Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

1eg0a3xv7b82of

i suggest everyone wait for the full report to be released in a few weeks.
then if there is actual evidence of trump committing fraud, treason or any other criminal action he will impeached and indicted.
regardless of the full report vindicating or incriminating trump, mueller and barr should then appear before congress.

as for muellers team claims, please can we have some perspective.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-muellers-team-knew-dossier-kicking-off-trump-investigation-was-biased-and-defective

Leroy42

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

i suggest everyone wait for the full report to be released in a few weeks.
then if there is actual evidence of trump committing fraud, treason or any other criminal action he will impeached and indicted.
regardless of the full report vindicating or incriminating trump, mueller and barr should then appear before congress.

as for muellers team claims, please can we have some perspective.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-muellers-team-knew-dossier-kicking-off-trump-investigation-was-biased-and-defective

I totally agree. And the same should be true for the likes of Trump and his supporters who are claiming that he has been totally vindicated.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that Trump cannot be trusted in anything that relates to him.

everlast75

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

i suggest everyone wait for the full report to be released in a few weeks.
then if there is actual evidence of trump committing fraud, treason or any other criminal action he will impeached and indicted.
regardless of the full report vindicating or incriminating trump, mueller and barr should then appear before congress.

So you accept Trump, Hannity, Jones and numerous Republican Representatives were completely out of Order with their victory lap and exclamations of "total exoneration" then?

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

as for muellers team claims, please can we have some perspective.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-muellers-team-knew-dossier-kicking-off-trump-investigation-was-biased-and-defective

And for the 4 millionth time, that dossier did not spark the investigation into Trump!

mcmoustache

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-muellers-team-knew-dossier-kicking-off-trump-investigation-was-biased-and-defective

How many times must it be pointed out to people that the dossier did not kick off the FBI investigation? Even FOX News's Chris Wallace pointed this out.

You are using a dishonest think-piece to make a dishonest point on your behalf.

B0jangles

Fox News was created to be a mouthpiece for the GOP.

https://www.businessinsider.com/roger-ailes-blueprint-fox-news-2011-6?r=US&IR=T

Republican media strategist Roger Ailes launched Fox News Channel in 1996, ostensibly as a "fair and balanced" counterpoint to what he regarded as the liberal establishment media. But according to a remarkable document buried deep within the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, the intellectual forerunner for Fox News was a nakedly partisan 1970 plot by Ailes and other Nixon aides to circumvent the "prejudices of network news" and deliver "pro-administration" stories to heartland television viewers.

The memo—called, simply enough,"A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News"— is included in a 318-page cache of documents detailing Ailes' work for both the Nixon and George H.W. Bush administrations that we obtained from the Nixon and Bush presidential libraries. Through his firms REA Productions and Ailes Communications, Inc., Ailes served as paid consultant to both presidents in the 1970s and 1990s, offering detailed and shrewd advice ranging from what ties to wear to how to keep the pressure up on Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the first Gulf War.

It's not just a conservative slant on the facts, it's pure propoganda for the republican party.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Leroy42 wrote: »

I totally agree. And the same should be true for the likes of Trump and his supporters who are claiming that he has been totally vindicated.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that Trump cannot be trusted in anything that relates to him.

the full report might actually destroy trump so posters here should hold off attacking Mueller and barr, they could he your heroes yet.



I am sure we can all agree all power corrupts, obama, both bushes, clinton and reagan all have had serious accusations and claims made against them.
but thats all they were/are, the problem is if you want to impeach or indict a president sitting or ex you need some serious concrete evidence.

Even then presidents cannot pardon themselves against impeachment but the experts disagrees over whether they can presidents can pardon themselves against federal indictment.



i will only agree that trump cannot be trusted when i see the actual concrete evidence, not 'claims' about racism, tax and bank fraud, draft dodging etc etc.
For a sitting or ex US president the threshold should be enough evidence to impeach.

If Trump is dirty and the evidence is real and strong then the democrats and many republicans will jump at the chance to impeach.

everlast75

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

the full report might actually destroy trump so posters here should hold off attacking Mueller and barr, they could he your heroes yet.



I am sure we can all agree all power corrupts, obama, both bushes, clinton and reagan all have had serious accusations and claims made against them.
but thats all they were/are, the problem is if you want to impeach or indict a president sitting or ex you need some serious concrete evidence.

Even then presidents cannot pardon themselves against impeachment but the experts disagrees over whether they can presidents can pardon themselves against federal indictment.



i will only agree that trump cannot be trusted when i see the actual concrete evidence, not 'claims' about racism, tax and bank fraud, draft dodging etc etc.
For a sitting or ex US president the threshold should be enough evidence to impeach.

If Trump is dirty and the evidence is real and strong then the democrats and many republicans will jump at the chance to impeach.

