Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

mattser

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Trump and other aides got cleared and were not indicted. Am I not sure what people are expecting to find in the full report?

The full report is not going to change the narrative. You may be able to spin some narrative the Russians wanted Trump to win and helped him maybe? But you not going to be able to link Trump and his aides to GRU and Putin. Muller could not find that info and clear as day right now.

The usual hardline Trumpophobes are turning up one by one in the last 24/48 hours.

Blinded by the headlights.

The same folks that have cajoled us with, "It's going to break next Friday..watch this space ", for the last two and a half years.

I've had a ban or two for dissenting, even been mocked therein.

Well the worm has turned.

SeamusFX

Mr.H wrote: »

Whats democratic about insisting a guy is guilty despite the lack of evidence? The whole government went after him and it turned out there was nothing to it.

There is no reason for the public to see the findings as it would just lead to nit picking and more witch hunting.

The only question is, did he do something illegal. There is nothing to suggest he did. So let the guy alone.

So you’re saying there’s no evidence, nothing to it and he did nothing wrong. How do you know this, since you haven’t seen the report? Then you’re saying, there no reason for the public to see the report, do you not realize how stupid that sounds?

Ultros

mattser wrote: »

Well the worm has turned.

Glenn Greenwald's twitter feed is a good read. The likes of MSNBC even blocked deeply liberal pundits with dissenting views of Russiagate to keep the narrative going. Other networks the same. In MSNBC's viewers eyes there was no knowledge there was even a debate, hence the shock today - Trump was guilty of treason and if you say otherwise you're a Russian bot.

Even the primetime opinion hosts on Fox bring on liberals each night to debate with, and it's the one that gets called the propaganda channel. Turns out the likes of Tucker were spot on about this whole thing from the start, while Maddow, Matthews Et al deceived their viewers for years.

everlast75

Here are some genuine questions - any serious answers welcome;

1) Why did Flynn lie about his contacts with Russia?

2) Why did Manafort lie about his contacts with Russia?

3) why did Sessions lie about his contract with Russia (to the point where he recused himself from the investigation)

4) Why did Don Jr and Trump senior conspire to lie about the purpose of the meeting meeting in Trump Tower on Air Force One?

5) why did Manafort share private polling data with a Russian operative?

6) why did Trump, in the face of intelligence briefings by his own appointed people, deny that Putin interfered in the election?

7) why did Trump break with protocol and meet Putin in private and refuse to release the memo of discussion, even with his own intelligence people?

8) why did Kushner want to open private back channels to Russia?

9) why was the Wikileaks dump the same day as the ***** grab tape?

10) why did russia begin hacking the very same day Trump asked them to?

11) how can the investigation into russian interference be deemed to be complete without
A) Prosecution of Stone
Prosecution of Gates
C) Prosecution of Corsi
D) grand jury testimony by Don Jr, Kushner etc
E) questioning of Trump senior

12) why wasn't the meeting, in which it was clear the intent was to obtain info from a foreign agent on a political opponent, considered sufficient for conspiracy charges?

13) why did Trump lie about Trump Moscow?

14) why the inordinate contact by Trump's team and Russia coming up to election?

I'm sure there are plenty more. I can edit them in if anyone wants to point out any i missed.

On the obstruction front, I've little questions, moreso observations;

1) he asked Comey to let the investigation into Flynn go

2) he fired Comey when he wouldn't

3) he pressured Sessions into taking control of SC investigation

4) he pressured Sessions into "unrecusing" himself

5) he fired Sessions as punishment

6) he tried to fire Mueller

7) he attacked the investigation practically every single day on Twitter to millions of followers in an attempt to deligitimise

8) he dangled pardons

9) he commented on ongoing trials in an attempt to influence their outcome

10) trump admitted to Russians that he fired Comey because of the pressure from that "whole Russia thing"

Also, I find it curious Whittaker and Barr were both appointed after writing criticisms of Mueller.

