|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 27 2019 02:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 02:15 JimmiC wrote:
Just to be clear, you think that the Russian thing was entrapment a set up to catch Trump in some illegal action.
If I got you right, it is still pretty bad that they took the bait. Also, all those arrested did deserve and were criminals so that is a benefit. Also, if this was a set up, why wait until after losing the election to make it public. Wouldn't it make sense to drop the bomb ahead of time so you win the election? What bait? I'm not sure what Papadopoulos could have done much differently. Same for Trump. Once you understand how bogus the allegations of Russian collusion and conspiracy were, Trump's objections and resistance to Comey and Mueller make a lot of sense. This is one of the main reasons why Barr and Rosenstein said that they declined to find chargeable obstruction of justice. If the entire predicate for the investigation is bogus and/or fraudulent, why should someone be charged for resisting it, particularly if such resistance is so marginal anyway? As for making this stuff public during an election, which election are you referring to?
Are you referring to the written statement by Barr or the press conference?
|
United States43425 Posts
On April 27 2019 02:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 02:15 JimmiC wrote:
Just to be clear, you think that the Russian thing was entrapment a set up to catch Trump in some illegal action.
If I got you right, it is still pretty bad that they took the bait. Also, all those arrested did deserve and were criminals so that is a benefit. Also, if this was a set up, why wait until after losing the election to make it public. Wouldn't it make sense to drop the bomb ahead of time so you win the election? What bait? I'm not sure what Papadopoulos could have done much differently. Same for Trump. Once you understand how bogus the allegations of Russian collusion and conspiracy were, Trump's objections and resistance to Comey and Mueller make a lot of sense. This is one of the main reasons why Barr and Rosenstein said that they declined to find chargeable obstruction of justice. If the entire predicate for the investigation is bogus and/or fraudulent, why should someone be charged for resisting it, particularly if such resistance is so marginal anyway? As for making this stuff public during an election, which election are you referring to?
Trump campaign chair met up with Russian intelligence to share Trump campaign internal polling and talk strategy.
Mueller report concluded Russian intelligence intervened in the election to support Trump and that the Trump campaign chair coordinated with them. If there was no conspiracy then there should also be no shadowy meeting of the conspirators to plan the conspiracy.
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 02:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 02:27 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 02:15 JimmiC wrote:
Just to be clear, you think that the Russian thing was entrapment a set up to catch Trump in some illegal action.
If I got you right, it is still pretty bad that they took the bait. Also, all those arrested did deserve and were criminals so that is a benefit. Also, if this was a set up, why wait until after losing the election to make it public. Wouldn't it make sense to drop the bomb ahead of time so you win the election? What bait? I'm not sure what Papadopoulos could have done much differently. Same for Trump. Once you understand how bogus the allegations of Russian collusion and conspiracy were, Trump's objections and resistance to Comey and Mueller make a lot of sense. This is one of the main reasons why Barr and Rosenstein said that they declined to find chargeable obstruction of justice. If the entire predicate for the investigation is bogus and/or fraudulent, why should someone be charged for resisting it, particularly if such resistance is so marginal anyway? As for making this stuff public during an election, which election are you referring to? Trump campaign chair met up with Russian intelligence to share Trump campaign internal polling and talk strategy. Mueller report concluded Russian intelligence intervened in the election to support Trump and that the Trump campaign chair coordinated with them. If there was no conspiracy then there should also be no shadowy meeting of the conspirators to plan the conspiracy. Now to be fair, Mueller found no evidence of actual coordination. There was no convenient e-mail that spelled it all out.
Additionally the internal polling data that was given to a Russian could totally have been used for something other then the IRA media campaign. /s
|
And there is a difference between insufficient evidence to justify charging someone with conspiracy and zero evidence of conspiracy. Plus, many unpatriotic and unethical acts are not illegal. But that does not mean we accept our elected offices should be engaging with those acts simply because they do not rise to criminal charges.
