Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

batgoat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You entitled to speak your mind if you see someone telling lies about what you did. Stone is alleged to have done this and lied to Congress. Not yet shown to be true.

It amazing with all the resources Mueller has to carry out an investigation, he not been able to tie Trump win to the Russian GRU or Putin. If truly was something there leaks would be happening by now.

Muller investigation is about Hilary. What do you think the Democrats push this Russian collusion fake story non stop?

Tampering with witnesses is not a right, when the mob tamper with witness do you approve? They're only protecting their good names.

Cheerful Spring

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The story was not debunked at all.


You mean not public yet.


Yep, except we have both video evidence and physical evidence that his campaign did collude.

Yes was debunked.

BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller's office, in a statement.

That clear and unambiguous Cohen did not tell Mueller Trump told him to lie.

It obvious the Mueller team is struggling to find people to flip and turn on Trump. They are hoping Roger Stone would do that, but he will not lie for them.

FreudianSlippers

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes was debunked.

BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller's office, in a statement.

That clear and unambiguous Cohen did not tell Mueller Trump told him to lie.

It obvious the Mueller team is struggling to find people to flip and turn on Trump. They are hoping Roger Stone would do that, but he will not lie for them.

That's not what Special Counsel's Office statement means at all.

Still wondering where you live in the US that you love Trump so much?

borderlinemeath

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Convicted multiple people. You ignore they are crimes they did by themselves in the past and after Trump got elected. Manafort conviction had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

I think that's the funniest defence of Trump I've ever read here. They were criminals just before and after they worked for Trump but had a little break from being crooks whilst working on the Trump campaign?



If you truly believe what you write, then why can't you honestly ask yourself why you are so supportive of a person who appears to be either very adept at surrounding himself with criminals to give him an illegal advantage, ie mired in corruption - or so naive and stupid that he can't see that he's surrounding himself with criminals who are pushing their own corruption. And by that I don't mean just the SC convictions, but the entire Republican party enablers as well.

amandstu

Christy42 wrote: »

Cohen is not a big name apparently.

Mueller has managed a lot of guilty admissions over the last while.

He has brought the discussion from there was never any connection with Russia to Trump's lawyer essentially admitting top campaign officials did have contact with Russia (but not Trump who didn't know what his campaign was doing apparently).

We already have collusion. The missing piece is Trump's direct involvement.

Is there outrage across the aisle on that limited finding?That swathes of Trump's election team were in bed with a foreign power for the purpose of illegally finding dirt on their opponent..Is that not enough in itself to cause his support to collapse? Apparently not.

aloyisious

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What does it mean then, you have some inside knowledge?

It just means that buzzfeed got some information that was NOT accurate and ran with it, 2+2 made 5 meant the story was not accurate. The SC made a public statement on the buzzfeed story to make sure that what it gives to a jury it is NOT mixed up with the WRONG INFORMATION in the buzzfeed story in the jury's mind. Above edited to take out words not needed.

Cheerful Spring

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

I don't love Trump at all. I just think the investigation it all about Hilary failure to beat Trump. The Democrats are looking for a way to prove Trump win is illegitimate. Instead of looking at her failure to convince people she was the right candidate. This a woman by the way that got 250,000 dollars to give a speech at Goldman Sachs before the election and would not disclose what she told them. Trump got elected because he was not a politician and people wanted someone new in office to run the country.

Did the Russians prefer Trump to Hillary, yes I believe that to be true. I don't believe the Russians influenced millions of Americans to vote Trump. You guys are of the belief there some big story here Trump and Putin worked out a plan to beat Hilary, I don't believe that ever happened.

FreudianSlippers

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't love Trump at all. I just think the investigation it all about Hilary failure to beat Trump. The Democrats are looking for a way to prove Trump win is illegitimate. Instead of looking at her failure to convince people she was the right candidate. This a woman by the way that got 250,000 dollars to give a speech at Goldman Sachs before the election and would not disclose what she told them. Trump got elected because he was not a politician and people wanted someone new in office to run the country.

Did the Russians prefer Trump to Hillary, yes I believe that to be true. I don't believe the Russians influenced millions of Americans to vote Trump. You guys are of the belief there some big story here Trump and Putin worked out a plan to beat Hilary, I don't believe that ever happened.

Honestly... someone bookmark this post for posterity.

everlast75

Thankfully Mueller operates off stronger evidence than whataboutery and conspiracy theories.

That is the difference.

FreudianSlippers

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just think the investigation it all about Hilary failure to beat Trump. The Democrats are looking for a way to prove Trump win is illegitimate.