The above I believe are fair and reasonable questions and observations. As I said, any feedback welcome

rossie1977

Trump wasn't even interviewed publicly or privately and it was an investigation by his own appointee. Hillary Clinton spent two years publicly answering Republican questions on emails and Benghazi

I wrote this two years ago..seems I was right https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057671020/663/#post103544211

s7ryf3925pivug

It is being reported as saying it found he did not collude. It actually says it didn’t find that he did collude. It is the presumption of innocence that is applied, not evidence of innocence.

enfant terrible

everlast75 wrote: »

There's plenty to speculate about.

For example, we do know the report states that trump was not exonerated. What does that mean? Why put it in at all?

It would indicate to me there was some evidence, but not enough to meet the burden of criminal liability and so Mueller decided not to indict.

So, if that's the case then by criminal standards Trump is not guilty of conspiring with the Russian government. No problem.

Some here have said as a result, Trump is innocent. He may certainly be innocent on the criminal front.

But the question is if there was some evidence, and there appears to be, then does it warrant impeachment. That's a call for the politicians.

Clinton committed perjury on video tape and wasn't impeached, so don't expect Republicans to be tripping over themselves to impeach Trump when the Democrats wouldn't impeach Clinton.

everlast75

enfant terrible wrote: »

Clinton committed perjury on video tape and wasn't impeached, so don't expect Republicans to be tripping over themselves to impeach Trump when the Democrats wouldn't impeach Clinton.

Clinton was impeached

"The impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated in December 1998 by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice."

I think you mean convicted. Impeachment is the decision for it to go to a trial.

But I take your point. You're probably right that the Reps won't convict

hill16bhoy

Trump says, in his own words, that "this was an illegal takedown that failed".

What was illegal about the investigation, and who committed this illegality, one wonders?

Will he be attempting to have Rod Rosenstein indicted on trumped up charges? Or Robert Mueller? Or Jeff Sessions?

Isn't it a very serious allegation to claim that the workings of the US justice system are "illegal", and doesn't it undermine the whole justice system in the US?

What sort of message does this send out as regards his regard for democracy?

Ultros

Here are some genuine questions - any serious answers welcome;

1) Why did Flynn lie about his contacts with Russia?

I'll try answer these once honestly. Some of what I say might not to be up to date or correct because I haven't been following it as closely as I used to.

IIRC he didn't lie about contacts with Russia. He said he didn't discuss sanctions then his telephone call got unmasked or leaked or whatever during the transition. Subsequently said FBI pressured him to not have a lawyer present.

2) Why did Manafort lie about his contacts with Russia?

Manafort worked in the Ukraine for some pro Russian politican/political group. I don't know much about his case but he was ultimately done for money laundering.

3) why did Sessions lie about his contract with Russia (to the point where he recused himself from the investigation)

I don't believe Sessions purposely lied. Check the transcript, he was asked about the campaign. One of his "hidden" meetings was public record and this was the day after Trump's state of the union that the Democrats turned on him. In my view Sessions is clean as a whistle.

Sen. Al Franken: CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump." These documents also allegedly say quote, "There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government."

Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

4) Why did Don Jr and Trump senior conspire to lie about the purpose of the meeting meeting in Trump Tower on Air Force One?

Legal reasons, wanted as much input as possible from lawyers and his Dad to form a statement that covered him and lied about it as to not get Trump SR in trouble.

5) why did Manafort share private polling data with a Russian operative?

Don't know, Manafort was friends with this guy working in the Ukraine

6) why did Trump, in the face of intelligence briefings by his own appointed people, deny that Putin interfered in the election?

Same reason he said he believed Kim didn't kill that US student

7) why did Trump break with protocol and meet Putin in private and refuse to release the memo of discussion, even with his own intelligence people?

Privacy perhaps, no chance of leaks, Translators were present iirc

8) why did Kushner want to open private back channels to Russia?

He denied this or said during transition they tried to setup multiple channels to different countries for communication, esp since relations with Russia were bad.

9) why was the Wikileaks dump the same day as the ***** grab tape?

