Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

MrFresh

JRant wrote: »

Well it's a losing hand already, why bother playing it out to the nth degree.
If the Dems think they can do a better job than Mueller, with the amount of resources he had at his disposal, then they really are a lost cause.

It's not about his resources. It's about the scope of his investigation.

Ultros wrote: »

Plus the legal jeopardy of the fruit of the poisonous tree. Given that he's been found innocent of the initial thing he's been accused of and that 60% of his Presidency has been under that cloud, and there is questionable ethics as to how that came to be in the first place, any subsequent attempts to prosecute him will be met with fierce questions of legality and / or suspicion of malice.

Besides all that, there's the political ramifications and fallout. A recent poll found that over 50% of the US thought Mueller's investigation prior to release was an actual witch-hunt, how do they feel now?

Here's his first real initial comments when asked about the Mueller investigation. He's right when he says not many people could have handled it.

He hasn't been found innocent of anything.

MrFresh

MrFresh wrote:

He hasn't been found innocent of anything.

Im assuming you were never found innocent of child molestation or regicide.

MadYaker

Nobodies ever been found innocent in the history of criminal investigations.

SeamusFX

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

My reading is: The Russians tried to hack the US election and were partially succesfull..They also tried to infiltrate and help the Trump campaign. Whilst Trump himself probably didnt collude in a legal sense he was more than likely aware of some of the shenanigans going on around his campaign but turned a blind eye to it or didnt fully realize the extent of it. Thats what I expect the Mueller report to indicate. The obstruction is just Trump huffing and puffing in a panic but nothing really tangible.

Let me fix this for you:

The Russians Did hack the US election and were successful. They also infiltrated and helped the Trump campaign. Whilst there may not be hard evidence that Trump himself colluded in a legal sense, he was definitely aware of it and almost certainly involved!

SeamusFX

JRant wrote: »

Well it's a losing hand already, why bother playing it out to the nth degree.
If the Dems think they can do a better job than Mueller, with the amount of resources he had at his disposal, then they really are a lost cause.

Please provide a credible link to such a preposterous claim?

JRant

SeamusFX wrote: »

Please provide a credible link to such a preposterous claim?

Why would anyone want to engage with such an aggressive tone?
Maybe take it down a notch or two if you would like a dialogue with someone, it's only the internet after all.

JRant

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This has just hurt them, regardless of the full outcome, trump won yesterdays and todays news cycle on this. The media have been hyping this for so long, media distrust is just going up and up now.

A lot of media personalities hung their hat on Trump being a Russian stoge. Maddow is now firmly in the same camp as Hannity, both being absolute crackpots with very little basis in reality.

Thepoet85

I see McConnell has blocked a motion to make the report available to the public.

What would they fear if Donald is as innocent as he says he is?

Ultros

Thepoet85 wrote: »

I see McConnell has blocked a motion to make the report available to the public.

What would they fear if Donald is as innocent as he says he is?

Does not the SC + JD not have to review it initially for legal reasons?

They're not going to release the entire thing unredacted.

everlast75

JRant wrote: »

A lot of media personalities hung their hat on Trump being a Russian stoge. Maddow is now firmly in the same camp as Hannity, both being absolute crackpots with very little basis in reality.

Absolute nonsense IMHO.

Hannity is a Trump stooge, an absolute liar and a dangerous agitator.

Look at the caliber of guests on Maddow - Vance, Rosenberg, Neil Katyal, Banks, Litman etc compared with Hannity - Lewandowski, Page etc.

Not once has any guest that I have seen on Maddow pull her up on going too far or getting her facts wrong.

She had one monumental cock up with Trump's taxes but since then, I've not seen anything since.

The report may state that Trump et al did not collude, but there were serious questions to be raised. In addition, her shows were not Russian linked as often as you might believe. She covered voter difficulties in the midterms, deep research into Trump inc etc that has come to pass. She never definitively stated anything to my recollection that was nonsense. I wouldn't listen to it otherwise.

I did listen to 360 and other pods but I switched off them as the quality wasn't there.

I listen to Preet, O'Donnell, Talking Feds, the Beat.

I get that you might disagree. That's absolutely fine if you do. Its a free world. I get that she has some annoying mannerism. I know she is a hate figure amongst the right, a man hating shrill leftie.

I'm just stating my view.

Professor Moriarty

Thepoet85 wrote: »

I see McConnell has blocked a motion to make the report available to the public.

What would they fear if Donald is as innocent as he says he is?

The Donald has no problem with its release.

