’s important. You know where the answer to that is? See, I do on the ground reporting with real people, documents, notes, diaries. The answer to that question, where does it lie, not in the United States. It lies in Russia. And if Russia weren’t Russia, I’d go there and try to report on this.

So that's another reason not to get too excited about Woodward saying he didn't see any collusion evidence in his research.  

paulsurovell said:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/14/woodward_no_evidence_of_collusion_between_trump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

Hugh Hewitt: So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?
Bob Woodward: I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard. And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.
Hugh Hewitt: But you’ve seen no collusion?
Bob Woodward: I have not.

 hmm.

Was Woodward looking for collusion? Doesn't appear so. No wonder he didn't find any.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/14/woodward_no_evidence_of_collusion_between_trump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

Hugh Hewitt: So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?
Bob Woodward: I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard. And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.
Hugh Hewitt: But you’ve seen no collusion?
Bob Woodward: I have not.

 As it turns out, that's not the only point in the interview where Hewitt asked Woodward about collusion.  The article that paulsurovell relied on says at the end -

Hewitt would once again ask Woodward about collusion at the conclusion of the interview.

"Very last question, Bob Woodward, I just want to confirm, at the end of two years of writing this book, this intensive effort, you saw no effort, you, personally, had no evidence of collusion or espionage by the president presented to you?" Hewitt asked.

"That is correct," Woodward said.

But that's not Woodward's complete answer.  The article left out an important part - it seems deliberate, to give a false impression of what Woodward's position is.  There's a transcript provided by Hugh Hewitt -
http://www.hughhewitt.com/bob-woodward-on-his-new-book-fear/
- with Woodward's complete answer:

HH: That’s the best part of the book in terms of, I mean, if the Trump people had read the book, they would have seized on that. Very last question, Bob Woodward, I just want to confirm, at the end of two years of writing this book, this intensive effort, you saw no effort, you, personally, had no evidence of collusion or espionage by the president presented to you?

BW: That is correct. But here’s what’s important. You know where the answer to that is? See, I do on the ground reporting with real people, documents, notes, diaries. The answer to that question, where does it lie, not in the United States. It lies in Russia. And if Russia weren’t Russia, I’d go there and try to report on this.

So that's another reason not to get too excited about Woodward saying he didn't see any collusion evidence in his research.  

The problem with what you've cited by Woodward, is that it's illogical.

Collusion is by definition a bilateral relationship, in this case allegedly between Americans in America (the Trump campaign) and Russian government officials in Russia (or America).

So to say that the answer to collusion is in Russia is to misconstrue the subject being investigated. Collusion would have had to be carried out by Americans in America in coordination with Russians in Russia or in America.  Woodward looked "hard" to find collusion on the American side and found nothing.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/14/woodward_no_evidence_of_collusion_between_trump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

Hugh Hewitt: So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?
Bob Woodward: I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard. And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.
Hugh Hewitt: But you’ve seen no collusion?
Bob Woodward: I have not.

 hmm.
Was Woodward looking for collusion? Doesn't appear so. No wonder he didn't find any.

 What did he mean when he said "I looked for it, looked hard?"

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

But that's not Woodward's complete answer.  The article left out an important part - it seems deliberate, to give a false impression of what Woodward's position is.  There's a transcript provided by Hugh Hewitt -
http://www.hughhewitt.com/bob-woodward-on-his-new-book-fear/
- with Woodward's complete answer:

HH: That’s the best part of the book in terms of, I mean, if the Trump people had read the book, they would have seized on that. Very last question, Bob Woodward, I just want to confirm, at the end of two years of writing this book, this intensive effort, you saw no effort, you, personally, had no evidence of collusion or espionage by the president presented to you?

BW: That is correct. But here’s what’s important. You know where the answer to that is? See, I do on the ground reporting with real people, documents, notes, diaries. The answer to that question, where does it lie, not in the United States. It lies in Russia. And if Russia weren’t Russia, I’d go there and try to report on this.

So that's another reason not to get too excited about Woodward saying he didn't see any collusion evidence in his research.  

