Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

everlast75

StringerBell wrote: »

It will be like the IG report all over again would be my take.

Isn't this the 3rd investigation?

What did the I.G. report conclude?

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Isn't this the 3rd investigation?

What did the I.G. report conclude?

Yeah! I'm now totally confused as well...

I really wish someone would build and publish a mind map of all the ongoing investigations and where theyre at.

We never had this problem in the Obama years!!! It was sooooo very simple then.... find a birth certificate in Hawaii... Burn it in Hawaii... Fly the ashes to Kenya.... And... Eureka....

Mmmm! The one investigation. .. Doomed from the outset! !!

peddlelies

TomOnBoard wrote: »

But will you though? Or will you enjoy the re-reading ONLY if you like the Barr/Horowitz findings. What if you don't like them; what if they don't fit your set of 'truths' about the oranges (sry! ) of the Russia election interference counter-inteligence probes (waaaay before Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel)? Will you still enjoy the re-read if the findings are 180 degrees from what you currently believe? Will you deny them or will you be willing to change your beliefs?

I said since 2016 that I didn't think the Trump campaign and the Russians were in cohorts to interfere in the election, I was hammered for it every time and basically called stupid for having such an opinion.

How many here still believe the Trump campaign and Russian Intel worked together to interfere in the 2016 election post Mueller's report? The number who changed their view I could probably count on one hand.

I don't have any "truths". I just say what I believe to be true. And I sure as hell don't think the FBI were on the up and up when proven liars like Andrew McCabe were running major investigations.

Outlaw Pete

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Questions from Schiff

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.”

The man clearly wasn't up to the task yesterday and while he rowed back on one answer, there were for sure a couple of 'Yes' answers which belie what was written in the report (something which, with respect, I don't think the man knows much about).

From the Mueller report:

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

Skylinehead

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The man clearly wasn't up to the task yesterday and while he rowed back on one answer, there were for sure a couple of 'Yes' answers which belie what was written in the report (something which, with respect, I don't think the man knows much about).

From the Mueller report:

Is that supposed to be mutually exclusive to the statements? Because they aren't.

Outlaw Pete

Skylinehead wrote: »

Is that supposed to be mutually exclusive to the statements? Because they aren't.

'Conspired' is legal term under which Mueller based his determination which is why I used that particular quote.

The user stated:

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Trump colluded with the Russians. That’s fact.

TomOnBoard

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

'Conspired' is legal term under which Mueller based his determination which is why I used that particular quote.

The user stated:

And your point is?? Apologies! I'm simply lost...

DreamsBurnDown

I'm surprised nobody asked Mueller yesterday about pursuing Wikileaks or more specifically Julian Assange during his investigation. He did say they traveled abroad to interview witnesses, but there is no evidence Assange was interviewed, as surely it would have been in his report.

There is no question that the release of the hacked DNC emails was designed to do maximum damage to Hillary Clinton. It wasn't the hacking that did the damage though, it was the dissemination of the hacked materials through Wikileaks. Surely interviewing Assange or indicting him should have been one of Mueller's first actions? What makes this even stranger is that there were negotiations between Assange through his attorneys in 2017 and the US government to offer testimony in return for immunity, but it never came to anything.

If I were in Mueller's shoes, Assange is the first person I would want to talk to.

TomOnBoard

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The man clearly wasn't up to the task yesterday and while he rowed back on one answer, there were for sure a couple of 'Yes' answers which belie what was written in the report (something which, with respect, I don't think the man knows much about).

From the Mueller report:

Pete... what are you trying to say here?
I simply cant follow/understand this post.

Outlaw Pete

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Pete... what are you trying to say here?
I simply cant follow/understand this post.

Users are hanging their hat on things which Mueller said yesterday but what's said in the report is all the matters from a legal standpoint with regards to whether or not Trump or the Trump campaign were determined to have committed a crime.

Another quote:

"The investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Al lot of the democrats seem to be focusing on the fact that Mueller said a president could be charged after he leaves office..... but this is clutching at straws as 1) he seemed to be speaking generally and 2) charged with what exactly? The report found he committed no crime, or at least they couldn't determine that he had committed one.

