Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

spacecoyote

2 Scoops wrote: »

Or the obvious takeaway that Schiff and whoever else in the house intel committee after 14 months still have no evidence despite appearing on media outlets over 250 times since election day and insinuating it. If he and others had their way the investigation would never end and that's exactly what they want.

They had their chance and produced nothing, you can't blame the Republicans. Elections, or majoritys in this case, have consequences.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-say-investigation-found-no-evidence-russia-trump-collusion-n855986

They're not even attempting to say that this is not a political stunt.

a senior Republican on the panel said there was an urgent need to begin making their recommendations known to the public because Americans have already begun voting in midterm elections

So, its incomplete but we've an election coming up so we need to get a partisan message out asap...and one of the key findings...ita Obama's fault

2 Scoops

spacecoyote wrote: »

So, its incomplete but we've an election coming up so we need to get a partisan message out asap...and one of the key findings...ita Obama's fault

Schiff said in March of last year he has evidence of collusion, a year has passed - where is it?

I didn't pull that 250 media appearances out of thin air, it's actually accurate.

spacecoyote

2 Scoops wrote: »

Schiff said in March of last year he has evidence of collusion, a year has passed - where is it?

I didn't pull that 250 media appearances out of thin air, it's actually accurate.

Look, maybe there wasn't any collusion. I have no more evidence than you do, so neither of us can be in any way definitive.

I may have a bias but i made an objective observation, based on a statement that basically said "this is a political move"

If both parties came out together and said, we've completed our investigation & could find no evidence of collusion, then I don't think anyone here would have any problems accepting that.

But that's not what happened. One party (who are in the majority, who fear being in the minority by the end of this year & who the president represents) have released a draft for purely partisan reasons.

It's not subtle.

Maybe nothing will be found, but the reality is, with such strong partisanship neither the house nor Senate committees were ever likely to find anything.

The only investigation that really actually matters is Muellers one, so I'll reserve judgement until he closes his.

2 Scoops

Deleted User wrote: »

"Let's spend years calling 65 million people disgusting and then expect them to give a shlt about our outrage."

I think he missed you point. A certain Democrat in India yesterday during an open session said middle American was backwards and people voted for Trump to stop Women getting jobs and to take rights away from African Americans.

2 Scoops

spacecoyote wrote: »

It's not subtle.

Maybe nothing will be found, but the reality is, with such strong partisanship neither the house nor Senate committees were ever likely to find anything.

The only investigation that really actually matters is Muellers one, so I'll reserve judgement until he closes his.

Schiff's been lying for 14 months, the fact is he has produced nothing and he hasn't acted in good faith. Feinstein deserves some recognition, she's acted with integrity and along with Grassley was one of the few people to come out and say no evidence existed in a bipartisan manner despite the crazed media and intel leaks.

Let's wait and see what Mueller comes up with...

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Schiff said in March of last year he has evidence of collusion, a year has passed - where is it?

I didn't pull that 250 media appearances out of thin air, it's actually accurate.

How long did it take to take down Nixon? Anyway the proper investigation is still ongoing so more evidence could come from that. Do you deny this was done as a PR stunt by the Reps?

I will never understand the American system though. Why are senators looking into this at all? I mean it is Republicans or democrats looking into Republicans or Democrats. It will never be unbiased. In this it is biased in favour of Trump but if a dem was in charge it would be biased against. So if I am ever accused of anything can I get my mates to decide whether I am guilty or not?

If you want evidence Jr. admitted to attempting collusion with the Russians (it is still a crime when you are bad at it). We also have multiple people involved in the campaign (Farage and Stone was it?) who talked to Assange who released the data from the Russian hack (or has Trump gone back to denying it was them - I can never remember which side of that he is on at any given time)

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

How long did it take to take down Nixon? Anyway the proper investigation is still ongoing so more evidence could come from that. Do you deny this was done as a PR stunt by the Reps?

Do you deny Schiff is a hack? If so I'd meet you halfway.

