Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

everlast75

A theory floating around is that flynn as one of his first acts handed over the names of russians working with the US, who were executed.

This would explain
1) why the judge asked why wasn't Flynn being charged with treason
2) why there is such reluctance to discolse the content of the conversations with kislyak
3) why Barr has no problem investigating the sources for the beginning of the Russia investigation, even if it places sources at risk

It would also tie in with what happened in north korea recently

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

A theory floating around is that flynn as one of his first acts handed over the names of russians working with the US, who were executed.

This would explain
1) why the judge asked why wasn't Flynn being charged with treason
2) why there is such reluctance to discolse the content of the conversations with kislyak
3) why Barr has no problem investigating the sources for the beginning of the Russia investigation, even if it places sources at risk

It would also tie in with what happened in north korea recently

The GRU lads were given the chop ?

The judge clearly didn't understand what the USA definition of treason is then. The USA wasn't in a congress sanctioned war with Russia so regardless of what happened can't be treason.

aloyisious

VonZan wrote: »

Why is Mueller getting off on his claim that he can't charge a sitting president? The report is a completely calamity as it leaves more questions than answers. Mueller has said he can't make the claim that Trump is innocent and has insinuated that he couldn't charge Trump even if he did have evidence. He's definitely going to have to give testimony over this as he's implying that either the DoJ hampered his investigation and final report or he's staying that the report isn't a final conclusion. Surely if there is some evidence against Trump then that should be held until he isn't president and then charged?

The commentary from federal investigators like Comey and Mueller has been extremely vague and unhelpful to say the least.

The sooner 2020 comes the better.

It all seems to come back to this legal advice memo from the DOJ's Inspector General wherein it stated that a sitting president cannot be charged with criminal acts he/she committed. It seems to cover acts committed prior to taking up office as well as any done in office, based on the presumption that to do so would interfere with the freedom of the president to carry out his/her duties under the constitution.

That seems to be why there is so much talk about impeachment as it's one way of getting past the snag caused by the IG's memo. The senate-control issue is seen as blocking any chance of a successful bid for an impeachment move. If it was sorted out, the V/P would sit in in the meantime while his boss was on trial in the senate.

There's also a chance that internal US politics [from in both parties] might view Mike Pence sitting in the Oval Office as unacceptable and that could act as a block as well. Don is a loose cannon which both parties by now want to wish away but replacing him with Mike Pence may be something they just don't want to risk.

Leroy42

That surely are serious questions about Mueller and his investigation at this stage. Whilst Trump has, successfully, created the narrative that Mueller is anti Trump based on the evidence it would appear that Mueller did everything possible to protect Trump.

He gave massive plea deals to people like Flynn, for apparently very little in return. He allowed Trump to avoid being directly questioned and one now must wonder about the timing of the report seeing as it only came out when Barr was in place.

Mueller, Rosenstein are all GOP. Have we just witnessed one of the great switch plays?

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

That surely are serious questions about Mueller and his investigation at this stage. Whilst Trump has, successfully, created the narrative that Mueller is anti Trump based on the evidence it would appear that Mueller did everything possible to protect Trump.

He gave massive plea deals to people like Flynn, for apparently very little in return. He allowed Trump to avoid being directly questioned and one now must wonder about the timing of the report seeing as it only came out when Barr was in place.

Mueller, Rosenstein are all GOP. Have we just witnessed one of the great switch plays?

Can't see that at all with Mueller., whatever about RR.

Mueller did his job. He laid out some pretty devastating charges against Trump and his report may ultimately mean the end of Trump's presidency.

He nailed some of his colleagues and still has 12 other investigations.

We don't know what Flynn gave up yet, so we cannot say he got too good of a deal. Remember, very few people know what counter-intelligence work was done.

Why he didn't question Trump, I would certainly like to know.

But other than that, I have zero issues with him. He was uber fair to Trump because of his office. I wonder sometimes what would have been the result of a report conducted by Ken Starr.

RR on the other hand, I cannot figure out. I can guess, but I would love to know.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

That surely are serious questions about Mueller and his investigation at this stage. Whilst Trump has, successfully, created the narrative that Mueller is anti Trump based on the evidence it would appear that Mueller did everything possible to protect Trump.

He gave massive plea deals to people like Flynn, for apparently very little in return. He allowed Trump to avoid being directly questioned and one now must wonder about the timing of the report seeing as it only came out when Barr was in place.

Mueller, Rosenstein are all GOP. Have we just witnessed one of the great switch plays?

Can't see that at all with Mueller., whatever about RR.

Mueller did his job. He laid out some pretty devastating charges against Trump and his report may ultimately mean the end of Trump's presidency.