Also a lot of "Trump wasn't exonerated!" nonsense about but that's not how the justice system in America (or almost anywhere in western society) works.

It wasn't in his remit to exonerate the POTUS and so that's neither here nor there.

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

This is ridiculous.

He was hamstrung by orders from the DOJ. There’s no way anyone could memorise that entire report. He seemed sharp enough to me when it was needed.

How long was he questioned for? 6-8 hours? 3 hours in and I would barely remember my own name and I am half his age.

That makes very little sense for a number of reasons.

1) if the fact he was questioned for 6 hours explained his demeanor, then how come he was that way from the get-go?
2) he didn't just forget specific hard to recall details of the report as you suggest, he was flummoxed at the mere bloody mention of Fusion GPS for heaven sake, that speaks volumes and
3) when asked which president it was that appointed him he couldn't even remember that and guessed Bush, but then had to be told it was Reagan.

Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

TomOnBoard

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Ok here's a question for our Pro -Trump co!!eagues:

Harris Faulkner interviewed Kelly Anne Conway and asked her a number of questions. At 4:52 in the tape, KAC morphs a comment about I!Han Omar's criticism of Israel into a characterisation of her as being anti-Semitic...

So, who's the propagandist problem here?

Take a look at 4:50 onwards !

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uABA2bgo5k8

Cheerful Spring2

duploelabs wrote: »

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?

Absolutely not, this will not happen.

Mueller failure yesterday ended any chance of impeachment around this issue also. Even democrats have now admitted Mueller performance was low in energy and got them nowhere close to ending Trump reign as President. If you truly honest with yourselfs this only helped Trump. Mueller in a public setting found no clear evidence Trump directed anyone to speak to Russia and found no evidence Trump was an agent of Russia. A ridiculous conspiracy promoted by the democrats and anti-trump media for two long years.

Now they are upset Trump fought back against these allegations and demanding he now face obstruction charges. Mueller even ignored the question lot of his staff were hilary clinton supporters. Mueller seemed to be clueless about the information in his own report. He was constantly asking where can i find this reference and citation. I know he in 70's, but is highly doubtful he is senile.

People claim its a conspiracy to highlight Fusion GPS involvement yesterday. Simply put wrong Fusion GPS is deeply involved in the steel dossier and Fusion GPS was involved with Hilary campaign. It amazing to me people think Hilary is beyond this and she would not have involved herself in dirty poltics to win a election. There lot more to this and this investigation by Barr will lead somewhere and will recieve more detailed information soon.

I know fan of Trump, it obvious he is a racist and compulsive liar, but there was never any evidence him and putin conspired to undermine votes in the American election. If you truly want to bring down Trump explore his corrupt dealings and business ties. I bet you find lot of shady stuff happening there still.

Lot of people have invested two years posting about this and are afraid it was waste of time and Trump will not be got ridden off, and this fine, but you losing your brains thinking Trump is damaged by this and will be removed from office.

Cheerful Spring2

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

I'm surprised nobody asked Mueller yesterday about pursuing Wikileaks or more specifically Julian Assange during his investigation. He did say they traveled abroad to interview witnesses, but there is no evidence Assange was interviewed, as surely it would have been in his report.

There is no question that the release of the hacked DNC emails was designed to do maximum damage to Hillary Clinton. It wasn't the hacking that did the damage though, it was the dissemination of the hacked materials through Wikileaks. Surely interviewing Assange or indicting him should have been one of Mueller's first actions? What makes this even stranger is that there were negotiations between Assange through his attorneys in 2017 and the US government to offer testimony in return for immunity, but it never came to anything.

If I were in Mueller's shoes, Assange is the first person I would want to talk to.

I was told in this very thread Wikileaks and Hilary was not a reason why the investigation started. I'm delighted the Meuller report and yesterday hearing exposed this to be not accurate.