Strategic of course, has nothing to do with Trump campaign itself

10) why did russia begin hacking the very same day Trump asked them to?

This isn't true, and Trump was joking. If there was a secret plot he wouldn't announce it publicly

11) how can the investigation into russian interference be deemed to be complete without
A) Prosecution of Stone
Prosecution of Gates
C) Prosecution of Corsi
D) grand jury testimony by Don Jr, Kushner etc
E) questioning of Trump senior

Stone Corsi stuff is nonsense, they wanted to find out what Wikileaks had, that's it. It's infowars level stuff

12) why wasn't the meeting, in which it was clear the intent was to obtain info from a foreign agent on a political opponent, considered sufficient for conspiracy charges?

cause according to Mueller nothing happened, it was a setup for the Magnitsky act or w/e it's called. They prob had multiple meetings a day with diff people for over a year including foreign lobbyists. iirc JR provided those emails to investigators long before they became public

13) why did Trump lie about Trump Moscow?

Cause it would look bad

14) why the inordinate contact by Trump's team and Russia coming up to election?

This is too general to reply to

I'm sure there are plenty more. I can edit them in if anyone wants to point out any i missed.

On the obstruction front, I've little questions, moreso observations;

1) he asked Comey to let the investigation into Flynn go

He didn't stop him, he said Flynn is a good guy. Political inexperience

2) he fired Comey when he wouldn't

He wanted Comey to publicly state he himself wasn't under investigation.

3) he pressured Sessions into taking control of SC investigation

No, Sessions recused himself, then Trump went ape****, understandably

4) he pressured Sessions into "unrecusing" himself

Same as above. Like any previous administration the AG does protect the pres

5) he fired Sessions as punishment

Yes, Trump is vindictive. He prob blames sessions for everything

6) he tried to fire Mueller

He contemplated firing Mueller, if he wanted to he could have done it. iirc he asked someone to look into it. Mueller report states SC investigation wasn't hindered or obstructed in anyway. You can't be prosecuted for wanting to do something

7) he attacked the investigation practically every single day on Twitter to millions of followers in an attempt to deligitimise

I would too if I was innocent and it was ruining my Presidency. When people are innocent that's what they tend to do, react angrily

8) he dangled pardons

So? Look at who Clinton etc pardoned. Stone will be pardoned if anything happens to him

9) he commented on ongoing trials in an attempt to influence their outcome

Stretching here..

10) trump admitted to Russians that he fired Comey because of the pressure from that "whole Russia thing"

Again, doesn't prove anything. You can make the case he was alluding to the pressure the media and dems were putting him under, not that there was anything there

Also, I find it curious Whittaker and Barr were both appointed after writing criticisms of Mueller.

The above I believe are fair and reasonable questions and observations. As I said, any feedback welcome

Obv Trump is going to pick someone who can protect him vs all the investigations hes under. Doesn't mean he's guilty. Must get some sleep now, work calls

And just general point, if you scrutinized a lobbyist firm or campaign during an election as much as they did to Trump and others, you'd find a lot of dirty baggage and foreign contacts too.

amandstu

Baylor Ugly Applause wrote: »

It is being reported as saying it found he did not collude. It actually says it didn’t find that he did collude. It is the presumption of innocence that is applied, not evidence of innocence.

The summary says that about his team,not just Trump.

If it couldn't be shown that any of them "colluded" with a foreign state to influence US elections it seems likely that that finding is correct .

After all,we are talking a very low bar.

We/they should be grateful that they didn't apparently stoop so low (even if it seems quite possible his supporters would have found a way to accept it)

Jamiekelly

So many new, and returning, Trump supporters in here since the report was finalized. Are you going to stick around this time lads? I doubt it.