I will never understand the American system though. Why are senators looking into this at all? I mean it is Republicans or democrats looking into Republicans or Democrats. It will never be unbiased. In this it is biased in favour of Trump but if a dem was in charge it would be biased against. So if I am ever accused of anything can I get my mates to decide whether I am guilty or not?

I agree with you, often the ones doing the investigations are implicated themselves. It came out today that Clapper was leaking to CNN in January about the dossier while his public statements wanted to find those who were doing the leaking.

If you want evidence Jr. admitted to attempting collusion with the Russians (it is still a crime when you are bad at it). We also have multiple people involved in the campaign (Farage and Stone was it?) who talked to Assange who released the data from the Russian hack (or has Trump gone back to denying it was them - I can never remember which side of that he is on at any given time)

There's no such law which mentions collusion as a crime rather conspiracy and linking Farage to all of this is nutty. They need to find evidence that Trump and his campaign were offered the emails and they agreed to give something in return, or that Putin was blackmailing Trump. I've seen zilch suggesting that even if the Don JR meeting was shady.

The Clinton campaign planned off record meetings with the Chinese ambassador during the campaign (Jan 2016 iirc) and sought help from the Ukrainian Government to dig up dirt on Paul Manafort, and sought information from foreign sources Steele/Russia to try and get dirt on Trump, so let's not pretend that every campaign runs squeaky clean and this idea of foreign support is some kind of new relevation.

Mueller will have the last word so all we can do is wait.

pitifulgod

Scoops, why don't you wait till the outcome then rather than citing Republicans who are worried about their midterms? Mueller pretty clearly views there to be a probability something shady occured.

spacecoyote

SHOCKING BREAKING NEWS

Republicans investigating Republicans find that Republicans did nothing wrong

:eek::D

2 Scoops

pitifulgod wrote: »

Scoops, why don't you wait till the outcome then rather than citing Republicans who are worried about their midterms? Mueller pretty clearly views there to be a probability something shady occured.

The words clearly and probability are somewhat of a paradox. Either way I'm fine with it, my issue is mostly with Schiff, he's behaved in a disgraceful manner.

People love ripping on Nunez but he was writing op-eds warning about Russia's cyber and propraganda capabilities back in 2014 while Schiff was appearing on RT. The way he's whored himself in the media and ultimately failed to produce anything worthwhile should be frowned upon.

https://nunes.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=393777

2 Scoops

spacecoyote wrote: »

SHOCKING BREAKING NEWS

Republicans investigating Republicans find that Republicans did nothing wrong

:eek::D

And not a tarmac meeting in sight! :P

2 Scoops

2 Scoops wrote: »

I think he missed you point. A certain Democrat in India yesterday during an open session said middle American was backwards and people voted for Trump to stop Women getting jobs and to take rights away from African Americans.

That's hilarious actually..

"I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product," Clinton continued. "So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, 'Make America Great Again,' was looking backwards."

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Do you deny Schiff is a hack? If so I'd meet you halfway.



I agree with you, often the ones doing the investigations are implicated themselves. It came out today that Clapper was leaking to CNN in January about the dossier while his public statements wanted to find those who were doing the leaking.



There's no such law which mentions collusion as a crime rather conspiracy and linking Farage to all of this is nutty. They need to find evidence that Trump and his campaign were offered the emails and they agreed to give something in return, or that Putin was blackmailing Trump. I've seen zilch suggesting that even if the Don JR meeting was shady.

The Clinton campaign planned off record meetings with the Chinese ambassador during the campaign (Jan 2016 iirc) and sought help from the Ukrainian Government to dig up dirt on Paul Manafort, and sought information from foreign sources Steele/Russia to try and get dirt on Trump, so let's not pretend that every campaign runs squeaky clean and this idea of foreign support is some kind of new relevation.

Mueller will have the last word so all we can do is wait.

Why is mentioning Garage nutty? He was certainly involved with Trump. The Jr. Meeting was about removing sanctions (something Trump has been eager to do) in exchange for information on Clinton. At least from Jr's perspective and he said as much.