In fairness, he has lied over 8,500 times in 2 years!?!?

Are you waiting for a nice round number, say 10,000?

batgoat

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

the full report might actually destroy trump so posters here should hold off attacking Mueller and barr, they could he your heroes yet.



I am sure we can all agree all power corrupts, obama, both bushes, clinton and reagan all have had serious accusations and claims made against them.
but thats all they were/are, the problem is if you want to impeach or indict a president sitting or ex you need some serious concrete evidence.

Even then presidents cannot pardon themselves against impeachment but the experts disagrees over whether they can presidents can pardon themselves against federal indictment.



i will only agree that trump cannot be trusted when i see the actual concrete evidence, not 'claims' about racism, tax and bank fraud, draft dodging etc etc.
For a sitting or ex US president the threshold should be enough evidence to impeach.

If Trump is dirty and the evidence is real and strong then the democrats and many republicans will jump at the chance to impeach.

Don't think anyone has attacked Mueller on here, many do have a problem with a lack of transparency in the summary. It looks distinctly like the intent was to cushion Trump.

Thepoet85

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote:

i suggest everyone wait for the full report to be released in a few weeks. then if there is actual evidence of trump committing fraud, treason or any other criminal action he will impeached and indicted. regardless of the full report vindicating or incriminating trump, mueller and barr should then appear before congress.

You're 100% on that.

everlast75

Imagine having to work for 45 and the embarrassment of having to refuse to answer whether wind farms give you cancer.

FFS

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1113565589836972033

dogbert27

Leroy42 wrote: »

There was a discussion on CNN last night given Trump latest crazy speeches where he got where his father was born wrong and then in a later speech starting simply making up claims about windmills and cancer and other nonsense.

Anyway, the point being that these lies actually work in Trumps favour as the media spend time trying to work out the truth, then tryign to get the WH to explain why the lie happened and what he really meant.

All the while, just like during his election, he avoids having to actually say anything of detail.

The conversation is spent about what he said, what he meant, was it a lie or a misstatement. But the real question, say in relation to his dad, how the hell can a POTUS get something so fundamental so wrong? Does he do this often? How do those working with him know if he knows what he actually taking about.

The same for windmills. Does he really believe that windmill noise causes cancer? Is he going to legislate to stop windmill manufacturers killing people like that? What regulations will he bring in? Should those people forced to leave near windmills be compensated for this?

If windmills are not the answer to clean energy, what does Trump propose in it stead?

But as you said, none of that happens. We get a few posts or TV segments asking about it and then the cycle starts all over again the next day and nothing is ever actually achieved. The one thing Trump does spectacularly well, if avoid having to take a position on anything. He is everything to everyone.

Said it in 3 separate interviews within a 12 month period

MadYaker

:pac: Why wouldn’t she just say no? She’s hardly going to get fired over it.

duploelabs

MadYaker wrote: »

:pac: Why wouldn’t she just say no? She’s hardly going to get fired over it.

Wouldn't surprise me

Cheerful Spring

mcmoustache wrote: »

Who could have guessed that Trump's AG would misrepresent the conclusions of the report? Just like the North Korea debacle, it looks like the victory lap last week by Trump's supporters may have been a bit premature. Not that it matters. His supporters have a knack for going through the cycle of repeating a Trump lie, the lie getting exposed and then moving on to the next lie as if the previous one never happened.

Not true. New York Times claim is some of the Mueller investigators are not happy with Barr assessment summary of the Muller report. New York Times does not name the disgruntled investigators and don't even 'flesh out' the problems they had. Why release this piece and not discuss the grievances they had? Hearsay is not journalism.

Mueller report cleared Trump of collusion with Russia. This is not going to change even when the full report is out. I suspect this news is based around the claim Trump obstructed the investigation into him.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

everlast75 wrote: »

So you accept Trump, Hannity, Jones and numerous Republican Representatives were completely out of Order with their victory lap and exclamations of "total exoneration" then?



And for the 4 millionth time, that dossier did not spark the investigation into Trump!

And if that dossier did not. What did

everlast75

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true. New York Times claim is some of the Mueller investigators are not happy with Barr assessment summary of the Muller report. New York Times does not name the disgruntled investigators and don't even 'flesh out' the problems they had. Why release this piece and not discuss the grievances they had? Hearsay is not journalism.

Mueller report cleared Trump of collusion with Russia. This is not going to change even when the full report is out. I suspect this news is based around the claim Trump obstructed the investigation into him.

Correct, but the Washington Post does. They report that those working on the case wrote interim reports sanitised enough for the public to see.

"Members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant.

“It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” said one person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity.

The New York Times first reported that some special counsel investigators feel that Barr did not adequately portray their findings.

Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions.

“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according to one U.S. official briefed on the matter.