He nailed some of his colleagues and still has 12 other investigations.

We don't know what Flynn gave up yet, so we cannot say he got too good of a deal. Remember, very few people know what counter-intelligence work was done.

Why he didn't question Trump, I would certainly like to know.

But other than that, I have zero issues with him. He was uber fair to Trump because of his office. I wonder sometimes what would have been the result of a report conducted by Ken Starr.

RR on the other hand, I cannot figure out. I can guess, but I would love to know.

I'd go along with all that as well.

Mueller was/is a straight arrow as far as I can see. Rosenstein is a bit spineless though, facilitating the Trump decapitation of Comey and Mc Cabe in a less than honourable fashion.

I reckon Mueller didn't force the issue of interviewing Trump because it could not have added to his amenability to indictment for all the reasons already well explained. It would only have precipitated a huge stand-off which, in Mueller thinking would have demeaned the office of President for no good reason.

listermint

Mueller surely would have thought. If he wants to come in fine. It adds to our fact finding.
If he doesn't we won't chase it because we can't pursue the sitting president anyway.

So there wasn't an option open to pursue questioning if trump wasn't forth coming.

everlast75

Do ye remember when i said Nunes was crazy, and always looked crazy.

Here's a tweet and pic that proves both...


https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1134655399351787520?s=19

aloyisious

On an aside to the main debate, I listened to the news reports that Don is pro-Boris in the race for conservative party leadership. I'd imagine Boris may have face-palmed himself into wakefulness on hearing that bit of news.

For those wondering, Kyle Cheney made it clear in the past that he is NOT in any way related to Dick Cheney. EDIT: Kyle is a US commentator on Politico.

Re Boris, according to the news-item; Don claimed he had also been approached by other people running for the leadership office seeking his backing.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

A theory floating around is that flynn as one of his first acts handed over the names of russians working with the US, who were executed.

This would explain
1) why the judge asked why wasn't Flynn being charged with treason
2) why there is such reluctance to discolse the content of the conversations with kislyak
3) why Barr has no problem investigating the sources for the beginning of the Russia investigation, even if it places sources at risk

It would also tie in with what happened in north korea recently

I don't get this. Where is this theory floating? To whom would the names have been handed over? I'm not able to figure this one at all.

TomOnBoard

aloyisious wrote: »

On an aside to the main debate, I listened to the news reports that Don is pro-Boris in the race for conservative party leadership. I'd imagine Boris may have face-palmed himself into wakefulness on hearing that bit of news.

Boris and Trump would be kindred spirits..Both are well able to twist facts and spew outright lies,and both are big into self- image.

I noted that Trump also included Farage in his Valentine list, while characterising Meghan Markle as 'nasty'.

What is it with the man-child? Why does he have to create such friction by interfering in the business of other countries instead of shutting his face like almost every reasonable world leader?

After the latest Markle zinger (which came as a result of someone relaying that she had called him a misogynst before the election, quipping that she might stay in Canada if he won the election- note: she was ordinary Meghan Markle, erstwhile actress at the time, and nowhere near becoming a Royal) I'd not be shocked if Harry refused to meet him and his gang of (known/acknowledged) free-loading children as they descend on the State Dinner gig next week. God, but he is clueless and classless!! And talk about being able to start a riot in an empty room!!! Jeez!!! :mad::mad:

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Do ye remember when i said Nunes was crazy, and always looked crazy.

Here's a tweet and pic that proves both...


https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1134655399351787520?s=19

Jeez!! Every day it gets more and more crazy!! And no doubt Devin Nunes' Cow will be involved at some point! She has complained that Devin himself is Udderly-Worthless and calls him a treasonous cowpoke..

everlast75

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I don't get this. Where is this theory floating? To whom would the names have been handed over? I'm not able to figure this one at all.

It is just a theory I read on twitter, so appropriate weight should be given.

The guess is flynn knew and ID'ed US assets in Russia/leaked them to Kislyak, hence the drive to hide the transcripts.

Might be BS, might not be.

It is coincidental that KJU killed some of his own recently, for what appears to be similar issues.

TomOnBoard

aloyisious wrote: »

On an aside to the main debate, I listened to the news reports that Don is pro-Boris in the race for conservative party leadership. I'd imagine Boris may have face-palmed himself into wakefulness on hearing that bit of news.

For those wondering, Kyle Cheney made it clear in the past that he is NOT in any way related to Dick Cheney. Kyle is an Australian footballer.

I think this Kyle is a Politico contributor.

aloyisious

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I think this Kyle is a Politico contributor.

Yup, my bad, you're right. The Oz Kyle is some-one else.