I have seen none of Schiff's appearances and have largely ignored the pointless political investigation but it does sound like Schiff has been following the Trump playbook of declaring evidence and not providing it so I would condemn him for that.

Yeah the smoking gun is going to be hard to find. I have to imagine the Russians would have been a bit smarter than to send all the details in an email.

Edit: also your main point has nothing to with Schiff who did not get a mention in your opening post which just mentions the investigation (which you agree can be ignored due to bias).

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

Why is mentioning Garage nutty?

If there was something untoward, like a Farage/Assange/Trump/Russia conspiracy I don't think he is stupid enough to meet Assange in public in a place surrounded by cameras and police that he knows would bring media attention.

Peregrinus

2 Scoops wrote: »

If there was something untoward, like a Farage/Assange/Trump/Russia conspiracy I don't think he is stupid enough to meet Assange in public in a place surrounded by cameras and police that he knows would bring media attention.

Ah, now, be fair. He is pretty stupid.

Besides, in Assange's current circumstances if you're going to meet him at all, you can't really avoid the cameras and the police.

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

If there was something untoward, like a Farage/Assange/Trump/Russia conspiracy I don't think he is stupid enough to meet Assange in public in a place surrounded by cameras and police that he knows would bring media attention.

Its too obvious is not a defense (also dang autocorrect - on the post you quoted from me talking about Garage:P )

2 Scoops

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, now, be fair. He is pretty stupid.

Besides, in Assange's current circumstances if you're going to meet him at all, you can't really avoid the cameras and the police.

If it was me I'd use a trusted intermediary like Craig Murray or whoever else visits him there. All speculative anyhow but I don't agree Farage is stupid and I find the idea he's part of a vast conspiracy hard to believe.

pixelburp

I think the more accurate monicker to apply to Trump is 'impulsive'; he acts, and speaks without considering the ramifications or fallout; and while it's all well and good seeing that as some glorious kickback against 'The Man' and establishment politics, the reality is that nothing good has ever happened in diplomatic circles through impulsion, nicknames or off the cuff speaking. Kennedy didn't negotiate the Cuban Missile Crisis by calling Khrushchev 'rocket man' or whatnot. It was through quiet talks through diplomatic channels & a table of intelligent, considered individuals charting incredibly dangerous water.

Has Trump colluded with the Russians? No, I'd say ultimately not directly and the Mueller investigation will likely come to that conclusion.

Has Trump likely conducted his business affairs in an impulsive fashion, not thinking through the ramifications or who might be behind the various curtains of his deals? I'd say no, he never thought fully through on these things - at least not in the context of what that might mean for a political future that started in 2015. So then the question is less about Trump the traitor, and more about Trump the businessman and his facility for good judgement - and THAT'S precisely where a lot of people, including myself, feel Trump is ... well, impulsive. Rash. Basically, a loudmouth patsy, and nowhere near the right kind of individual to be a head of state.

Leroy42

2 Scoops, do you understand how these committees work?

As the majority, the R's (in this case) basically control everything. From who gets called, to the questions asked. Sure, the Dems on the committee get to ask questions, but if you have watched any of it the person (Lets pick Trump Jr for an example) simply claims privilege and refuses to answer and then the R moves onto blaming Obama or HC or something just as off topic.

It isn't that the investigation is simply carried out in a bi-partisan way and the report makes recommendations. From the very start both sides are looking to control the narrative. Nunes (not on this committee but an example) was running to the WH to tell them the information they had found so that he could get their viewpoint on it before letting in the Dems know.

In terms of Schiff saying they had seen evidence, I think this is a mixture of over-egging and having to be careful on wrecking the investigation. Over-egging is the norm in politics (not just in the US) so its a bit rich to lay that on Schiff when that is basically what Trump is entirely based on. In terms of not wrecking the investigation, we have seen that the GOP is more than willing to tear any individual item apart and to muddy the waters. The perfect example being the Trump Jr meeting. Can you imagine had Chelsea Clinton confessed that she had held secret meetings with the Russia to try to obtain stolen American information? But instead we get the GOP saying that he didn't really know what he was doing, nothing happened etc etc.