After the NZ attack Trump retweeted the Breitbart website which has been a serious source of far right viewpoints which were a core part of the shooters own manifesto. Trump either showed a complete lack of self awareness and ignorance following an international tragedy or even more disturbing, knew exactly what he was doing and was blowing a dog whistle to the white nationalists in his base. How many of you were in here after he did that to defend him? None of you. Because all of you couldn't fit the words "looney liberal lefties" into a sentence when it didn't suit the situation. I think some of you need to grow up and stop acting like teenagers writing taunts on bathroom stalls. It's time you started acting like adults. Just because Trump gets away with being a petulant man child doesn't mean you will to.

jooksavage

Funny how all those Trump supporters who have been saying for nearly 2 years that the "witch hunt" was meaningless are suddenly waving around Barr's summary...

The full report needs to come out. When Barr or Trump offer resistance the "Trump is exonerated" narrative will change very quickly.

I'm expecting the fight for its release to turn into a massive controversy that will suck the air out of Barr's conclusion. I'm also expecting most of those Rs who voted for its release this week to have a change of heart.

Virginia Heffernan of Slate, among others, have been in contact with dept insiders who have said Barr's assessment is "NOT Mueller's report".

vladmydad

jooksavage wrote: »

Funny how all those Trump supporters who have been saying for nearly 2 years that the "witch hunt" was meaningless are suddenly waving around Barr's summary...

The full report needs to come out. When Barr or Trump offer resistance the "Trump is exonerated" narrative will change very quickly.

I'm expecting the fight for its release to turn into a massive controversy that will suck the air out of Barr's conclusion. I'm also expecting most of those Rs who voted for its release this week to have a change of heart.

Virginia Heffernan of Slate, among others, have been in contact with dept insiders who have said Barr's assessment is "NOT Mueller's report".

Dude he’s innocent and deep down you and all trump haters knew it. The whole conspiracy sounded like a James Bond movie. It is one of the lowest moments in modern US politics and the damage it has done to the media, especially CNN and The New York Times is irreparable. The truth is the anointed candidate lost in 2016 to a pompous reality tv star and shock and shame of the establishment caused a collective mental breakdown (Trump Derangement Syndrome). They then used every dirty trick in the book to bring him down but alas it’ blew up in their faces and I suspect some are going to face charges.

DrumSteve

vladmydad wrote: »

Dude he’s innocent and deep down you and all trump haters knew it. The whole conspiracy sounded like a James Bond movie. It is one of the lowest moments in modern US politics and the damage it has done to the media, especially CNN and The New York Times is irreparable. The truth is the anointed candidate lost in 2016 to a pompous reality tv star and shock and shame of the establishment caused a collective mental breakdown (Trump Derangement Syndrome). They then used every dirty trick in the book to bring him down but alas it’ blew up in their faces and I suspect some are going to face charges.

Username checks out.

Also, why not wait for the report to come out in full before drawing any conclusion?

jooksavage

DrumSteve wrote: »

Username checks out.

Also, why not wait for the report to come out in full before drawing any conclusion?

This. This is it.



Last night was Trumps - he should enjoy it. Because today Barr will be asked to release the full report and if there's any resistance or even the hint of redaction, that "Trump is innocent" narrative will be flipped on its head.

kilns

Any person who was hoping this report would provide a silver bullet were always wishfully thinking. It was becoming more and more obvious the more time went on that it would come to nothing and I think Democrats have been flawed hanging their hat on this report to get Trump. The guy has run a dodgy enterprise for years he knows how to cover his tracks, sure wasnt Cohen caught with a bag full of burner phones, should tell enough about how he does business.

Democrats should move on a try to beat him in 2020 by winning over those who were borderline and voted for him based on issues and if necessary his honour (stormy affair)

splinter65

DrumSteve wrote: »

Username checks out.

Also, why not wait for the report to come out in full before drawing any conclusion?

Sooner or later you will have to accept that Clinton was so repulsive in every way that the US electorate voted for D Trump. Now he’s going to be re elected for a 2nd term because you can’t accept any inconvenient truths.

MrFresh

amandstu wrote: »

The summary says that about his team,not just Trump.

If it couldn't be shown that any of them "colluded" with a foreign state to influence US elections it seems likely that that finding is correct .

After all,we are talking a very low bar.

