Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

hotmail.com

derb12 wrote:

I take it you haven’t read the report so? You should. I was quite skeptical that there would be anything incriminating in it, but it is a damning document. Goodness knows how additionally bad all the redacted sections will be.

You read the whole report in an hour?

marno21

kilns wrote: »

Its hilarious when Americans call some democrats radical left wing, when in truth if they are more centrists

In relative terms, the Democrats are radical left though compared to the intransigent un-cooperative far right coalition the Republican party has become.

The idea that to be a conservative you have to subscribe to the views of the modern Republican party is a dangerous position and a major issue with the 2 party system in America (and the UK is going the same way).

hotmail.com

marno21 wrote:

In relative terms, the Democrats are radical left though compared to the intransigent un-cooperative far right coalition the Republican party has become.

In relative terms, the Democrats are not left wing.

peddlelies

Midlife wrote: »

So are you saying you see suspicion in the links between Clintons and Russia but none with Trump campaign?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying nobody gave a crap that Clinton used a private email server, it's why they used it, so you shouldn't just brush it off with a one liner. It was used for peddling influence from outside the state department system from foreign countries, the money in turn was being sent to the Clinton foundation. Friends of Bill Clinton were given priority. They received hundreds of millions from the Saudi's, Qatar, Russia, Egypt, China etc.

When they "investigated" her they never investigated the foundation. Her aides were granted immunity, they didn't give a single care that there was destruction of evidence through destroying laptops, phones etc and deleting state department emails after subpeana's, her own lawyers got to choose what emails to hand over to investigators, and those at the top of the FBI and Justice department like Lynch, Strzok etc had predetermined the outcome. It was a complete and utter farce. Anyone with even a inkling of integrity knows this, although they might not admit it. There was so much evidence of wrongdoing Strzok changed the wording of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless" in Comeys final letter because it's not a legal standard.

https://apnews.com/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625

"More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president."

Midlife

I don't disagree with any of that.

My issue is that some people can consider all that damning but arrive at the conclusion that Trump and his campaign have done nothing wrong.

It's quite clear that both were/are shady.

Innocent people don't acid wash discs or say 'I'm ****ed' when they hear of the special council.

Itssoeasy

I've not read even remotely 1 % of the report but just seeing quotes from twitter of screenshots of the report. And shock horror Trump's assessment of what the report does for him is completely in the clear. If you're in the clear then an investigation wouldn't talk about TEN instintences of potential cases of obstruction of justice.

peddlelies

Midlife wrote: »

I don't disagree with any of that.

My issue is that some people can consider all that damning but arrive at the conclusion that Trump and his campaign have done nothing wrong.

It's quite clear that both were/are shady.

Innocent people don't acid wash discs or say 'I'm ****ed' when they hear of the special council.

I never said Trump was innocent or a good person as far as morals go, I've said the opposite many times. Mafia links, probably extremely shady business dealings ( I think this will eventually get him if his taxes ever get out ), screwing decent people out of money and so on. The Russia collusion theory is all I've ever defended him on because that's what the investigation was based on and I didn't think it was true. I think the way that investigation was handled and Clinton's are polar opposites. If there's a new investigation tomorrow on how he recovered in the early nineties and where the money came from there's no way I'd suspect he was innocent of wrongdoing.

DreamsBurnDown

hotmail.com wrote: »

In relative terms, the Democrats are not left wing.

The Democratic party is a very big tent, unlike the Republican party. While historically Democrats (politicians and those who vote for them) have been centrists or center right, to suggest there is no left wing politics in the US today is simply inaccurate. In polling since the 2016 election, support for socialism among Democratic voters has increased and now 60% have a more favorable view of socialism than capitalism.

One can certainly argue about what "socialism" means to Americans, as socialism is a very broad term. I would say the version espoused by Bernie Sanders is Social Democracy and similar to most European left wing politics, and would also contend that most Americans would support much of Bernie'e platform. I firmly believe Bernie would have won in 2016 and if selected will win in 2020.

The issue for Democrats is how much influence DSA goals will gain within the party, as there is little question that their goals are hard left and much harder left than even most European Social Democrats. Government controlling all health care (no private insurance), government guaranteeing everyone a job, state ownership of industry, etc. are hard left positions, at least by American standards and I would think by European standards as well.