For example, stalking/harassment are a very difficult criminal charges to make. If an elected official is shown to have a clear history of stalking behavior, they should not hold office and the power that comes with that office.
The lack of criminal charges against a sitting President does not diminish the impact of that report. And furthermore, the report says that obstruction charges were not recommended while the president held office. It did say an alternative route to address the obstruction would be to bring charges against him after he left office.
|
On April 27 2019 02:45 Plansix wrote:
And there is a difference between insufficient evidence to justify charging someone with conspiracy and zero evidence of conspiracy. Plus, many unpatriotic and unethical acts are not illegal. But that does not mean we accept our elected offices should be engaging with those acts simply because they do not rise to criminal charges.
For example, stalking/harassment are a very difficult criminal charges to make. If an elected official is shown to have a clear history of stalking behavior, they should not hold office and the power that comes with that office.
The lack of criminal charges against a sitting President does not diminish the impact of that report. And furthermore, the report says that obstruction charges were not recommended while the president held office. It did say an alternative route to address the obstruction would be to bring charges against him after he left office.
Wait, who are you talking about, Clinton or Trump? Because it makes a huge difference if what you are saying is true or not.
|
On April 27 2019 03:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 02:45 Plansix wrote:
And there is a difference between insufficient evidence to justify charging someone with conspiracy and zero evidence of conspiracy. Plus, many unpatriotic and unethical acts are not illegal. But that does not mean we accept our elected offices should be engaging with those acts simply because they do not rise to criminal charges.
For example, stalking/harassment are a very difficult criminal charges to make. If an elected official is shown to have a clear history of stalking behavior, they should not hold office and the power that comes with that office.
The lack of criminal charges against a sitting President does not diminish the impact of that report. And furthermore, the report says that obstruction charges were not recommended while the president held office. It did say an alternative route to address the obstruction would be to bring charges against him after he left office. Wait, who are you talking about, Clinton or Trump? Because it makes a huge difference if what you are saying is true or not.
In the last part I am referring to Trump and the report. The first two parts are a general statement about criminal charges vs expectations of an elected official.
|
On April 27 2019 02:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 02:27 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 02:15 JimmiC wrote:
Just to be clear, you think that the Russian thing was entrapment a set up to catch Trump in some illegal action.
If I got you right, it is still pretty bad that they took the bait. Also, all those arrested did deserve and were criminals so that is a benefit. Also, if this was a set up, why wait until after losing the election to make it public. Wouldn't it make sense to drop the bomb ahead of time so you win the election? What bait? I'm not sure what Papadopoulos could have done much differently. Same for Trump. Once you understand how bogus the allegations of Russian collusion and conspiracy were, Trump's objections and resistance to Comey and Mueller make a lot of sense. This is one of the main reasons why Barr and Rosenstein said that they declined to find chargeable obstruction of justice. If the entire predicate for the investigation is bogus and/or fraudulent, why should someone be charged for resisting it, particularly if such resistance is so marginal anyway? As for making this stuff public during an election, which election are you referring to? The one Trump one. If it is a conspiracy against Trump from Obama and Clinton I would assume they would have wanted her to win. Or do you believe this started after the election?
They did air this stuff during the election. There were numerous media leaks and stories alleging illicit ties between Trump and Russians before the election. Notwithstanding this, you have to keep in mind that no one expected Trump to win. How far out on a limb do you really want to go with something that might be illegal if you don't need to?
I'm also kind of confused on how fake they were. The meeting that was claimed to never happen, did happen, and the project in Russia that didn't exist, did in fact exist. So I am confused to what is made up. Like I can totally get that there are also some shady Dem's who need to be caught as well and did what you are accusing them. That to me is believable.
Depends upon which aspect of the investigation that you're talking about. There were contacts between Trump's people and the Russians, just as there were contacts between Trump's people and folks from many other countries. Same with every other campaign, including Hillary's. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there was sufficient cause to believe that there was something illicit or illegal about these contacts. With regards to Trump and his campaign, the answer to that question is a resounding "no" as confirmed by none other than the Mueller report.