Leroy42

pixelburp wrote: »

I think the more accurate monicker to apply to Trump is 'impulsive'; he acts, and speaks without considering the ramifications or fallout; and while it's all well and good seeing that as some glorious kickback against 'The Man' and establishment politics, the reality is that nothing good has ever happened in diplomatic circles through impulsion, nicknames or off the cuff speaking. Kennedy didn't negotiate the Cuban Missile Crisis by calling Khrushchev 'rocket man' or whatnot. It was through quiet talks through diplomatic channels & a table of intelligent, considered individuals charting incredibly dangerous water.

Has Trump colluded with the Russians? No, I'd say ultimately not directly and the Mueller investigation will likely come to that conclusion.

Has Trump likely conducted his business affairs in an impulsive fashion, not thinking through the ramifications or who might be behind the various curtains of his deals? I'd say no, he never thought fully through on these things - at least not in the context of what that might mean for a political future that started in 2015. So then the question is less about Trump the traitor, and more about Trump the businessman and his facility for good judgement - and THAT'S precisely where a lot of people, including myself, feel Trump is ... well, impulsive. Rash. Basically, a loudmouth patsy, and nowhere near the right kind of individual to be a head of state.

That's the position that I was in, but his complete failure to even raise any queries on Russia goes against that. Your theory would surely have him doing something rash and stupid, but its actually the complete opposite. He is doing nothing. He is saying nothing, tweeting nothing. 13 Russians charged with attempted interference; not a word. Attack on UK soil; let's wait and see. Putin announces new nuclear weapons; no comment. Sanctions passed by congress; we don't need them.

Why he is so out of character when it comes to Russia? You will not find any negative comments from him about Russia, yet he has called out Australia, Canada, Mexico, China, the EU, NATO, the UN etc.

One needs to ask the questions why? All the evidence points to the position you have about how he behaves, impulsive etc, the only time he doesn't is when it comes to Russia.

No one has been able to offer any explanation of why that is. That doesn't prove collusion or anything but it is a mighty big hole to fill.

You then couple that we the people that surrounded him. Flynn, Manafort, and the fact that he had serious business links to Russia (Eric previously acknowledged that Trump was securing the majority of financing through Russia). He sold a number of properties to Putin linked Russians (as all wealthy people in Russia have to be) for seriously high values, values way out of kilter with the market.

Each part in itself can be looked at in a number of ways (and that goes back to my previous post about why Schiff doesn't just announce whatever evidence he has seen) but when taken together with his unusual behaviour, any investigator worth their salt would pick on their being something amiss about the whole thing. Something does not add up.

The final part is that every actor within the cope of this (Trump, Trump Jr, Manafort, Flynn, Sessions etc etc) has been shown on a number of occasions to be 'economical' with the truth. So, you are faced with a series of probable events, strange and unaccounted for behaviour and continued lying. You don't need to be Poirot to think that something is up

2 Scoops

It's not exactly true he has bent over for Russia in every which-way, one such example is oil and gas exports in the eastern European market

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trumps-energy-dominance-undercutting-russias-influence-in-europe-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

It's not exactly true he has bent over for Russia in every which-way, one such example is oil and gas exports in the eastern European market

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trumps-energy-dominance-undercutting-russias-influence-in-europe-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

So he tried to get some more business. How is that any different than him bringing jobs back from Mexico? Yet Mexico hasn't been called out for trying to influence the UK election.

And he didn't cut-off Russia energy, he simply tried to get US energy in there instead, like a business deal. That merely aligns with his stated aim to bring US trade into surplus with the rest of the world.

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

So he tried to get some more business. How is that any different than him bringing jobs back from Mexico? Yet Mexico hasn't been called out for trying to influence the UK election.

And he didn't cut-off Russia energy, he simply tried to get US energy in there instead, like a business deal. That merely aligns with his stated aim to bring US trade into surplus with the rest of the world.

It says in the article Poland won't be renewing with Russia in the future, it offers countries dependent on Russia an alternative.