The problem with what you've cited by Woodward, is that it's illogical.
Collusion is by definition a bilateral relationship, in this case allegedly between Americans in America (the Trump campaign) and Russian government officials in Russia (or America).

So to say that the answer to collusion is in Russia is to misconstrue the subject being investigated. Collusion would have had to be carried out by Americans in America in coordination with Russians in Russia or in America.  Woodward looked "hard" to find collusion on the American side and found nothing.

 That's irrelevant.  You cited Woodward in support of your "NO COLLUSION" claim.  You didn't show everything he said on the subject.  You left out his OPINION about where he thinks that investigation should focus, and his OPINION that he wasn't in the right place.

It doesn't matter whether you think it's "illogical" or not.  It's what Woodward thinks about his OWN WORK, and the significance of not finding "collusion" in the White House during the time HE was looking at.  That's why I quoted it, and you're just trying to ignore it with a response that has nothing to do with my comment.

You're just moving the goalposts, and changing the subject of the discussion.  That's something that you do over and over again.  It's not making a point, it just shows how flimsy your attacks on the Mueller investigation are.  They're all over the place.  As others have pointed out, its the "conspiracy theory" technique of rearranging random and unrelated things.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/14/woodward_no_evidence_of_collusion_between_trump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

Hugh Hewitt: So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?
Bob Woodward: I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard. And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.
Hugh Hewitt: But you’ve seen no collusion?
Bob Woodward: I have not.

 hmm.
Was Woodward looking for collusion? Doesn't appear so. No wonder he didn't find any.

 What did he mean when he said "I looked for it, looked hard?"

 Why don't you tell us instead of always going back to the questions?  You have his entire description.  He didn't find it there during the time he was looking at.  He may have "looked for it hard" within the narrow time frame (Trump in the White House), but he didn't say that it couldn't have happened some other time, and he SPECIFICALLY said that he'd look elsewhere.  Since he's a professional at this, his opinion about that means something.

South_Mountaineer said:
It's like this.  Manafort plead guilty to the crimes he was charged with.  It doesn't prove anything about collusion.  So don't listen to these guys.



 What's interesting about Manafort's indictment is that it says he was working to bring Ukraine into the EU under a program "Engage Ukraine" -- a pro-West position -- not working for Putin, as stated by Rick Gates in his testimony.  Not good for the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

https://www.scribd.com/document/388600673/Manafort-Superseding-Doc
 

28.  In another example, on May 16, 2013, another member of the Hapsburg Group lobbied in the United States for Ukraine. The Hapsburg Group member accompanied his country’s prime minister to the Oval Office and met with the President and Vice President of the United States, as well as senior United States officials in the executive and legislative branches. In written communications sent to MANAFORT, Person D1 reported that the Hapsburg Group member delivered a message of "not letting Russians steal Ukaine from the West.” The Foreign Agents Registration Act required MANAFORT to disclose such lobbying, as MANAFORT knew. He did not.

Apparently Manafort's plea deal may put other US lobbyists, including Democrats, at risk. Not good for the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/14/woodward_no_evidence_of_collusion_between_trump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

Hugh Hewitt: So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?
Bob Woodward: I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard. And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.
Hugh Hewitt: But you’ve seen no collusion?
Bob Woodward: I have not.

 hmm.
Was Woodward looking for collusion? Doesn't appear so. No wonder he didn't find any.

 What did he mean when he said "I looked for it, looked hard?"

 Why don't you tell us instead of always going back to the questions?  You have his entire description.  He didn't find it there during the time he was looking at.  He may have "looked for it hard" within the narrow time frame (Trump in the White House), but he didn't say that it couldn't have happened some other time, and he SPECIFICALLY said that he'd look elsewhere.  Since he's a professional at this, his opinion about that means something.

 I think normal people understand what an investigative reporter says when he says he "looked hard" for Russia collusion but found nothing.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

But that's not Woodward's complete answer.  The article left out an important part - it seems deliberate, to give a false impression of what Woodward's position is.  There's a transcript provided by Hugh Hewitt -
http://www.hughhewitt.com/bob-woodward-on-his-new-book-fear/
- with Woodward's complete answer:

HH: That’s the best part of the book in terms of, I mean, if the Trump people had read the book, they would have seized on that. Very last question, Bob Woodward, I just want to confirm, at the end of two years of writing this book, this intensive effort, you saw no effort, you, personally, had no evidence of collusion or espionage by the president presented to you?