The Republican head of the FBI (who days before the election announced he was investigating Hillary Clinton's private email server) and the Republican-lead DoJ implemented a Republican Special Counsel (appointed as head of the FBI by a Republican president), during a period where the House and Senate were Republican-controlled, to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election is evidence of the Democrats looking for a way to prove Trump's win was illegitimate?

You're going to need to explain this one to me like I'm an idiot.

Cheerful Spring

batgoat wrote: »

So if Obama faced this level of scandal in terms of criminality, you'd be equally as outraged as you are now?

What criminality are you referring to? Trump did not collude with the Russians. Provide some evidence, please.

batgoat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What criminality are you referring to? Trump did not collude with the Russians. Provide some evidence, please.

His staff are being found guilty of large-scale criminality. His son is likely to be indicted. Trump's knowledge of these activities are still unknown although in relation to his taxes, there's strong indications he was fiddling them. If Obama's staff and family were in a similar scenario. Your current outrage is the fact his staff are being charged, I strongly doubt you'd be similarly outraged if Obama's staff faced similar charges.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Thread closed for a TMO review.

Ok, I've deleted a lot of posts and a few things arise.

Firstly, this is not the conspiracy theory forum. If you want to make a claim, there must be some support or evidence of it. That said, the US investigations can sometimes have an air of unreality to them so it's hard to draw the line.

It seems to me that there is significant evidence against members of the Trump administration, but Cheerful Spring's point is that there is no evidence against Trump himself. That there may not be a specific investigation or evidence against Trump himself is a valid point, but it is in one sense a side note because in American politics the President and the President's staff are discussed collectively as the Administration.

So, to be clear, while there is nothing wrong with pointing out that there is no current investigation into Trump himself, that does not answer the issues raised in respect of members of his Administration. If Cheerful Spring wants to keep discussing the investigations, he/she should engage with the actual investigation.

Midlife

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't love Trump at all. I just think the investigation it all about Hilary failure to beat Trump. The Democrats are looking for a way to prove Trump win is illegitimate. Instead of looking at her failure to convince people she was the right candidate. This a woman by the way that got 250,000 dollars to give a speech at Goldman Sachs before the election and would not disclose what she told them. Trump got elected because he was not a politician and people wanted someone new in office to run the country.

The investigation has nothing to do with Hillary.

Seriously, when it's closer to the next election than the previous, why would the democrats be focussed on the past?

Obviously, you can be sure discrediting Trump is important but you need to drop the 'but...but...Hillary' line.

Basically it appears to me that you need a deepstate figure behind it all and given the shake up in the democrats and the new blood you can't find anyone beyond a retired old woman to blame it on.

Hillary is of no relevance any more. Stop being silly.

GSRNBP

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hillary Clinton also investigated and cleared of wrongdoing?

everlast75

GSRNBP wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hillary Clinton also investigated and cleared of wrongdoing?

Investigated for 4 years, multiple committees, 40 plus hours of testimony IIRC.

Anyway, isn't this the Donald Trump thread???

amandstu

GSRNBP wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hillary Clinton also investigated and cleared of wrongdoing?

Where she was found to be at fault (using public servers for personal business iirc) has been replicated by the Trump team again iirc.

She was admonished for her behaviour but we probably know that she was being targeted mercilessly for what ,as Giuliani would no doubt have it was not a hanging offense.

Brian?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't love Trump at all. I just think the investigation it all about Hilary failure to beat Trump. The Democrats are looking for a way to prove Trump win is illegitimate. Instead of looking at her failure to convince people she was the right candidate. This a woman by the way that got 250,000 dollars to give a speech at Goldman Sachs before the election and would not disclose what she told them. Trump got elected because he was not a politician and people wanted someone new in office to run the country.

Did the Russians prefer Trump to Hillary, yes I believe that to be true. I don't believe the Russians influenced millions of Americans to vote Trump. You guys are of the belief there some big story here Trump and Putin worked out a plan to beat Hilary, I don't believe that ever happened.

The democrats are doing nothing but sitting back and watching.

Bob Muller is a life long Republican. As is James Comey. Most of the FBI hierarchy are. As are a fair slice of the DOJ.

The investigation was started when the GOP controlled the entire government.

So what are the Democrats doing?

PropJoe10

GSRNBP wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hillary Clinton also investigated and cleared of wrongdoing?

She was, yes. But don't let that get in the way of a Trump supporter constantly bleating on about her. Whataboutism at its very best.

everlast75

JFC.