"Six months after Trump's trip, Poland has contracted for imports of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG), crude oil, and coal, and announced it will not renew a gas supply deal with Russia's state-owned Gazprom when it expires in 2022 - halting an exclusive and troubled relationship dating to 1944."

jooksavage

Interesting to see if Trump agrees with his Secretary of State on the Salisbury poisoning. The Brexiters are constantly telling us about forging stronger ties with the US. Let's see if it amounts to a hill of beans. Trump has a response all ready to go - just needs to lift the block he's inexplicably (well...) put on sanctions already ratified by congress. And the chances of that are... zero.

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

It says in the article Poland won't be renewing with Russia in the future, it offers countries dependent on Russia an alternative.

"Six months after Trump's trip, Poland has contracted for imports of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG), crude oil, and coal, and announced it will not renew a gas supply deal with Russia's state-owned Gazprom when it expires in 2022 - halting an exclusive and troubled relationship dating to 1944."

I'm not arguing about the article, but all it is is a business deal, Trump is trying to get more business for the US, to MAGA. There is nothing different in that to what he is trying to do with tariffs, or getting jobs back from Mexico.

Yet you are presenting it as some form of evidence that Trump is taking a hard line with Russia. But it in no way says that. He is merely looking at business. He is not doing it because Russia tried to interfere with the elections, or that they announced new nuclear weapons, or thier attack on the soil of a close ally.

What he has done was stop additional sanctions being placed on Russia. What he tried to do was to roll back previous sanctions.

weisses

2 Scoops wrote: »

Schiff's been lying for 14 months, the fact is he has produced nothing and he hasn't acted in good faith.

Not want to be pedantic but could you provide some evidence about Schiff lying ?

demfad

2 Scoops wrote: »

Schiff's been lying for 14 months, the fact is he has produced nothing and he hasn't acted in good faith. Feinstein deserves some recognition, she's acted with integrity and along with Grassley was one of the few people to come out and say no evidence existed in a bipartisan manner despite the crazed media and intel leaks.

Let's wait and see what Mueller comes up with...

Papadopoulus has plea-bargained and been indicted for lying about contacts with Russian intelligence about a quid pro quo offer of emails on Hillary Clinton for a pro-Russian position on Russia if Trump gets arrested.
There was email exchanges and Papadoupulos also went on trips to London and Greece to meet these contacts.

Don Jr had a meeting with figures from Russian intelligence for a similar quid pro quo. In his emails Don Jr stated he 'loved' the idea but that the dirt would be better published in the Summer and that the dirt as it was was insufficient.
Ill translate for you: 'You get better dirt. You will disseminate it and we'd prefer it done this summer not sooner'.

Schiff has presumably seen this evidence and presumably seen a lot more.
Republicans in the House Intel commitee have not been cooperating with democrats for a long time now. There has been no communication. The ridiculous Nunes memo shows they have been actually investigating the investigation. Even Tom Rooney GOP on this comittee has come out and said the conclusion was incorrect.

For you to brandish Schiff a liar makes you either naive, stupid or a liar. With 15 posts to your username I would bet heavily on which.

dudara

Trump to replace Tillerson with Pompeo. Looks like tillerson’s somewhat independent stance was finally too much. Plus the fact that Tillerson called Trump a moron, or that a Tillerson pointed the finger at russia for the recent poisoning in the UK

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/13/trump-ousts-secretary-of-state-rex-tillerson-will-replace-him-with-cia-director-mike-pompeo/

jooksavage

jooksavage wrote: »

Interesting to see if Trump agrees with his Secretary of State on the Salisbury poisoning. The Brexiters are constantly telling us about forging stronger ties with the US. Let's see if it amounts to a hill of beans. Trump has a response all ready to go - just needs to lift the block he's inexplicably (well...) put on sanctions already ratified by congress. And the chances of that are... zero.

I guess he doesn't agree...

trellheim

Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/973540316656623616

WTF !!!! The day after Tillerson calls out Russia for nerve agent attacks