Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

BonnieSituation

Yet again Mueller states it was not a Hoax. So who do we believe RSM or DJT?

Stop moaning ffs

This should be all anyone’s talking about

Question: “Trump and his campaign welcomed & encouraged Russian interference?”

Mueller: “Yes.”

Question: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”

Mueller: “Yes.”

-

This is the type of directness and clarity that should be everybody’s goal, in these hearings.

MrFresh

peddlelies wrote: »

You can be pedantic over it all you like. Not a single American was charged with colluding or conspiring ( whatever you want to call it ) with the Russians in the 2016 election. Nobody. Not one. Nada. In fact, if anything, there was more foreign collusion on the Dem side since they exchanged information and conspired with the Ukrainians to damage Trump's campaign and they hired a foreign agent to dig up dirt on Trump using what seems for the most part, Russian sources and disinformation. Trump will never be charged with obstruction because a) Mueller completed his investigation unhindered and b) there was no underlying crime and c) The origins of the investigation will bear fruit of the poisonous tree

It's good that the hardcore anti Trumper's cling to this nonsense going into 2020 because it's going to help the Republicans. The boat has sailed so far into the distance you can't even see it anymore.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/436355-poll-majority-of-voters-accept-muellers-conclusion-on-russia

"The majority of U.S. voters accept special counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that President Trump did not conspire with Russia, and believe that congressional Democrats should do the same, according to a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill.

Sixty-four percent said that they accept Mueller's conclusion, the survey found, while 61 percent said they agree with the finding."

I'm not the one being pedantic. There is no question there was collusion. Pedantic is trying to limit the meaning of the word collusion to be the same as criminal conspiracy. Do you accept that Trumps campaign met with the Russians to arrange to receive dirt on Clinton? And if you do, why is that not collusion?

ECO_Mental

Back to Neunes and he is lost....nothing to say what a joke. Searching for a question and just gave up....

peddlelies

MrFresh wrote: »

I'm not the one being pedantic. There is no question there was collusion. Pedantic is trying to limit the meaning of the word collusion to be the same as criminal conspiracy. Do you accept that Trumps campaign met with the Russians to arrange to receive dirt on Clinton? And if you do, why is that not collusion?

Because nothing happened in the meeting, it was a front to push the Magnitsky act and had nothing to do with election interference. It was scummy to accept that meeting but it wasn't illegal. There was a willingness to "collude" but the fact is not a single American or anyone associated with the Trump campaign were involved in election interference activities.

Now let me ask you a question. DNC operatives met with Ukrainian officials and disseminated documents to damage Trump's campaign and get Paul Manafort fired.

Is that collusion in your eyes?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

FatherTed

Oh... IRA mentioned....

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Denny Heck has finally raised an obvious point...at the end of the day, this is all about money. To increase Trump's wealth and to help his 'friends' do the same.

MrFresh

peddlelies wrote: »

Because nothing happened in the meeting, it was a front to push the Magnitsky act and had nothing to do with election interference. It was scummy to accept that meeting but it wasn't illegal. There was a willingness to "collude" but the fact is not a single American or anyone associated with the Trump campaign were involved in election interference activities.

The meeting was the collusion. The fact it wasn't successful doesn't change that.

peddlelies wrote: »

Now let me ask you a question. DNC operatives met with Ukrainian officials and disseminated documents to damage Trump's campaign and get Paul Manafort fired.

Is that collusion in your eyes?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Certainly sounds like collusion.

TomOnBoard

In his questioning by Deming, Mueller seems to be having a lot of difficulty.

I can see why he was so retIcent to appear before Congress. I don't believe that he is 100% and I think he will find it difficult to stay in the game for the remainder of this hearing.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Mueller is nearly 75 years of age in fairness.

duploelabs

Romina Panicky Octopus wrote: »

Mueller is nearly 75 years of age in fairness.

In fairness, not much older than Trump

The Phantom Jipper

Devastating again from Schiff. There's no escaping that it was disloyal to the country to have facilitated this interference. Hopefully his sections of the hearing get some coverage.

FatherTed

We can all argue about the origin of the investigation, whether there was collusion/conspiracy with Trump & Co and the obstruction of justice.

The biggest problem of all is the total refusal of everybody on the Republican side to even recognize that Russia and others did/try interfere with the 2016 election and are doing so again. Shame on ALL of them and their supporters.

aloyisious

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Sorry, but Trump is never going to face charges for this its over move on. Mueller has vindicated the main charge against him and the republicans and large part of the population in America will just ignore what the law says. Democrats are wasting their time on this and they should be spend more time on beating Trump in 2020.