Obstruction of justice surely..


https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1088992076027572224?s=19

26000 Elephants

PropJoe10 wrote: »

She was, yes. But don't let that get in the way of a Trump supporter constantly bleating on about her. Whataboutism at its very best.

to be fair to Trump supporters, its hard to see straight when faced with this kind of narrative:

https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1089191237851271170

The estate of George Orwell should be lawyering up for copyright infringement. They should hurry, just 12 months left.

PropJoe10

26000 Elephants wrote: »

to be fair to Trump supporters, its hard to see straight when faced with this kind of narrative:

https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1089191237851271170

The estate of George Orwell should be lawyering up for copyright infringement. They should hurry, just 12 months left.

The Republicans are so tied to Trump now, there's literally no escape for them. They're entirely out of touch with reality.

Midlife

GSRNBP wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hillary Clinton also investigated and cleared of wrongdoing?

Yes but only for her e-mail.

Not for the false flag 9/11 Rothschild pan-global alien vaccine coverup we all know her to be responsible for.

MadYaker

I'm only catching up on the last 2 days news. Didn't expect Roger Stone to get indicted, at least not yet. Trump sort of folded and agreed to a temporary reopen and I guess there'll be more rounds of negotiations.

If the wall is something Trump really wants then he is going to have to give the democrats something that they really want. If he's not prepared to make that kind of deal with the democrats then he is going to have to scale back his own demands.

Trumps problem in this negotiation is that he has made the wall an issue that can literally kill his re-election chances. He needs to achieve it to have a chance at re-election. He knows this and the democrats know it.

At the same time he has made the issue extremely inflammatory. When previous sections of barrier were completed, their construction didn't receive much attention. But now with his talk of rapists, invasions, and good people, all eyes are on this issue. And so the democrats will lose a lot of credibility if they make easy concessions.

Imo his positioning going into these negotiations is awful. Pelosi is in a position to ask for the shirt off his back. If he gets the wall it's going to be in exchange for some long standing dem wish. That's when it gets interesting. What will the republican senators agree to to stay in line with Trump?

Midlife

PropJoe10 wrote: »

The Republicans are so tied to Trump now, there's literally no escape for them. They're entirely out of touch with reality.

Not really. Meuller is as much welcomed by Republicians as Democrats to be honest. Trump will be dumped quickly when the chips fall. The tweet above, if anything, shows how easily they'll just start acting like nothing happened and their base will come back because there are only two parties.

Trump is a wildcard and the political establishment doesn't like him. Republicians realise that his popularity with the base means that they have to support him for now but McConnell et al will be perfectly happy when he's gone and they can get back to some normality.

After 8 years of democrats, anyone with a pulse would have beaten Hillary. She was a terrible candidate. The Republicians would have gotten so much more from all three branches of gvt for two years if they didn't have someone so unpredictable runnning things. They know they're probably going to lose the next election but then they'll be back.

Larbre34

PropJoe10 wrote: »

The Republicans are so tied to Trump now, there's literally no escape for them. They're entirely out of touch with reality.

Yet more than one of them are likely to challenge him for 2020.

Franz Von Peppercorn

everlast75 wrote: »

Thankfully Mueller operates off stronger evidence than whataboutery and conspiracy theories.

That is the difference.

He’s actually found very little. This is another obstruction of justice charge that has no underlying crime.

I’m old enough to remember when WikiLeaks was supported by the left.

I’m surprised the American press is still hostile to Trump, admittedly he did threaten to pull out of Afghanistan and Syria but he’s interfering in Venezuela and there’s nothing the US jingo press likes more than gunboat diplomacy.

IsaacWunder

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m surprised the American press is still hostile to Trump...

Might have something to do with his continued denouncements of the press as “fake news”, “enemy of the people”, etc?

Interestingly, Trump is the best thing to happen to the US news media for decades. He is so ghastly and unpredictable people can’t look away.

Brian?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

He’s actually found very little. This is another obstruction of justice charge that has no underlying crime.

We actually don't know what he's found, aside from the indictments for obstruction of justice etc. .

I’m old enough to remember when WikiLeaks was supported by the left.

That was probably before we knew Assange was in the pocket of Putin.

I’m surprised the American press is still hostile to Trump, admittedly he did threaten to pull out of Afghanistan and Syria but he’s interfering in Venezuela and there’s nothing the US jingo press likes more than gunboat diplomacy.

The hostility runs both ways. He has branded "The enemy of the people" and calls them "fake news" pretty much every day on Twitter.

Brian?

Does anyone know how a fence can be a "very powerful fence"? Is it going to be electrified?