There now claiming Wikileaks is foreign hostile intelligence service. Totally ridiculous accertion. I will not explore this further on this thread, as i be labelled a conspiracy theorist if i did, but i posted a new thread about this on the conspiracy forum about russiagate and hacking.

Cheerful Spring2

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That makes very little sense for a number of reasons.

1) if the fact he was questioned for 6 hours explained his demeanor, then how come he was that way from the get-go?
2) he didn't just forget specific hard to recall details of the report as you suggest, he was flummoxed at the mere bloody mention of Fusion GPS for heaven sake, that speaks volumes and
3) when asked which president it was that appointed him he couldn't even remember that and guessed Bush, but then had to be told it was Reagan.

Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

1 and 2 i agree with- 3 is long time ago recall question and he just forget. Is fascinating how many well educated and smart and serious people believed Trump was recruited by Putin to beat hilary and still do. They just ignore the mueller report findings now and moved on from this conspiracy theory to now claiming Trump obstructed the investigation. Even if they right about this in some areas, they ignore Mueller found no smoking guns to show Trump did anything wrong in first place. If Mueller believes evidence was destroyed then he needs to show evidence for this. Keeping intelligence under lock and key and not showing the public is not convincing or going to prove your case.


Can you actually trust Mueller when can't cite his own work correctly? Seems to me this report was written by others and lot of claims are unverified.

Timberrrrrrrr

Ha Trump really just had a whinge at another countries prime minister for not freeing a suspected criminal just because he asked?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1154501344323080192?s=19

StringerBell

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_report_on_FBI_and_DOJ_actions_in_the_2016_election

Everlast, read the report findings for yourself in condensed wiki form.....hint, Trump and his parrots despite crowing about "oh wait till the IG report comes out" for so long weren't exactly thrilled

"President Trump rejected the report's conclusion that the FBI acted with no political bias against him..."

StringerBell

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ha Trump really just had a whinge at another countries prime minister for not freeing a suspected criminal just because he asked?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1154501344323080192?s=19

The man is a joke sure, imagine the lack of awareness to feel entitled to start moaning about that publicly.

Itssoeasy

It seems overnight our time that trump was on with Sean hannity(I know what a shock) and said on the air he’s given William Barr the AG the power to share classified documents related to the Russian investigation with Devin Nunes.

Itssoeasy

StringerBell wrote: »

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ha Trump really just had a whinge at another countries prime minister for not freeing a suspected criminal just because he asked?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1154501344323080192?s=19

The man is a joke sure, imagine the lack of awareness to feel entitled to start moaning about that publicly.

The replies below his tweet aren’t much funnier.

everlast75

StringerBell wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_report_on_FBI_and_DOJ_actions_in_the_2016_election

Everlast, read the report findings for yourself in condensed wiki form.....hint, Trump and his parrots despite crowing about "oh wait till the IG report comes out" for so long weren't exactly thrilled

"President Trump rejected the report's conclusion that the FBI acted with no political bias against him..."

So even his own investigations are a hoax (when he doesn't even agree with)

Any *Trump* supporter get the common denominator yet?

everlast75

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There now claiming Wikileaks is foreign hostile intelligence service

They claimed that some time ago.

You need to keep up on the news.

Stop moaning ffs

Something that went unmentioned is a lot of the answers Mueller couldn’t give are based on the fact that the president is still under investigation by counter intelligence as he may well be an asset for a foreign enemy. (Hint. He is an asset for a foreign enemy.)

duploelabs

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Absolutely not, this will not happen.

Mueller failure yesterday ended any chance of impeachment around this issue also. Even democrats have now admitted Mueller performance was low in energy and got them nowhere close to ending Trump reign as President. If you truly honest with yourselfs this only helped Trump. Mueller in a public setting found no clear evidence Trump directed anyone to speak to Russia and found no evidence Trump was an agent of Russia. A ridiculous conspiracy promoted by the democrats and anti-trump media for two long years.