It helps [hopefully] the chances of the Democrats in the 2020 election if the other party's chosen candidate, Donald J Trump, is guilty of obstructing the Mueller investigation into whether the campaign he ran to get elected in 2916 was assisted with Russian collusion. There's also the point that when the president knew of the Russian collusion he didn't report it to the FBI, choosing instead to instruct that the collusion be covered up.

I can understand that, as he ran his part of the campaign accusing his opponent of illegal acts and demanding she be locked up, the "oh ****" moment when he realised that the same applied to him due to an investigation he started. Personally I suspect that he knew from day 01 of the collusion between his 2016 campaign and the Russians.

Thargor

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Sorry, but Trump is never going to face charges for this its over move on. Mueller has vindicated the main charge against him and the republicans and large part of the population in America will just ignore what the law says. Democrats are wasting their time on this and they should be spend more time on beating Trump in 2020.

Ummm...Is a banned poster just allowed to sign up again and stick a 2 on the end of their name?

SeamusFX

peddlelies wrote: »

Because nothing happened in the meeting, it was a front to push the Magnitsky act and had nothing to do with election interference. It was scummy to accept that meeting but it wasn't illegal. There was a willingness to "collude" but the fact is not a single American or anyone associated with the Trump campaign were involved in election interference activities.

Now let me ask you a question. DNC operatives met with Ukrainian officials and disseminated documents to damage Trump's campaign and get Paul Manafort fired.

Is that collusion in your eyes?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

That’s where your conclusion is completely wrong. The Trump Tower meeting was all about getting dirt on Hillary, Donnie Dumbo Jr admitted that. They did talk about the Magnitsky Act, but adoptions wasn’t the reason, the real reason was sanctions against Russia. So Russia did help Trump win and then when elected, Trump worked to pay them back by lifting sanctions and elevating Russia and Putin. Pretty obvious if you don’t walk around with your eyes closed.

Cheerful Spring2

Thargor wrote: »

Ummm...Is a banned poster just allowed to sign up again and stick a 2 on the end of their name?

Just for clarification i was not banned. I unregistered my last account myself and took a break from the forums for a few months.

Anyways i said what i needed to say about todays events, i'm done now. Work away.

duploelabs

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Just for clarification i was not banned. I unregistered my last account myself and took a break from the forums for a few months.

Anyways i said what i needed to say about todays events, i'm done now. Work away.

Can you revert to my question please?

Do you think trump will be charged with obstruction come being voting out in 2020 or leaving in 2024?

JRant

SeamusFX wrote: »

That’s where your conclusion is completely wrong. The Trump Tower meeting was all about getting dirt on Hillary, Donnie Dumbo Jr admitted that. They did talk about the Magnitsky Act, but adoptions wasn’t the reason, the real reason was sanctions against Russia. So Russia did help Trump win and then when elected, Trump worked to pay them back by lifting sanctions and elevating Russia and Putin. Pretty obvious if you don’t walk around with your eyes closed.

Was that the meeting set up by Glenn Simpson who had dinner with those very same Russians the day before and the day after the Trump Tower meeting?

everlast75

Is it really the pro trump supporters view that this was as per Nunes, a plan by the dems to collude with the Russians to offer false info to the Reps so that they could then launch an investigation and catch them out??

FrostyJack

I am on the fence of what the result of todays events mean on the greater scheme of things. Obviously Fox white washed it, equivalent of nothing burger and what about the fisa warrants etc. CNN have a fairly underwhelming front page (still won't stop Trump supporters saying they are biased). Is it all about sound bytes and clicks? The section 2 part in the morning was hit or miss. A few highlights but the first half of the section one (I missed the whole second half of the Russian interference section) seemed way more on point. Schiff gave a master class at the begining, even Mooo-nes was fairly articulate at the begining. I just don't think it was enough to register with the layman. As we see here, people are still going on about the origins and not the substance. The GOP completely agree Russia attacked America but their supporters still are in denial. I think Mueller will go down badly in history after today, his input going forward will be negligible. Playing the boy scout was not what was needed for the country today. All his professionalism in creating the report went out the window by toeing the party line. It is so funny how the Trump supporters were critical of him for not talking about things when his silence on other stuff should have buried Trump. I knew there would be no silver bullet but I can't believe he sat there and took the abuse off the Republicans and basically allowed them to get their talking points and conspiracy nonsense to win the day. Although as many on here, and people that have critical think will know the crimes were highlighted and confirmed by Mueller, Joe Bloggs won't hear about it and I doubt it will change anyones mind. Maybe when the dust settles I will be proven wrong.