BW: That is correct. But here’s what’s important. You know where the answer to that is? See, I do on the ground reporting with real people, documents, notes, diaries. The answer to that question, where does it lie, not in the United States. It lies in Russia. And if Russia weren’t Russia, I’d go there and try to report on this.

So that's another reason not to get too excited about Woodward saying he didn't see any collusion evidence in his research.  

The problem with what you've cited by Woodward, is that it's illogical.
Collusion is by definition a bilateral relationship, in this case allegedly between Americans in America (the Trump campaign) and Russian government officials in Russia (or America).

So to say that the answer to collusion is in Russia is to misconstrue the subject being investigated. Collusion would have had to be carried out by Americans in America in coordination with Russians in Russia or in America.  Woodward looked "hard" to find collusion on the American side and found nothing.

 That's irrelevant.  You cited Woodward in support of your "NO COLLUSION" claim.  You didn't show everything he said on the subject.  You left out his OPINION about where he thinks that investigation should focus, and his OPINION that he wasn't in the right place.
It doesn't matter whether you think it's "illogical" or not.  It's what Woodward thinks about his OWN WORK, and the significance of not finding "collusion" in the White House during the time HE was looking at.  That's why I quoted it, and you're just trying to ignore it with a response that has nothing to do with my comment.
You're just moving the goalposts, and changing the subject of the discussion.  That's something that you do over and over again.  It's not making a point, it just shows how flimsy your attacks on the Mueller investigation are.  They're all over the place.  As others have pointed out, its the "conspiracy theory" technique of rearranging random and unrelated things.

 Wow. So defensive. You need to chill. Maybe go offline and get @nohero@ online.

Saddle up pardner!  

Ok, so Woodward looked hard and could not find any collusion and Manfort was trying to get the Ukraine into the EU (as were Biden, McCain, the CIA, etc.).  Not looking good for Russiagate.  

Be Careful What You Ask For: Wasting Time with Manafort, Cohen, and Russiagate

By the way, for those who think that Manafort’s conviction portends a smoking gun, based on his work for “pro-Kremlin Viktor Yanukovych,” as the NYT and other liberals persistently call him, I would suggest looking at this Twitter thread by Aaron Maté. It’s a brilliant shredding of Rachel Maddow’s (and, to a lesser extent, Chris Hayes’s) version of the deceptive implication—presented as an indisputable fact—that Manafort’s work for Yanukovych is proof that he (and by extension, Trump) was working for Putin. As Maté shows, that is actually indisputably false. Manafort was working hard to turn Yanukovych away from Russia to the EU and the West, and the evidence of that is abundant and easily available. It was given in the trial, though you’d never know that from reading the NYT or listening to MSNBC. As a former Ukraine Foreign Ministry spokesman said: “If it weren’t for Paul, Ukraine would have gone under Russia much earlier. He was the one dragging Yanukovich to the West.” And the Democrats know this.

Manafort was working hard to turn Yanukovych away from Russia to the EU and the West, and the evidence of that is abundant and easily available.

Please provide a link the abundant and easily available evidence.

A huge push of Sputnik News is to push the "Manafort tried to get Ukraine into the EU" angle - such as this:

https://sputniknews.com/us/201808081067029992-rick-gates-paul-manafort-ukraine/

And just an additional note here - I believe Manafort's advice to Yanukovych were in the best interest of Yanukovych.  He would have probably stayed in power longer had he heeded this advice.  

But to those on the outside - this allegation sounds very pro-Ukraine.  

jamie said:

Manafort was working hard to turn Yanukovych away from Russia to the EU and the West, and the evidence of that is abundant and easily available.

