Trump/Russia Collusion Insanity

wildeside

wildeside wrote: »

This investigation is another giant waste of time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tvE8Zb5fSk

It will come to nothing. Like Russia-gate. It's sad.

Not the way 'totally unbiased' RTE have been reporting on it. According to them and BBC its a question of when Trump will be found guilty :rolleyes:

wildeside

wildeside wrote: »

Can someone please tell me who in the Trump administration was actually convicted of collusion with the Russian government in trying to get Trump elected?

And I mean convicted of this specific crime, as in the whole point of the investigation?

Honestly, I may have missed it.

Mueller Report wrote:

“Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”

"Collusion" itself is not a crime, and therefore impossible to convict someone of it. Conspiracy and a few other related crimes that come about as a result of collusion are actually crimes though. List of those convicted as a result of the investigation, and why:

Those convicted, as of November 2015:

Roger Stone: Convicted of obstruction, giving false statements to a House committee and witness tampering. He also lied to Congress about his efforts to learn more about when WikiLeaks would publish damaging emails about 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Former Trump 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to 7.5 years in prison this March for bank and tax fraud and crimes related to his work as a political consultant in Ukraine.

Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen: Received a three-year prison sentence in Dec. 2018 for tax evasion, bank fraud, lying to Congress and campaign finance violations.

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Convicted of lying to investigators about about Russian contacts. He served 12 days in prison and in October, filed to run for former Rep. Katie Hill's California seat.

Pleaded guilty:
Ex-Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty in Feb. 2018 to conspiracy and lying to the FBI. His sentencing was delayed several times as he cooperated with ongoing investigations such as Stone's. His sentencing date is scheduled for Dec. 17, NBC News reports.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn: The retired three-star general pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in Dec. 2017, and he is still awaiting sentencing.

Sentences of note:
Richard Pinedo: The Californian was sentenced to six months in prison in Oct. 2018 for selling bank account numbers to Russians who engaged in election interference.

Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan: Pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his work for law firm Skadden, Arps, Meagher, & Flom LLP and Affiliates in 2012. He was sentenced to 30 days in prison and a $20,000 fine.

That's ignoring the multiple investigations which are still ongoing, as well as the glaring fact that Mueller and co didn't even "investigate whether the president committed a crime" because of the Department of Justice memo which states:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

notobtuse

A question for those on the Left... If it was legitimate for President Obama to authorize spying on candidate Trump’s campaign in 2016 because of concerns about Russian interference, is it not equally legitimate for President Trump to ask for an investigation into Ukraine’s role in the same election?

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

A question for those on the Left... If it was legitimate for President Obama to authorize spying on candidate Trump’s campaign in 2016 because of concerns about Russian interference, is it not equally legitimate for President Trump to ask for an investigation into Ukraine’s role in the same election?

Trump was asking for an investigation in Biden and his son for corruption that took place in Ukraine (not that there is any actual evidence of same) and he wanted the ukranians to call a press conference announcing such an investigation. he had no interest in the outcome of that investigation. he simply wanted to smear Biden for his own personal befnefit. the same way Hilary was smeared when the new york field office of the FBI opened an investigation into her just before the election.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Trump was asking for an investigation in Biden and his son for corruption that took place in Ukraine (not that there is any actual evidence of same) and he wanted the ukranians to call a press conference announcing such an investigation. he had no interest in the outcome of that investigation. he simply wanted to smear Biden for his own personal befnefit. the same way Hilary was smeared when the new york field office of the FBI opened an investigation into her just before the election.

Wrong again. In the phone call Trump was most interested in Ukraine's unsavory involvement in the last election. It's pretty apparent if you bother to read the transcript that the Hunter Biden thing was an afterthought.

But don't you agree an investigation into Ukraine's involvement in the last election warrants investigation as they worked in Hillary's favor against Trump.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

A question for those on the Left... If it was legitimate for President Obama to authorize spying on candidate Trump’s campaign in 2016 because of concerns about Russian interference, is it not equally legitimate for President Trump to ask for an investigation into Ukraine’s role in the same election?

What role did Obama play, specifically? Horowitz report by all indications will verify that the FISA investigation was justified. Specifically, they were spying on Paul Manafort weren’t they, who is now in jail for his crimes. That he was a manager in Trumps campaign is incidental, Obama didn’t wake up one morning and order the cabinet to initiate a spy campaign on Donald Trump.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

That he was a manager in Trumps campaign is incidental, Obama didn’t wake up one morning and order the cabinet to initiate a spy campaign on Donald Trump with neither the threat of withdrawal of aid nor the express intent of damaging Trump's election prospects hanging in the balance.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Wrong again. In the phone call Trump was most interested in Ukraine's unsavory involvement in the last election. It's pretty apparent if you bother to read the transcript that the Hunter Biden thing was an afterthought.

bollocks is all i can say to that. Even the people working for trump dont believe that.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

bollocks is all i can say to that. Even the people working for trump dont believe that.