The Mueller team is reportedly saying it wrote summaries for each section, which it believed Barr could release immediately and without a need to redact. Instead, he chose to summarize the report almost completely in his own words and didn’t even include complete sentences from Mueller’s report."

The fact here is that there have been no reports from inside the Mueller team for the entire investigation. The fact that there are now murmurs should cause enough concern about how the process is being handled.

batgoat

The Washington Post article is painting a pretty damming image of the report, there were actually summaries included in the report so they could have already been published...

mcmoustache

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

And if that dossier did not. What did

Regarding the FBI investigation, that was started in July 2016 after it became known that a drunken campaign worker blabbed about hacked emails that he shouldn't have known about to an Australian former diplomat.

McCain, who gave the dossier to the FBI received the dossier after the election in 2016. The investigation was already ongoing for 4 months by then.

This is simple stuff for people who get their news from places that aren't blatant misinformation outlets.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1113806805715574784



:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Christy42

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

mcmoustache wrote: »

Who could have guessed that Trump's AG would misrepresent the conclusions of the report? Just like the North Korea debacle, it looks like the victory lap last week by Trump's supporters may have been a bit premature. Not that it matters. His supporters have a knack for going through the cycle of repeating a Trump lie, the lie getting exposed and then moving on to the next lie as if the previous one never happened.

Not true. New York Times claim is some of the Mueller investigators are not happy with Barr assessment summary of the Muller report. New York Times does not name the disgruntled investigators and don't even 'flesh out' the problems they had. Why release this piece and not discuss the grievances they had? Hearsay is not journalism.

Mueller report cleared Trump of collusion with Russia. This is not going to change even when the full report is out. I suspect this news is based around the claim Trump obstructed the investigation into him.

I would point out that Trump has not been cleared in terms of collusion from what I have seen.

Certainly the presumption of innocence should remain but given plenty of other scandals have stayed in the public eye after the investigation found no crime...(and this one found a lot of crimes amongst his close allies).

I suspect as you do that the report would then focus on obstruction of justice. Leaving out the severity of this would be Barr misrepresenting the report (if indeed we find out that is the case).

Penn

DoJ defending Barr's summary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-department-addresses-reports-that-some-on-mueller-team-unhappy-with-barrs-letter-live-updates/

Spokeswoman Kerri Kupec released a statement Thursday morning, which said that the Justice Department was concerned about illegally releasing grand jury information, which is confidential.

"Every page of the 'confidential report' provided to Attorney General Barr on March 22, 2019 was marked 'May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P.6(e)' - a law that protects confidential grand jury information - and therefore could not be publicly released," she wrote.

She went on to explain the reasoning of the department in releasing what it has so far -- the March letter.

"Given the extraordinary public interest in the matter, the Attorney General decided to release the report's bottom-line findings and his conclusions immediately -- without attempting to summarize the report -- with the understanding that the report itself would be released after the redaction process. As the Attorney General stated in his March 29th letter to Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler, he does not believe the report should be released in 'serial or piecemeal fashion.' The Department continues to work with the special counsel on appropriate redactions to the report so that it can be released to Congress and the public."

At the very least, the fact they had to respond to the news reports is showing that there is a huge spotlight on them and that Barr's letter or a further summary will likely not be sufficient.

mcmoustache

We now finally have irrefutable confirmation that the reports from NYT, WaPo, NBC and WSJ are credible.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1113819627212169219

Leroy42

Just going back to the windmills causes cancer mess up, the video linked previously where the spokesperson said she had "no answer", the last statement from the journalist is the real story.

"plenty of Americns families are concerned today". There lies the real damage of Trump. He fires out these lies and people get all worked up about lies, but in reality POTUS words mean something and there are people now that this will be negatively affecting.

People looking to sell their house will be faced with questions from buyers and probably a loss of value.
People living close by worried about themselves and their families
People who are the the business of selling these have just seen their business take a massive hit.

But to Trump supporters its all good cause he's annoying the liberals.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

mcmoustache wrote: »

Regarding the FBI investigation, that was started in July 2016 after it became known that a drunken campaign worker blabbed about hacked emails that he shouldn't have known about to an Australian former diplomat.

McCain, who gave the dossier to the FBI received the dossier after the election in 2016. The investigation was already ongoing for 4 months by then.

This is simple stuff for people who get their news from places that aren't blatant misinformation outlets.

Please review the link below and pay close attention to the dates
You will find your timeline is wrong
Posters should know that when you post facts can be checked and discounted very easily

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1HH395

mcmoustache

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

Please review the link below and pay close attention to the dates
You will find your timeline is wrong
Posters should know that when you post facts can be checked and discounted very easily

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1HH395

According to your link the investigation started in July which is what I stated:

Late July 2016 - The FBI begins a counter-intelligence investigation of Russian meddling in the election.