MadYaker

It'll be at least a month before we see it imo. Hence Trump getting out in front and setting the narritive today. When it is released it's likely lots of it will be redacted in order to protect classified info or people who testified / made statements or whatever. Can't even imagine the number of gov depts that will have to get a look before it goes public. Trump obviously has it in full id imagine, or at least was breifed at length by Barr. Not that he has the attention span to read it. If they drag their heels too much id imagine congress can get involved but they can't break laws regarding classified info and testemonies / identities of those who were witnesses. etc.

aloyisious

It seems to be an accepted truth that RM's investigation was carried out under the stricture (accepted by the DOJ and other interested parties) that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for things done during his/her term in office that others would see as criminal acts. That is even without a sitting president deciding to claim executive privilege over any such criminal acts. The investigation was into whether Mr Trump was involved-in or was aware (before taking up office) of criminal acts and deeds done to ensure his election.

The letter from RM to Mr Barr seems to have indicated there was no proof that the president was involved in or aware of the acts carried out by people on his election team. People can say that that amounts to an exoneration of the president so I'll wait til RM's covering letter sent with the report to Mr Barr is published verbatim to decide on what he believed was, or was not, provably-done by the president in respect of the matters investigated.

One thing is clear and that is factual, that candidate Trump called on the Russian Govt to release into the public domain any information it had on candidate Clinton. It can be argued that that was done during a very dirty election and all is fair in love and war. I'm waiting for anyone who disapproved of candidate Clinton over candidate Trump to put up anything which shows, let alone proves, that during the election she asked any foreign government, let alone the Russian Govt, to publish any information it had on candidate Trump in order to damage his election chances. One thing is clear, that there still is the corpse of a US election out there and there is undeniable evidence that Russia had a hand in the doing-to-death of the US election system in the months leading up to the day of the election.

everlast75

Anybody else find this... a little "off"?



https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1110254539163291648?s=19

Ultros

everlast75 wrote: »

I get that you might disagree. That's absolutely fine if you do. Its a free world. I get that she has some annoying mannerism. I know she is a hate figure amongst the right, a man hating shrill leftie.

I'm just stating my view.

I don't rate her because I think she puts 2 + 2 together and ends up with 100 constantly, it has nothing to do with her personality. I don't know how you can honestly say she's followed the facts, each night on her show has been more or less devoted to Russia for the past 2 years. If even 5% of what she said had any type of weight to it Mueller would have found something.

I'd feel badly misled and question my own judgement if the shoe was on the other foot. It's the same reason I don't watch Hannity, albeit Hannity has come out of this debacle a lot better than Maddow has. Watch what you want obviously, just making the point that mixed mixing up sources can lead to a more balanced view of things.

everlast75

Ultros wrote: »

each night on her show has been more or less devoted to Russia for the past 2 years.

I listen to her pod most days for the last year and it hasn't.

There is plenty of Trump there in her show, but with 19 investigations into him and his cronies, it's hard not to report about him.

Like I said, I do (contrary to what some here might think) apply critical thinking and turn off if I get a sense that someone isn't following logic.

And separately, I disagree that Dems overplayed the Russia story. They ran the midterms on policy and swept the House. They are using subpoena power effectively and providing oversight and also controlling Trump via the purse. The shutdown was an excellent example.

There's a litany of crime to be discovered with Trump. He ain't out of the woods yet. And *cough* I never thought I'd quote Chris Christie, but Mueller wasn't the real threat to Trump... the SDNY is.

JRant

everlast75 wrote: »

Absolute nonsense IMHO.

Hannity is a Trump stooge, an absolute liar and a dangerous agitator.

Look at the caliber of guests on Maddow - Vance, Rosenberg, Neil Katyal, Banks, Litman etc compared with Hannity - Lewandowski, Page etc.

Not once has any guest that I have seen on Maddow pull her up on going too far or getting her facts wrong.

She had one monumental cock up with Trump's taxes but since then, I've not seen anything since.

The report may state that Trump et al did not collude, but there were serious questions to be raised. In addition, her shows were not Russian linked as often as you might believe. She covered voter difficulties in the midterms, deep research into Trump inc etc that has come to pass. She never definitively stated anything to my recollection that was nonsense. I wouldn't listen to it otherwise.

I did listen to 360 and other pods but I switched off them as the quality wasn't there.

I listen to Preet, O'Donnell, Talking Feds, the Beat.

I get that you might disagree. That's absolutely fine if you do. Its a free world. I get that she has some annoying mannerism. I know she is a hate figure amongst the right, a man hating shrill leftie.

I'm just stating my view.