You were there?

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

You were there?

we have had public hearings or did you close your ears and go lalala like the rest of the republicans?

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

You were there?

The ol’ “the jury can’t convict you unless they personally were in the room witnessing the murder go down” defense

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we have had public hearings or did you close your ears and go lalala like the rest of the republicans?

I did watch quite a bit of it. Those who support what you claim all admitted that what they felt happened was all based on hearsay, assumptions and presumptions. Seems, bottom line, they were all pissed that the President gets to dictate foreign policy and not them. Why they were even classified as ‘witnesses’ boggles the mind.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I did watch quite a bit of it. Those who support what you claim all admitted that what they felt happened was all based on hearsay, assumptions and presumptions. Seems, bottom line, they were all pissed that the President gets to dictate foreign policy and not them. Why they were even classified as ‘witnesses’ boggles the mind.

some of the witnesses were trump associates who knew him well.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

I did watch quite a bit of it. Those who support what you claim all admitted that what they felt happened was all based on hearsay, assumptions and presumptions. Seems, bottom line, they were all pissed that the President gets to dictate foreign policy and not them. Why they were even classified as ‘witnesses’ boggles the mind.

Love how you can dismiss their sworn testimony as “feelings, hearsay, assumptions, presumptions” then you go straight into what “seems” to you. Which by the way is wrong.

The President sets interagency policy. The agencies execute the policies set out by the executive. The problem is that the interagency policy which was set forth by the president was being countered by his personal “irregular channel” policy that he sought to actively shroud from the interagency.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

some of the witnesses were trump associates who knew him well.

Are you saying Trump told them there was a quid pro quo? These sources of yours I've gotta see. I might be wrong but I believe they all said what they believed happened was based on hearsay, assumptions or presumptions. But I'm sure if you have hard evidence to the contrary you will be forthcoming with it lickety split.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Are you saying Trump told them there was a quid pro quo? These sources of yours I've gotta see. I might be wrong but I believe they all said what they believed happened was based on hearsay, assumptions or presumptions. But I'm sure if you have hard evidence to the contrary you will be forthcoming with it lickety split.

Listen, it is clear you spent the last week with your fingers in your ears. I'm not digging through hours of testimony when you will just ignore it anyway. enjoy life as part of Putins puppet state.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Are you saying Trump told them there was a quid pro quo? These sources of yours I've gotta see. I might be wrong but I believe they all said what they believed happened was based on hearsay, assumptions or presumptions. But I'm sure if you have hard evidence to the contrary you will be forthcoming with it lickety split.

Yes.

He ordered a freeze on aid with the sole intent of getting Ze to announce investigations.

But sure whatever you’re in the MAGA hat and the only thing good enough for you would be a press conference where Trump tells the camera “I committed high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Hell even then you’d ask if he was sure about that. Just admit there is no bar or threshold for you: there are no circumstances where you’d support impeaching Trump.

suicide_circus

i doubt there is a president in history who has been more despised. No president people have wanted to impeach so badly since they day he was elected.

why is he still standing? given that he is also a moron?

Overheal

suicide_circus wrote: »

i doubt there is a president in history who has been more despised. No president people have wanted to impeach so badly since they day he was elected.

why is he still standing? given that he is also a moron?

Read some responses in this thread and it becomes clear.

notobtuse

suicide_circus wrote: »

i doubt there is a president in history who has been more despised. No president people have wanted to impeach so badly since they day he was elected.

why is he still standing? given that he is also a moron?

Trump will go down in history as one of the greatest US presidents, ever. Obama, as one of the worst... That is if historians are honest. Trump remains in power, and will win the 2020 election, because of the economy, jobs, lower taxes, stock market, lesser regulations, and he's working hard to accomplish his campaign promises. If any democrat president accomplished in 8 years half of what Trump has done 3 years we'd have added another face to Mount Rushmore.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Trump will go down in history as one of the greatest US presidents, ever. Obama, as one of the worst... That is if historians are honest. Trump remains in power, and will win the 2020 election, because of the economy, jobs, lower taxes, stock market, lesser regulations, and he's working hard to accomplish his campaign promises. If any democrat president accomplished in 8 years half of what Trump has done 3 years we'd have added another face to Mount Rushmore.

You see, suicide_circus? Every line a talking point of an occult.

wildeside

Deleted User wrote: »

"Collusion" itself is not a crime, and therefore impossible to convict someone of it. Conspiracy and a few other related crimes that come about as a result of collusion are actually crimes though. List of those convicted as a result of the investigation, and why:



That's ignoring the multiple investigations which are still ongoing, as well as the glaring fact that Mueller and co didn't even "investigate whether the president committed a crime" because of the Department of Justice memo which states:

Interesting that collusion isn't a crime per-se. But I guess it's semantics really as if someone says "colluding with" or "conspiring with" a foreign government I think we would probably be thinking they're pretty much the same thing. But I get there's a difference in legal speak.