Now they are upset Trump fought back against these allegations and demanding he now face obstruction charges. Mueller even ignored the question lot of his staff were hilary clinton supporters. Mueller seemed to be clueless about the information in his own report. He was constantly asking where can i find this reference and citation. I know he in 70's, but is highly doubtful he is senile.

People claim its a conspiracy to highlight Fusion GPS involvement yesterday. Simply put wrong Fusion GPS is deeply involved in the steel dossier and Fusion GPS was involved with Hilary campaign. It amazing to me people think Hilary is beyond this and she would not have involved herself in dirty poltics to win a election. There lot more to this and this investigation by Barr will lead somewhere and will recieve more detailed information soon.

I know fan of Trump, it obvious he is a racist and compulsive liar, but there was never any evidence him and putin conspired to undermine votes in the American election. If you truly want to bring down Trump explore his corrupt dealings and business ties. I bet you find lot of shady stuff happening there still.

Lot of people have invested two years posting about this and are afraid it was waste of time and Trump will not be got ridden off, and this fine, but you losing your brains thinking Trump is damaged by this and will be removed from office.

OK you completely waffled to a question which was a follow up to an initial one that you (again ignored) so I'll ask again....

Given this interchange between Republican Buck Aland Mueller yesterday, can you comment directly on it (without the Hillary/fusion GPS obfuscation) do you agree with this below?

Buck: "Could charge the president with a crime after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

Buck: "You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

https://twitter.com/ky.../1154040136109215744

BonnieSituation

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

I'm surprised nobody asked Mueller yesterday about pursuing Wikileaks or more specifically Julian Assange during his investigation. He did say they traveled abroad to interview witnesses, but there is no evidence Assange was interviewed, as surely it would have been in his report.

There is no question that the release of the hacked DNC emails was designed to do maximum damage to Hillary Clinton. It wasn't the hacking that did the damage though, it was the dissemination of the hacked materials through Wikileaks. Surely interviewing Assange or indicting him should have been one of Mueller's first actions? What makes this even stranger is that there were negotiations between Assange through his attorneys in 2017 and the US government to offer testimony in return for immunity, but it never came to anything.

If I were in Mueller's shoes, Assange is the first person I would want to talk to.

He stated clearly on several occasions when asked that he wasn't willing to go into detail on who was questioned or where they were questioned to ensure ongoing investigations weren't hindered.

I don't get where your line of "logic" comes from.

BonnieSituation

Can someone, preferably our resident apologists, tell me why this bill is "partisan" as McConnell is calling it? Is it partisan simply because it's a Democratic bill to begin with?

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/25/us-election-security-republicans-mueller

It just looks to me like the GOP are being their gutless selves.

duploelabs

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Can someone, preferably our resident apologists, tell me why this Billie partisan? Is it partisan simply because it's a Democratic bill to begin with?

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/25/us-election-security-republicans-mueller

It just looks to me like the GOP are being their gutless selves.

Upon watching The Great Hack on Netflix (suggested watching along with Get Me Roger Stone), the GOP don't want to rock the boat as that Russian/Cambridge Analytica axis got them in to power, and why should integrity interfere with that

Skylinehead

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

'Conspired' is legal term under which Mueller based his determination which is why I used that particular quote.

The user stated:

Ah, that bit was out of the quote I saw.

FreudianSlippers

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Users are hanging their hat on things which Mueller said yesterday but what's said in the report is all the matters from a legal standpoint with regards to whether or not Trump or the Trump campaign were determined to have committed a crime.

Another quote:



Al lot of the democrats seem to be focusing on the fact that Mueller said a president could be charged after he leaves office..... but this is clutching at straws as 1) he seemed to be speaking generally and 2) charged with what exactly? The report found he committed no crime, or at least they couldn't determine that he had committed one.

Also a lot of "Trump wasn't exonerated!" nonsense about but that's not how the justice system in America (or almost anywhere in western society) works.

It wasn't in his remit to exonerate the POTUS and so that's neither here nor there.

The part in bold is simply not a true statement.

Stop moaning ffs

McConnell has blocked two bills to prevent further interference in future elections


Can anyone tell me why that might be?