What isn't is that Trump himself is not a criminal and is fit to be president. Do you really want someone who missuses his Charity to such a extent that it gets shut down? Hires a ton of criminals into very important positions? Believes Putin more than his own intelligence people? Makes bold claims about solving NK issue and pulling out of Syria, in quick order we find out neither is happening or true. Has a bunch of staff that protect him on the daily from breaking the law?
Like I could get behind your theory easier if I could understand how you think that Trump who publicly lies about anything and everything can be clean and the right guy for the job.
These are separate issues that should not be conflated with the validity of the Russia investigation. They certainly are not valid predicates for investigating Trump as Comey and Mueller did.
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 04:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the point of doing some plot if you don't think he is going to win and you can't use it to stop him from winning?
No, you're missing the point. They did try to use this stuff to stop Trump from winning. That's what all the media leaks were about. They just failed. There really wasn't much more that they could do. It's readily apparent from the Mueller report that there was never a valid justification for the investigation in the first place, so it's not like they could have gone public with what they were really doing. The whole idea was to use what they had to inflict damage on Trump through the media and then sweep it all under the rug after Hillary won.
To your second point Mueller report concluded Russian intelligence intervened in the election to support Trump and that the Trump campaign chair coordinated with them And then Russian agencies did use this information to attempt to impact the election. Whether or not is is illegal is not my question. It is do you think it is right. And do you think future campaigns should use foreign governments to create bots to influence social media and try to effect elections.
Whether those contacts were illegal is entirely the point. Law enforcement is not supposed to investigate people unless there's reason to believe that a crime has been committed. The fundamental problem with the Mueller report for people who are either a part of the investigation or in favor of it is that the Mueller report utterly failed to provide a valid predicate for the investigations that occurred. The Mueller report points to the dossier and to the Papadopoulos stuff as the bases for the investigation. Both are bullshit for the reasons already stated. This is a huge problem for the people involved.
And to your third point, it was not about the Russia investigation. It is about whether or not you feel that this man given what we know about him is fit for office. And if you are proud to have him represent your country. I'm not saying that because of this you should find him guilty of Russian collusion. I'm wondering why you appear to support a criminal who is likely to be arrested after office if he doesn't during due to age and poor health.
Neither nor anyone else on my side ever pretended that were voting for a boy scout. We voted for Trump because we supported his policies and took a leap of faith (that has been rewarded) on the question of whether Trump would actually follow through on what he campaigned upon.
|
On April 27 2019 02:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 02:15 JimmiC wrote:
Just to be clear, you think that the Russian thing was entrapment a set up to catch Trump in some illegal action.
If I got you right, it is still pretty bad that they took the bait. Also, all those arrested did deserve and were criminals so that is a benefit. Also, if this was a set up, why wait until after losing the election to make it public. Wouldn't it make sense to drop the bomb ahead of time so you win the election? What bait? I'm not sure what Papadopoulos could have done much differently. Same for Trump. Once you understand how bogus the allegations of Russian collusion and conspiracy were, Trump's objections and resistance to Comey and Mueller make a lot of sense. This is one of the main reasons why Barr and Rosenstein said that they declined to find chargeable obstruction of justice. If the entire predicate for the investigation is bogus and/or fraudulent, why should someone be charged for resisting it, particularly if such resistance is so marginal anyway?
lmao man
What could Trump have done differently?
He could have:
Not hang around Felix Sater
Not hang around Paul Manafort
Not work with Carter Page
Not hire Papadopoulos
Not ask for Russia to hack Clintons emails
Not work with Wikileaks to obtain said emails
Not claim he loves Wikileaks
Not deny any Russian election interference that he was briefed about as president-elect
Take said election interference seriously
Not fuel an investigation into fake election fraud with busses of immigrants instead
Support efforts to reduce election interference
Not praise Putin
Not deny intelligence agencies combined efforts because he believes Putins words more.