Please provide a link the abundant and easily available evidence.
A huge push of Sputnik News is to push the "Manafort tried to get Ukraine into the EU" angle - such as this:
https://sputniknews.com/us/201808081067029992-rick-gates-paul-manafort-ukraine/

 Facts are facts, even on Sputnik news.  The best place to check would be a transcript of Gate's testimony.  I looked but could not find that.  However, here is a reference from the Guardian, which I'm guessing you find acceptable:

'The secret Rick Gates': ex-Trump aide is evasive at Manafort trial

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/07/manafort-trial-latest-rick-gates-defence-lawyers-question

His consultancy work also included “Engage Ukraine”, an effort to help Ukraine join the European Union.

Government lawyers have previously referred to Yanukovych as Manafort’s “golden goose”. After Yanukovych lost power in 2014, “I would say it decreased the income stream”, Gates, wearing a blue suit, told the court matter-of-factly.

He added Manafort worked for a time for the Opposition Bloc, the party that replaced Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, but it was out of power and so “income streams were more difficult to come by”.

How hard did Manafort have to work to turn Yanukovych away from Russia at the time? In contrast to the account by the former Foreign Ministry spokesman (Oleg Voloshin), what this 2013 Reuters article suggests is: Not very.

Special Report: Why Ukraine Spurned the EU and Embraced Russia

The Opposition Bloc, which hired Manafort as a consultant after Yanukovych’s demise, opposes EU membership. Have connections, will travel.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

What did he mean when he said "I looked for it, looked hard?"

 Why don't you tell us instead of always going back to the questions?  You have his entire description.  He didn't find it there during the time he was looking at.  He may have "looked for it hard" within the narrow time frame (Trump in the White House), but he didn't say that it couldn't have happened some other time, and he SPECIFICALLY said that he'd look elsewhere.  Since he's a professional at this, his opinion about that means something.

 I think normal people understand what an investigative reporter says when he says he "looked hard" for Russia collusion but found nothing.

 And I think normal people understand that what I highlighted in my previous response, is the same response to your "I think normal people understand" comment.

He "looked hard", but he was looking "hard" at the goings-on in the White House during the time he was looking at it.  Or are you going to ignore his own explanation of what he meant (would not be the first time for you)?

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 That's irrelevant.  You cited Woodward in support of your "NO COLLUSION" claim.  You didn't show everything he said on the subject.  You left out his OPINION about where he thinks that investigation should focus, and his OPINION that he wasn't in the right place.
It doesn't matter whether you think it's "illogical" or not.  It's what Woodward thinks about his OWN WORK, and the significance of not finding "collusion" in the White House during the time HE was looking at.  That's why I quoted it, and you're just trying to ignore it with a response that has nothing to do with my comment.
You're just moving the goalposts, and changing the subject of the discussion.  That's something that you do over and over again.  It's not making a point, it just shows how flimsy your attacks on the Mueller investigation are.  They're all over the place.  As others have pointed out, its the "conspiracy theory" technique of rearranging random and unrelated things.

 Wow. So defensive. You need to chill. Maybe go offline and get @nohero@ online.

 Seems you're the "defensive" one.  I pointed out something you either ignored or didn't care enough to think about, because you thought you had a "Nyah, Nyah, no collusion" point courtesy of Bob Woodward.  So "chill", yourself.

DaveSchmidt said:
How hard did Manafort have to work to turn Yanukovych away from Russia at the time? In contrast to the account by the former Foreign Ministry spokesman (Oleg Voloshin), what this 2013 Reuters article suggests is: Not very.
Special Report: Why Ukraine Spurned the EU and Embraced Russia
The Opposition Bloc, which hired Manafort as a consultant after Yanukovych’s demise, opposes EU membership. Have connections, will travel.

Manafort was not going to win his arguments for Ukraine to go with the EU because it was a lousy deal. That article is all over the place in terms of explaining this but basically joing with the EU would have meant an austerity program benefiting the rich over the people.  They do say this in the article in between unneeded paragraphs about egos and revenge:

But the unwillingness of the EU and International Monetary Fund to be flexible in their demands of Ukraine also had an effect, making them less attractive partners.

And so he did not go with the EU and he was replaced in a US-backed coup with bad economic consequences as predicted. https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1041406053169156101