FrostyJack

everlast75 wrote:

Is it really the pro trump supporters view that this was as per Nunes, a plan by the dems to collude with the Russians to offer false info to the Reps so that they could then launch an investigation and catch them out??

The Dems fed the FBI misinformation unknowingly which caused them to win the election. Oh wait they lost and they never got the GOP's hacked emails so it is complete Walter Mitty stuff to think this happened, especially when so much of Steele's report has been proven true and most recently been declared a credible witness by the state department.

SeamusFX

JRant wrote: »

Was that the meeting set up by Glenn Simpson who had dinner with those very same Russians the day before and the day after the Trump Tower meeting?

Typical deflection BS! Glenn Simpson has nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting and Fusion GPS has nothing to do with the TrumpTower meeting. He may have met with Russians, but Trump and his buddies were up to their necks in Russian meddling! Trump had a motive, there’s evidence they met, they met for dirt and Trump tried to give Putin the Sun, the Moon and the stars. As said today, Trump met Putin 6 times, but refused to meet Mueller. That should tell you everything you need to know, unfortunately many aren’t listening!

Outlaw Pete

I see Mueller backtracked on the OLC statement. lol.

I guess someone reminded him what he had said "several" times to Barr

batgoat wrote: »

Can you point to where Mueller said there was no collusion? He explicitly said multiple times that it is not for him to determine.

This again. Sigh.

It is not 'Guilty until proven innocent'. Mueller said that HAD he found conclusive evidence of collusion he would have said so and so that's it, over and out.

Rep. John Ratcliffe puts it best here:


https://twitter.com/RepDanCrenshaw/status/1154072950846496768


It's over. Nice try. Durham-Barr report please.

You can be sure they have heard of Fusion GPS and know who paid them.

FrostyJack

Outlaw Pete wrote:

I see Mueller backtracked on the OlC. I guess someone reminded him that him what he had said "several times" to Barr

No he did not backtrack on what you said and you know it.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I see Mueller backtracked on the OLC statement. lol.

I guess someone reminded him what he had said "several" times to Barr



This again. Sigh.

It is not 'Guilty until proven innocent'. Mueller said that HAD he found conclusive evidence of collusion he would have said so and so that's it, over and out.

Rep. John Ratcliffe puts it best here:


https://twitter.com/RepDanCrenshaw/status/1154072950846496768


It's over. Nice try. Durham-Barr report please.

You can be sure they have heard of Fusion GPS and know who paid them.

It seems to me that if Mueller had found that there was NOT one iota of evidence in any way against President Trump, he could have stated that to be a fact in respect to the president in his report. The GOP should have concentrated in getting that fact from him during the hearing. It would have satisfied and proven the justice imperative you mentioned, that "one is innocent until proven guilty". Instead Mueller was left free to state several times that he believed the president was involved in the collusion and could be charged with that as an offence when he left office as president.

It seems the investigation found there was more than a hint that the campaign was involved up to its hocks in colluding with the Russians. As to the President and bringing charges against him in respect of any criminal act he got involved in [in respect to the activities of his 2016 campaign] that could be proven, there was the DOJ advice that a sitting president could NOT be charged with any offence. That letter seems to cover the "while in office" period and not when he/she had left office.

Don been reiterating that point today saying that under section 2 of the constitution he can do anything he wants and no one can do anything about it. I expect the next page in the Trump rulebook will be to claim that the "Russian collusion hoax" was all about stopping him from running for office. He's already stated that Mueller was biased against him and had begged for the FBI director's job.

Its ironical that that would similar in the light to what the former FBI director was accused of doing to HRC by coming out with comments about re-opening the investigation into her involvement in using unsecure computers to forward official documents and allegedly helping her to lose the 2016 election. It might turn out that Don would have been better off if he'd cosied up to that FBI officer and got him into his pocket, instead of damning and firing him.

TomOnBoard

FrostyJack wrote: »

I am on the fence of what the result of todays events mean on the greater scheme of things.

I think Mueller's testimony was simply a bridge that had to be crossed on the road to the ultimate impeachment of Trump. Pelosi's presser with the Committee chairs intimated as much.