It misses the part about McCain handing the dossier to the FBI in November but the article is from April 2018 so there would naturally be gaps.


It does, however, mention the dossier and Trump being briefed on it:

Jan. 6, 2017 - In an unclassified report, the U.S. intelligence community states that Putin ordered an election meddling effort whose goals eventually included helping Trump and harming Clinton.

President-elect Trump is briefed by U.S. intelligence chiefs on the finding, and is told of the existence of information gathered by Steele.

Jan. 10, 2017 - BuzzFeed publishes the Steele “dossier” detailing alleged collusion between Trump’s campaign and Moscow and containing salacious allegations regarding Trump.

So, according to your link, the investigation was started in July.


McCain received the dossier in November:

The Republican senator was attending an annual security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia shortly after the presidential election in November 2016 when retired a British diplomat approached him.

McCain ultimately turned the dossier over to Comey in a meeting on December 9, 2016 that he said lasted about 10 minutes.

So, given that the investigation was started months BEFORE the FBI got the dossier, I don't see how the the dossier could have been what started it. Do you see what I'm getting at? My sense of causality is telling me that events in the future don't cause events in the past. It's not a controversial opinion.

So what's your point again?

Water John

Not pursuing to who said what first, waste of time. If somebody reports me to the Guards for a crime, does it matter who they are, once it's credible?
Seems Sessions and Rozenstein, both Republicans, saw it necessary to engage a Special Counsel.

batgoat

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

Please review the link below and pay close attention to the dates
You will find your timeline is wrong
Posters should know that when you post facts can be checked and discounted very easily

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1HH395

Didn't you post only a few pages back that Donald's father may actually be German? That seems pretty counter factual to me.

Anyway, it's a fact that members of Mueller's team are disputing the findings of the summary and indicating something went seriously wrong...

Cheerful Spring

everlast75 wrote: »

Correct, but the Washington Post does. They report that those working on the case wrote interim reports sanitised enough for the public to see.

"Members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant.

“It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” said one person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity.

The New York Times first reported that some special counsel investigators feel that Barr did not adequately portray their findings.

Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions.

“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according to one U.S. official briefed on the matter.


The Mueller team is reportedly saying it wrote summaries for each section, which it believed Barr could release immediately and without a need to redact. Instead, he chose to summarize the report almost completely in his own words and didn’t even include complete sentences from Mueller’s report."

The fact here is that there have been no reports from inside the Mueller team for the entire investigation. The fact that there are now murmurs should cause enough concern about how the process is being handled.

If Trump is innocent and did not collude with Russia and neither did his aides and this does not change. Then going after him for obstruction is nonsense. Trump was innocent of this crime in the first place and had every right to fight back.

It's weird the Democrats are trying to play the victim card when it's them who wasted taxpayers money and lost the battle. Muller found no evidence for collusion, end of story.

It time the Democrats move on from this and stop wasting time on it. Trump has enough bad qualities that you can pick apart. I always felt you find financial irregularities if you checked hard enough and would involve people that are currently protected. Trump is colluding with Israel and damaging the security of the United States. Trump was bailed out by Israeli donors in the past and there payback happening right now.

batgoat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If Trump is innocent and did not collude with Russia and neither did his aides and this does not change. Then going after him for obstruction is nonsense. Trump was innocent of this crime in the first place and had every right to fight back.

It's weird the Democrats are trying to play the victim card when it's them who wasted taxpayers money and lost the battle. Muller found no evidence for collusion, end of story.

It time the Democrats move on from this and stop wasting time on it. Trump has enough bad qualities that you can pick apart. I always felt you find financial irregularities if you checked hard enough and would involve people that are currently protected. Trump is colluding with Israel and damaging the security of the United States. Trump was bailed out by Israeli donors in the past and there payback happening right now.

Investigation can result in an investigation not being possible to fully complete. It's pretty disturbing if the president felt the need to obstruct an investigation, doing so indicates he felt the need to hide things.... I don't think they are going to impeach but what looks likely to come out now, is a damning reflection of the corruption in the White House. The president has not been exonerated and used the Attorney General to misrepresent the findings of the Mueller report.

For a person who sees conspiracies in everything, it's amazing that you don't see an issue in this.

JRant

Water John wrote: »

Not pursuing to who said what first, waste of time. If somebody reports me to the Guards for a crime, does it matter who they are, once it's credible?
Seems Sessions and Rozenstein, both Republicans, saw it necessary to engage a Special Counsel.

There are still massive concerns over the dossier though. It was funded as part of a political campaign against an opponent and used the services of foreign spies. The whole debacle stinks to high heaven.
Whether it was or wasn't used as a basis of the investigation is secondary to how this was allowed to be used at all.