Anyway, in terms of conspiracy then, who in that list was charged with conspiring with the Russians to help Trump win the election?

The only person I see who comes close to such a crime is Richard Pinedo. So I googled his name and got this

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/10/17959244/mueller-richard-pinedo-trump-russia

I think you'll agree, this guy doesn't count at all.

So a lot of shady characters were convicted of shady things

But who was convicted of conspiring/colluding with the Russians?

relax carry on

Overheal wrote: »

You see, suicide_circus? Every line a talking point of an occult.

There's just no point. When you view the world in high definition tangerine tinted Trumpovision as Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters"

notobtuse

wildeside wrote: »

Interesting that collusion isn't a crime per-se. But I guess it's semantics really as if someone says "colluding with" or "conspiring with" a foreign government I think we would probably be thinking they're pretty much the same thing. But I get there's a difference in legal speak.

Anyway, in terms of conspiracy then, who in that list was charged with conspiring with the Russians to help Trump win the election?

The only person I see who comes close to such a crime is Richard Pinedo. So I googled his name and got this

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/10/17959244/mueller-richard-pinedo-trump-russia

I think you'll agree, this guy doesn't count at all.

So a lot of shady characters were convicted of shady things

But who was convicted of conspiring/colluding with the Russians?

The answer to your question is NO ONE!

It’s all too evident the Democrats will only impeach Trump if they have a death wish. It would make more sense politically if they just dropped the whole impeachment nonsense and keep their fingers crossed hoping they’ve hurt Trump enough that one of their terrible candidates squeaks out the election win for POTUS.

If the Democrats do impeach Trump in the House it then goes to the Senate which will be presided over by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. And the Senate, unlike the House witch-hunt run by Democrats, will follow more closely the rule of law and allow no hearsay testimony as direct evidence. Plus, Trump’s attorneys would be able to call witnesses like Joe and Hunter Biden (were payments to Hunter Biden aimed at buying Democrats’ silence over Ukrainian corruption). They could also call Hillary Clinton and question her on Ukraine’s roll in helping her and hurting trump and their huge millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton foundation, the whistleblower and his sources who might have broken the law. In addition, his links to Democrats could also undermine his assertions about Trump as indicate simple hatred and aiding in the Democrats soft coup as his real motivation.

Pelosi would be crazy to hurt her fellow Democrats by having an impeachment trial in the Senate, let alone having most of the top candidates running for POTUS have to leave the campaign trail and sit in on the Senate trial. But Pelosi seems to be exhibiting early signs of Alzheimer’s and her judgement might be suspect. Then again it seems The Squad seems to be calling many of the shots behind the scenes because they appeal to the most rabid of the party who are the most politically active.

suicide_circus

Overheal wrote: »

You see, suicide_circus? Every line a talking point of an occult.

yeah but forget about about the fanboys for a minute.

if he is

A. neck deep in conspiracy, collusion, corruption

AND

B. an idiot

how has he not been scuppered?

notobtuse

suicide_circus wrote: »

yeah but forget about about the fanboys for a minute.

if he is

A. neck deep in conspiracy, collusion, corruption

AND

B. an idiot

how has he not been scuppered?

Simple... A & B are untrue.

wampyrus77

Donald Trump always tells everyone lies to con usa believing iraq is still a threat after Obama made peace with them in 2008 . including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. Because Donald Trump always hated Obama and would betray USA and destroyed Obama peace threaty. So Usa can go war these countries

suicide_circus

notobtuse wrote: »

Simple... A & B are untrue.

it seems to me that he can either be an idiot who is innocent of the many charges against him or a fairly sophisticated operator who is guilty but has managed to escape justice.

i dont think he can be both stupid and guilty.

Overheal

suicide_circus wrote: »

yeah but forget about about the fanboys for a minute.

if he is

A. neck deep in conspiracy, collusion, corruption

AND

B. an idiot

how has he not been scuppered?

Because Republican voters are enamored with him, and so the GOP’s political destiny is tied to him. The alternative is to self-report and hand their seats over to Democrats - whom they’ve vilified for untold decades. When you spend for example 8 years saying the President wasn’t an American and was the antichrist and was destroying the country from the inside, it really doesn’t matter who you vote in next, since you’ve already set the bar below the imaginary level; you’d vote for the most corrupt mogul in America as long as you thought he wasn’t a Muslim Antichrist, and anything he does is going to look less offensive than anything Obama did - doesn’t matter if he denigrates the military, runs up the debt, or asks a foreign country to investigate his rival, because to his supporters there’s no way any of that could be worse than Obama. And you’ve heard it here too.

wampyrus77

Donald trump used his followers to hack in the election and with help from russians he change votes to his favour to win the election in 2016, and that is again rules of democracy and Hillary should have won the presidency for winning fariness and without cheating.