We/they should be grateful that they didn't apparently stoop so low (even if it seems quite possible his supporters would have found a way to accept it)

Didn't Jnr already admit to colluding with Russia?

MrFresh

kilns wrote: »

Any person who was hoping this report would provide a silver bullet were always wishfully thinking. It was becoming more and more obvious the more time went on that it would come to nothing and I think Democrats have been flawed hanging their hat on this report to get Trump. The guy has run a dodgy enterprise for years he knows how to cover his tracks, sure wasnt Cohen caught with a bag full of burner phones, should tell enough about how he does business.

Democrats should move on a try to beat him in 2020 by winning over those who were borderline and voted for him based on issues and if necessary his honour (stormy affair)

No, Democrats should get the actual report into Congress and investigate the evidence gathered in it using the powers available to them.

splinter65

What exactly has Trump done so far in his presidency that warrants this hysteria? Is there a list of things he’s responsible for that have resulted in harm for Americans?

splinter65

MrFresh wrote: »

No, Democrats should get the actual report into Congress and investigate the evidence gathered in it using the powers available to them.

Isn’t this just the same as saying “ we don’t accept the result of the report so we want to keep going over the evidence till we get the “right” result”?
Why not concentrate on getting a good candidate that will be acceptable to a broad cross section of ordinary Americans with ordinary values so that you have some hope of contesting the election?
Hint: Americans are not going to vote for Kamala Harris Elizabeth Warren or O’Rourke.

everlast75

I wonder will all those claiming that the report exonerates Trump now put it on the record that they will accept the full content when published.

I'm saying I will.

What about ye?

DrumSteve

splinter65 wrote: »

Sooner or later you will have to accept that Clinton was so repulsive in every way that the US electorate voted for D Trump. Now he’s going to be re elected for a 2nd term because you can’t accept any inconvenient truths.

Yeah... ok...but what has that got to do with anything I said?

looksee

JRant wrote: »

I just don't get it, what would Barr gain by not giving an accurate summary of the report?
Either what he says is true or it's not. I don't see how spinning it one way or the other would work as it is fairly obvious that the full report will be released.

This is the Trump approach. It doesn't matter if it is true. It doesn't matter if it can be disproved. Just get in there first with the story you want to promote, 'first statement is the truth'.

Stallingrad

The Muller report is good news. No collusion, this is something both the left, right and centre should celebrate. I would see this as win for the US and democracy as a whole. It is a credit to the US system that the report was concluded, despite ongoing interference from the one place that should want to see the truth revealed, the Whitehouse.

Trump supporters should reflect on the fact that the Russians did interfere in the election, that he has never condemned them for it, and that such were the concerns that the investigation took place in the first place. It was not a witch hunt, due process has been done, and a number of criminals are behind bars as a result.

Franz Von Peppercorn

everlast75 wrote: »

I wonder will all those claiming that the report exonerates Trump now put it on the record that they will accept the full content when published.

I'm saying I will.

What about ye?

If the full report had anything would there not be indictment now?

Cuddlesworth

everlast75 wrote: »

I wonder will all those claiming that the report exonerates Trump now put it on the record that they will accept the full content when published.

I'm saying I will.

What about ye?

Nah, I'll take the work of the guy hired into the position by Trump, who publicly said that its within the presidents powers to obstruct justice, that there is insufficient evidence that Trump obstructed justice.

And that the investigation which lead to 34 indictments, multiple guilty pleas, significant evidence of criminal activities by multiple members of the campaign and a number of still active investigations and court cases was a witch hunt.

everlast75

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

If the full report had anything would there not be indictment now?

We don't know the full story until we see the report.

That is the truth of it.

We have seen Barr's interpretation.

Again, for good or for bad I will accept the full content of the report. Will others here?

Cuddlesworth

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

If the full report had anything would there not be indictment now?

No, the removal of the president of the united states requires congress to submit it and the Senate to approve it. The report is submitted to Barr, who can decide to proceed with criminal charges against the subject of the report but its currently the held belief within the Justice department that the sitting president can't be charged with crimes.