Outlaw Pete

There absolutely was obstruction.....

Liberal democrats have spent two years obstructing the President from doing his job.

They have been bleating (many of you on this thread along with them) about how Donald Trump colluded with the Russian Government and when it's found that he didn't...... none of them (nor you) admit that they/you were wrong. Instead the goalposts are immediately moved and it becomes: Well, eh, he tried to obstruct the investigation then!

How disingenuous can people get. This whole sorry mess would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

This has all just been a plot to remove Trump from presidency and can't wait until it's time to focus on the launching of this whole farce as that is where the real crimes have taken place.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There absolutely was obstruction.....

Liberal democrats have spent two years obstructing the President from doing his job.

They have been bleating (many of you on this thread along with them) about how Donald Trump colluded with the Russian Government and when it's found that he didn't...... none of them (nor you) admit that they/you were wrong. Instead the goalposts are immediately moved and it becomes: Well, eh, he tried to obstruct the investigation then!

How disingenuous can people get. This whole sorry mess would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

This has all just been a plot to remove Trump from presidency and can't wait until it's time to focus on the launching of this whole farce as that is where the real crimes have taken place.

Have you been watching the Sean Hannity special?

peddlelies

everlast75 wrote: »

Have you been watching the Sean Hannity special?

Like I told you before, you've some neck. After all the FALSE INFO you peddled about Russia you still have the gall to smear others.

A theory floating around is that flynn as one of his first acts handed over the names of russians working with the US, who were executed.

It is just a theory I read on twitter

How are you finding the sad news that top notch reporters like the Krassensteins have been banned off that platform? You were an avid ran of their hillreporter site were you not.

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

Like I told you before, you've some neck. After all the FALSE INFO you peddled about Russia you still have the gall to smear others.


How are you finding the sad news that top notch reporters like the Krassensteins have been banned off that platform? You were an avid ran of their hillreporter site were you not.

What false info about Russia?

I had the good sense to say it was a theory, whereas others hear refer to the *fact* that there's a deep state out to get Trump.

I never read Krassensteins, sorry to burst your bubble. In fact, I'd blocked them way before they were banned on twitter.

Btw - handy username when accusing other people of lying

MrFresh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There absolutely was obstruction.....

Liberal democrats have spent two years obstructing the President from doing his job.

They have been bleating (many of you on this thread along with them) about how Donald Trump colluded with the Russian Government and when it's found that he didn't...... none of them (nor you) admit that they/you were wrong. Instead the goalposts are immediately moved and it becomes: Well, eh, he tried to obstruct the investigation then!

How disingenuous can people get. This whole sorry mess would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

This has all just been a plot to remove Trump from presidency and can't wait until it's time to focus on the launching of this whole farce as that is where the real crimes have taken place.

The irony of calling people disingenuous while misrepresenting the findings of the report. Where exactly did you get the theory that

it's found that he didn't

JRant

I see from a Vanity Fair article that the NYT have put a stop to their reporters and editors from appearing on some of the most biased programs on MSM. Unsurprisingly Maddow's show is one such show but not the only MSNBC one that they won't be appearing on.

The want to maintain a more balanced approach and I have to commend them for taking such a stance.

peddlelies

everlast75 wrote: »

What false info about Russia?

I had the good sense to say it was a theory, whereas others hear refer to the *fact* that there's a deep state out to get Trump.

I never read Krassensteins, sorry to burst your bubble. In fact, I'd blocked them way before they were banned on twitter.

Btw - handy username when accusing other people of lying

hillreporter.com is run by them.

Have at it anyway, Trump will still be there in 2020 running unless someone finds some serious wrongdoing like major financial fraud or extortion, getting his tax returns might help uncover something of that nature.

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

hillreporter.com is run by them.

Have at it anyway, Trump will still be there in 2020 running unless someone finds some serious wrongdoing like major financial fraud or extortion, getting his tax returns might help uncover something of that nature.

I'm waiting on you to tell me what lies I told?

And I've no idea what Hillreporter is!?

I'm pleased to note however that you acknowledge that there may be financial fraud or issues with his tax returns. Do you find it acceptable for a president to withhold such information from the voting public?

jochenstacker

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There absolutely was obstruction.....

Liberal democrats have spent two years obstructing the President from doing his job.

They have been bleating (many of you on this thread along with them) about how Donald Trump colluded with the Russian Government and when it's found that he didn't...... none of them (nor you) admit that they/you were wrong. Instead the goalposts are immediately moved and it becomes: Well, eh, he tried to obstruct the investigation then!