The main point is that Pelosi is holding off on Impeachment, despite the efforts of her own 93 House members, because the time is not right. All the required evidence has not yet been collected and made available. Nancy wont start an Impeachment while there is still so much activity ongoing in the Courts, in Committees and at Federal and State Prosecutor levels that would be hugely relevant to any Impeachment process. She is simply waiting for all the chickens to come home to roost before she starts collecting the eggs.

Now that Mueller has reported, and answered questions to Congress, that part is done for now. The next steps by the House will be to actively pursue access to the underlying evidence in the Courts. At some future date, all this will be resurrected within the Impeachment process.

The investigations at Federal and State level into Trump's finances including possible money laundering are also ongoing. Assuming that they are not shut down by Barr, some of these may result in further evidence of wrongdoing which will feed the Impeachment process. Ongoing Court cases relating to the Emoluments clause may produce further evidence (even if no charges are filed because of the OLC policy).

And, the ongoing investigations by the House Committees have still a lot of work to do, so Impeachment in advance of their conclusion would be premature.

At the appropriate time, probably at the end of 2019 or early in 2020, the Impeachment will begin. That process will force Republicans in the House to pin their colours to the mast, in the face of all the eggs finally being broken by Pelosi to make the Impeachment omelette. It will play daily on the news and will provide an incessant background of wrongdoing during the pre-election months. If the Senate then decides to not find Trump guilty of the 'High Crimes & Misdemeanours" and IF Trump presents himself to the people for Trump-2, then the electorate will decide. However, if Nancy's omelette is so rich that even the Senate Republicans won't be able to stomach it, they will finally rebel and dump him. It will be done via a sleight-of-hand such as a Presidential illness (Bannon was recently reported as telling Wolff that an old Trump crony reckoned that, if things get too hot for Trump, "He'll fake a heart attack")

That's my read of the roadmap to Impeachment and where Mueller's evidence yesterday fits in. Time may prove me wrong and I accept that I am only giving an opinion which may be worthless. However, I see strategic thinking going on in Nancy's head, and I think the Republicans see that also. That's why they're pushing her into Impeachment now. They know that the longer the lead-in to Impeachment goes on, the more chickens will arrive home.

everlast75

Mueller said he didn't go after testimony from Trump for the sake of expediency. He believed therefore there was some urgency to conclude his report and get it out there for the American people to digest.

That logic, which I get, flows contrary to Nancy's IMHO. He is a complete disaster on a day to day basis for the country and every day he swans around without an impeachment enquiry emboldens him and pi$$es off Dem supporters.

I think the enquiry should start now. Its not like there isn't enough to warrant it. It'll also take some time and so still may line up with her timeframe, should she have one.

FreudianSlippers

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If a poster came on here and said Trump said 'X' and cited the Mueller report as evidence of that..... none of you would be FYP'ing their post and saying 'No Trump didn't say that, 'Y' said he said it'.

Guess we'll soon hear what Barr has to say.

The Mueller report only quotes statements attributed to Trump from people who were questioned under penalty of criminal proceedings (i.e. Sessions, Hunt, etc.), Trump himself refused to submit himself for interview. If Trump did not say those things attributed to him, then either (i) he could have been interviewed and set the record straight or more likely (ii) he'd be out saying those things weren't true on Twitter like a rabid dog and would be calling for Sessions and Hunt to be locked up for lying to the Special Counsel.

There is a huge difference between the two scenarios and I think it's either extremely disingenuous or woefully ignorant to feign that they are analogous.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Mueller said he didn't go after testimony from Trump for the sake of expediency. He believed therefore there was some urgency to conclude his report and get it out there for the American people to digest.

The way I see it, Mueller's urgency in finalising the report was multi-faceted.

1.I agree that one element would have been his wish to inform in order to ensure ppl. knew the extent of Russian involvement in 2016 manipulation to ensure measures would be put in place to prevent a repeat;

2. He knew that Trump would fight tooth and nail against a subpoena which, once the fight started would mean that the investigation/report could not be finished until that fight was over (potentially a years-long fight)

3. He knew that the OLC policy of non- prosecution would render any such fight moot, as Trump could not be indicted while in office anyway;

4. There was a massive pressure being put on him to 'put up or shut up' so he may have been forced into a 'good enough rather than perfect' conclusion to his work;and

5. Most crucially, Mueller knew that every day it was becoming more and more likely that Barr would try to shut him down and his findings might never have seen the light of day. I believe that may have been his greatest impetus to the urgent completion of his work.