Gbear

Is there anything new or is this the same litany of instances of blatant obstruction of justice and collusion that we knew about already?

Itssoeasy

Midlife wrote: »

The double standards from people who took so much from Hillary's e-mails and manage to see nothing in this are quite shocking.

It's the fascinating(in a weird way for me) thing of how American politicians and people can see the exact same piece of text and depending on whether it's framed by the left or right or democrats and republican can mean two completely different things, even though not one full stop or word is different.

Midlife

peddlelies wrote: »

I never said Trump was innocent or a good person as far as morals go, I've said the opposite many times. Mafia links, probably extremely shady business dealings ( I think this will eventually get him if his taxes ever get out ), screwing decent people out of money and so on. The Russia collusion theory is all I've ever defended him on because that's what the investigation was based on and I didn't think it was true. I think the way that investigation was handled and Clinton's are polar opposites. If there's a new investigation tomorrow on how he recovered in the early nineties and where the money came from there's no way I'd suspect he was innocent of wrongdoing.

Fair enough.

It was based on two things though and i don't think collusion was one.

1: Russian interference into election (undoubted at this point I think)

2: Links or Coordination between Trump campaign and Russia

I think both have been proven to be honest. You can say the trail runs cold with the second but the campaign were shown to be receptive to Russian help at times, communicating with wikileaks.

People throw around collusion because that's an actual crime.

peddlelies

Gbear wrote: »

Is there anything new or is this the same litany of instances of blatant obstruction of justice and collusion that we knew about already?

From what I've seen online there's nothing new as far as the main points go but I haven't read the specifics.

TLDR version :
Comey firing
suggestion of firing SC
trying to get Sessions to un recuse himself
conduct towards Manafort, Flynn, Cohen
Comey and Flynn conduct
the campaigns response to russian hacking
efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence
McGahn

This is taken from the Foxnews.com headline

"The report also said “substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst” for the decision to fire FBI Director James Comey was his “unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation.” But the report said the evidence “does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.”

peddlelies

Midlife wrote: »

Fair enough.

It was based on two things though and i don't think collusion was one.

1: Russian interference into election (undoubted at this point I think)

2: Links or Coordination between Trump campaign and Russia

It set out to determine whether Trump or associates of his campaign actively conspired with Russian efforts to interfere in the election. That's provably false now.

Collusion / Conspiracy are more or less the same thing in context of the investigation and what it set out to do, conspiracy is what Mueller set out to prove as it has a legal statute.

FatherTed

The report shows the TRUMP campaign KNEW IN ADVANCE that Wikileaks would be releasing the Clinton emails.

(sorry for the caps but it seems to be the norm around here when stressing points )

Dohnjoe

The McGahn point is news to most people I think

Have to admit, the below is pretty telling

According to notes kept by Jody Hunt, who served as Sessions’ chief of staff, Trump’s reaction to Mueller’s appointment was as follows: “The President slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m ****ed.’”

peddlelies

FatherTed wrote: »

The report shows the TRUMP campaign KNEW IN ADVANCE that Wikileaks would be releasing the Clinton emails.

(sorry for the caps but it seems to be the norm around here when stressing points )

Got a link to that please?

peddlelies

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The McGahn point is news to most people I think

Have to admit, the below is pretty telling

Do you see what they're conveniently omitting right after he said that?

It's just brutally dishonest reporting.

"Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. this is the worst thing that ever happened to me."

FatherTed

peddlelies wrote: »

Got a link to that please?

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

peddlelies

FatherTed wrote: »

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

No I mean, like a news report or something if you read it there. Maybe people are mixing up the timeline on social media? Late summer 2016 it was public knowledge there would be a second dump, Assange announced it on CNN etc. I searched google and can't find anything.

derb12

Here is a link to a searchable pdf of the report.
https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/mueller-report.pdf

Leroy42

From The guardian:

Bill Barr’s pre-spin on the Mueller report is looking shakier by the minute. The attorney general told us this morning that the White House had “fully cooperated” with the investigation.

Let’s not forget that Trump refused to be interviewed by Mueller – instead he only agreed to give written responses. Now, we get to see for the first time the president’s answers to the questions the special counsel posed him, reproduced as an appendix.

As a clearly exasperated Mueller notes, “the president stated on more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not recall’ or ‘remember’ or ‘have an independent recollection’” of information called for by the questions.