How disingenuous can people get. This whole sorry mess would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

This has all just been a plot to remove Trump from presidency and can't wait until it's time to focus on the launching of this whole farce as that is where the real crimes have taken place.

I used to think that no one in their right mind could possibly think that Trump did absolutely nothing wrong.
And I think I'm right, people who support him, do so " because he's a piece of shizzle and are just "sticking it to the libtards" when defending him.
Are you sniggering as you write this stuff?
No one with an IQ greater than 50 could seriously defend that guy.
Anyway.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-response-mueller-report-twitter-russia-investigation-a8875341.html

/argument

Dog Man Star

To a lot of Americans, Trump is a personal hero. No matter what he says or does, they will back him. It's like me and Morrissey. I adore the man, I don't care what his political views are, they make no difference to me and I will defend him all day (well almost).

But when did Politicians become heroes to Americans? This is the real problem. Morrissey does not affect my take-home pay or deny me a GP. The adoration of a man like Trump with immense power is new. I watched Justin Amash's townhall last week and two Trump supporters criticised him. Both were wearing Trump merchandise and talked in Fox News soundbites.

Those people are lost. There is no talking to them. The Dems need to understand that you cannot turn these people, they should be ignored. The real fight is to motivate the non-voters to vote and that is who they should address. And impeaching Trump is not a risky decision. It is the only decision.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There absolutely was obstruction.....

Liberal democrats have spent two years obstructing the President from doing his job.

They have been bleating (many of you on this thread along with them) about how Donald Trump colluded with the Russian Government and when it's found that he didn't...... none of them (nor you) admit that they/you were wrong. Instead the goalposts are immediately moved and it becomes: Well, eh, he tried to obstruct the investigation then!

How disingenuous can people get. This whole sorry mess would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

This has all just been a plot to remove Trump from presidency and can't wait until it's time to focus on the launching of this whole farce as that is where the real crimes have taken place.

Was that obstruction when republicans controlled both houses yet not one of Trump's campaign promises were passed?

Dog Man Star

duploelabs wrote: »

Was that obstruction when republicans controlled both houses yet not one of Trump's campaign promises were passed?

My god, the poster thinks obstruction is when the Democratic party in government don't agree with Republican legislation and it doesn't pass. Frightening level of ignorance of how a democracy works, truly frightening.

Trump, himself, called the Democrats 'obstructionists' when they opposed his destruction of the ACA and the tax reform he introduced. It's seems surreal now, that he accused them of being anti-America. He still says they believe in "open borders and crime". I mean, who on this planet. could possibly believe that, and yet millions do. A very public embarrassment for the US. Is there a country anywhere who takes them seriously? Most of us are waiting for Trump to be impeached, so we can start again. As I heard midweek, "like putting a horse in a hospital.....he'll shake the place up no doubt, but who the hell put a horse in a hospital?"

jochenstacker

Dog Man Star wrote: »

To a lot of Americans, Trump is a personal hero. No matter what he says or does, they will back him. It's like me and Morrissey. I adore the man, I don't care what his political views are, they make no difference to me and I will defend him all day (well almost).

Because you just have to like Morrissey, he's just so wonderfully unhinged, contrary and cranky. But he's also a genius.
For a better musician comparison to Trump we're gonna have to go with Ted Nugent, who just is a deplorable piece of human garbage.

Dog Man Star

jochenstacker wrote: »

Because you just have to like Morrissey, he's just so wonderfully unhinged, contrary and cranky. But he's also a genius.
For a better musician comparison to Trump we're gonna have to go with Ted Nugent, who just is a deplorable piece of human garbage.

My affection for Morrissey is because of his musical output alone. His views contradict mine, but he is not in any position to change my life. He is entitled to his opinions. Places he grew up in Manchester are unrecognisable from when he lived there. Correct, they are. Morrissey is approaching 60 years old. I do not look to him for political influence.

His new album is truly fantastic.

He also said that Trump is vermin and he would kill him for the "safety of humanity". On this, I agree.

pixelburp

Trump, Obama, Regan (especially Regan), there's a Cult of Personality attached to American politics that's well established and arguably only becomes a worrying problem when the person himself is so wrapped up in their own idolatry as trump was before he became president. Trump loves praise, demands and exists for it and the presence of his name above all.

Where does the worship come from? Is it just the reduction of discourse to this Sports Fan mentality, that my team is better than your team and thus the manager of this team is beyond reproach? I suppose when you literally have two flavours of government there's an emotional investment when you gotta pick a side. The Sunk Cost fallacy says you can't back out of a bad decision, so easier to just shout NO COLLUSION than admit your man is as bent as a 9 quid note. After a while it becomes seductive.