Hey, we all have our preferences, each to their own as they say

I didn't like her coverage of this at all. It was all to far fetched to me. There were fairly regular claims by her that Trump going to be gone in a matter of days/weeks from "inside sources".
I have enjoyed Jimmy Dores coverage, even if he is not MSM. Always looks for the facts and isn't afraid to point the finger at his own side for their own shortcomings. Something that has been sadly missing from both sides of this.

aloyisious

News breaking tonight that'll probably make Don partly happy. Michael Avenatti has been arrested on charges of extortion and wire fraud in relation to a conversation he had with a lawyer for the Nike Co, allegedly asking for US $20 million not to hold a press conference announcing he was taking a case against Nike on behalf of a client. He's apparently to be released on bail. The prosecuting office is the SDNY, so it might help protect it's reputation as a neutral prosecutorial office.

Stormy Daniels revealed that she fired him several months ago on finding he was not being honest with her in his dealings, referring to him as her former attorney.

ancapailldorcha

SeamusFX banned. This is a forum for discussion not rants and insults.

MrFresh

Deleted User wrote: »

Im assuming you were never found innocent of child molestation or regicide.

Not to my knowledge. Pretty sure I've never been investigated for either.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

MadYaker wrote: »

It'll be at least a month before we see it imo. Hence Trump getting out in front and setting the narritive today. When it is released it's likely lots of it will be redacted in order to protect classified info or people who testified / made statements or whatever. Can't even imagine the number of gov depts that will have to get a look before it goes public. Trump obviously has it in full id imagine, or at least was breifed at length by Barr. Not that he has the attention span to read it. If they drag their heels too much id imagine congress can get involved but they can't break laws regarding classified info and testemonies / identities of those who were witnesses. etc.

As a poster earlier said to me. Is this genuine or sarcasm
Maddow has become Alex Jones

MadYaker

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

As a poster earlier said to me. Is this genuine or sarcasm
Maddow has become Alex Jones

You've lost me I'm afraid

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Im assuming you were never found innocent of child molestation or regicide.

Even if Mueller thought he could indict a sitting president, with the DOJ guidelines saying he couldn't, that indictment would only push ahead with standard of proof to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", ie a criminal level of liability.

There is another level, "on the balance of probability",i.e. a Civil level of guilt.

To illustrate the point, OJ Simpson was found innocent of the criminal charge of Murder.

However, he was found guilty of the Wrongful Death, which is the civil charge.

There are many questions left unanswered. The entirety of the House, the vast majority of the public said it should be released. Even Trump himself says he has no difficulty with the report being released. Let's see what happens now.

jooksavage

So. Any sign of the full report?

Disappointed as Trump-skeptics might be, I don't know one of them who, last week, would have been satisfied with a heavily-padded 4 page summary of a 2 year investigation.

duploelabs

Barr had a heavy hand in the pardons of the Iran Contra pardons as AG under Bush, so he's got form in burying stuff

Leroy42

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

As a poster earlier said to me. Is this genuine or sarcasm
Maddow has become Alex Jones

This is absolute rubbish.

Whatever your views of her style, what she spends time on etc, there is absolutely no comparison between the actor Alex Jones (and he stated under oath) and the presenter Maddow.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

Anybody else find this... a little "off"?



https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1110254539163291648?s=19

I assume that a letter like that gets filed under "ignore" by all the channels , just as a letter from a Democrat asking that every Republican that claimed Hillary Clinton was guilty of this, that or the other be excluded from on-air should be treated the same way.

US Politics is truly fundamentally broken and it's hard to see where the road back is to be honest.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is absolute rubbish.

Whatever your views of her style, what she spends time on etc, there is absolutely no comparison between the actor Alex Jones (and he stated under oath) and the presenter Maddow.

Yes there is.

jooksavage

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is absolute rubbish.

Whatever your views of her style, what she spends time on etc, there is absolutely no comparison between the actor Alex Jones (and he stated under oath) and the presenter Maddow.

I remember her being mocked for tearing up when she had to read the the term "tender age shelters" - a term ICE themselves use for the facilities that house babies. That was genuine. I remember reading those words myself and getting upset. The people who laughed at that have a serious empathy deficit.



Anyone comparing Maddow to Jones is not a serious person and can be safely ignored. Maddow's "Bag-man" one of last year's best podcasts. As well as describing brilliantly the escalating Agnew crisis, it dug up some totally new information, including Bush Sr's problematic intervention in the affair. Hopefully someday we'll get as well-produced chronology of the many controversies of the Trump WH.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes there is.

I suppose that when you can't tell the difference between researched, fact-based reporting from a ravings of a lunatic, it would be easy to hold that opinion.