When you read Trump’s answers you can see what Mueller means. Take the first three responses the president gives relating to the Trump Tower meeting between his son Don Jr and a group of Russians in June 2016.

They begin:

- “I have no recollection…”

- “Nor do I recall…”

- “I have no independent recollection…”

After he received these replies, Mueller went back to Trump and asked again for a face-to-face interview, given the “inadequacy of the written format”. Trump declined.

peddlelies

Couple of interesting snippets

Cohen

"In early May 2017, Cohen received requests from Congress to provide testimony and documents in connection with congressional investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election. At that time, Cohen understood Congress's interest in him to be focused on the allegations in the Steele reporting concerning a meeting Cohen allegedly had with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign. Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations , which he believed were provably false. On May 18, 2017 , Cohen met with the President to discuss the request from Congress, and the President instructed Cohen that he should cooperate because there was nothing there."

Manafort

Leroy42

What it clearly shows is that the media have been shown to he pretty spot on in their reporting throughout.

The main source of Fake News is clearly Trump himself with even SHS admitting she simply lied to the press.

peddlelies

Leroy42 wrote: »

What it clearly shows is that the media have been shown to he pretty spot on in their reporting throughout.

Depends on the media you're talking about I suppose. CNN and MSNBC disgraced themselves.

Fox got it pretty much spot on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/15/admit-it-fox-news-has-been-right-all-along/

"Admit It: Fox News Has been Right All Along.”

Midlife

peddlelies wrote: »

It set out to determine whether Trump or associates of his campaign actively conspired with Russian efforts to interfere in the election. That's provably false now.

Collusion / Conspiracy are more or less the same thing in context of the investigation and what it set out to do, conspiracy is what Mueller set out to prove as it has a legal statute.

No, you have that wrong. Mueller did not set our to prove anything. He was a special council, not a special prosecuter.

"investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

There were links, they've been investigated.

It's easy for Trump and his followers to say 'this was a witch hunt', 'no collusion folks'. The truth is that the investigation was the result of actual Russian interference and then if you go around saying to the head of the FBI 'I hope you can let this thing go' or sending mails like 'I love it' to offers of support from the Russian government or lying about meeting Russian officials, then you're probably going to be investigated too.

FatherTed

peddlelies wrote: »

No I mean, like a news report or something if you read it there. Maybe people are mixing up the timeline on social media? Late summer 2016 it was public knowledge there would be a second dump, Assange announced it on CNN etc. I searched google and can't find anything.

I guess reading is hard.

ok page 54 specifically if you can manage it.

peddlelies

Midlife wrote: »

No, you have that wrong. Mueller did not set our to prove anything. He was a special council, not a special prosecuter.

"investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

There were links, they've been investigated.

It's easy for Trump and his followers to say 'this was a witch hunt', 'no collusion folks'. The truth is that the investigation was the result of actual Russian interference and then if you go around saying to the head of the FBI 'I hope you can let this thing go' or sending mails like 'I love it' to offers of support from the Russian government or lying about meeting Russian officials, then you're probably going to be investigated too.

Whatever, you can keep putting words in my mouth whilst clinging to semantics.

Here's Mueller conclusion on Americans conspiring with Russians to interfere in the election, which is the sole point I was alluding to.

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

rossie1977

peddlelies wrote: »

Depends on the media you're talking about I suppose. CNN and MSNBC disgraced themselves.

Fox got it pretty much spot on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/15/admit-it-fox-news-has-been-right-all-along/

"Admit It: Fox News Has been Right All Along.”

Abernathy is a Republican. His views are very partisan.

peddlelies

FatherTed wrote: »

I guess reading is hard.

ok page 54 specifically if you can manage it.

What's with the tone? You'll see it says late summer 2016, and mentions a possible future release. Assange was on cable TV touting a second release during that summer, without specific dates it's meaningless.

Midlife

peddlelies wrote: »

Whatever, you can keep putting words in my mouth whilst clinging to semantics.

Here's Mueller conclusion on Americans conspiring with Russians to interfere in the election, which is the sole point I was alluding to.

Sorry, not trying to put words in your mouth. I did mean Trump and his followers, not necessarily the people posting on this thread.

In fairness, the semantics are quite important in this case.