Not deny any Russian election interference again
Fired Flynn after DoJ warned about him
Not ask Comey for his loyalty
Not ask Comey to lift the cloud
Not asked Comey to drop Flynns case
Not fire Comey because of the russian thing
Not flame Sessions for recusing
Not order Sessions to intervene even after recusing
Not order McGahn to intervene
Not order McGahn to deny he ordered him to intervene
Not lied about who were at the Trump tower meeting
Not lied about the contents of Trump tower meeting
Not lied about having contacts of financial interest with russians on the Trump tower project
Not lied about continuing the Trump tower project after becoming president
Not defend Flynn and Manafort as good people
Not start a propaganda campaign against the FBI and the special counsel in particular
None of these things are hard to not do. He literally could have worked with FBI to root out the foreign influences in his campaign that he supposedly has nothing to do with. Instead he lied,denied,and resisted every step of the way.
Also you are just ignoring the whole OLC prohibits them bringing criminal charges to a sitting president thing. The valid predicate for Comey is russian election interference, the valid predicate for Mueller is Trump firing Comey for looking into russian election interference.
|
United States43425 Posts
On April 27 2019 04:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 02:27 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 02:15 JimmiC wrote:
Just to be clear, you think that the Russian thing was entrapment a set up to catch Trump in some illegal action.
If I got you right, it is still pretty bad that they took the bait. Also, all those arrested did deserve and were criminals so that is a benefit. Also, if this was a set up, why wait until after losing the election to make it public. Wouldn't it make sense to drop the bomb ahead of time so you win the election? What bait? I'm not sure what Papadopoulos could have done much differently. Same for Trump. Once you understand how bogus the allegations of Russian collusion and conspiracy were, Trump's objections and resistance to Comey and Mueller make a lot of sense. This is one of the main reasons why Barr and Rosenstein said that they declined to find chargeable obstruction of justice. If the entire predicate for the investigation is bogus and/or fraudulent, why should someone be charged for resisting it, particularly if such resistance is so marginal anyway? lmao man What could Trump have done differently? He could have: Not hang around Felix Sater Not hang around Paul Manafort Not work with Carter Page Not hire Papadopoulos Not ask for Russia to hack Clintons emails Not work with Wikileaks to obtain said emails Not claim he loves Wikileaks Not deny any Russian election interference that he was briefed about as president-elect Take said election interference seriously Not fuel an investigation into fake election fraud with busses of immigrants instead Support efforts to reduce election interference Not praise Putin Not deny intelligence agencies combined efforts because he believes Putins words more. Not deny any Russian election interference again Fired Flynn after DoJ warned about him Not ask Comey for his loyalty Not ask Comey to lift the cloud Not asked Comey to drop Flynns case Not fire Comey because of the russian thing Not flame Sessions for recusing Not order Sessions to intervene even after recusing Not order McGahn to intervene Not order McGahn to deny he ordered him to intervene Not lied about who were at the Trump tower meeting Not lied about the contents of Trump tower meeting Not lied about having contacts of financial interest with russians on the Trump tower project Not lied about continuing the Trump tower project after becoming president Not defend Flynn and Manafort as good people Not start a propaganda campaign against the FBI and the special counsel in particular None of these things are hard to not do. He literally could have worked with FBI to root out the foreign influences in his campaign that he supposedly has nothing to do with. Instead he lied,denied,and resisted every step of the way. Also you are just ignoring the whole OLC prohibits them bringing criminal charges to a sitting president thing. The valid predicate for Comey is russian election interference, the valid predicate for Mueller is Trump firing Comey for looking into russian election interference.
Yes, but apart from those things what could he have done? Nothing!
|
|
|
I didn't vote for Trump and I am "mad" that this whole thing is going on because I prefer the main guy running the country is not bogged down by unwarranted russiagate circus.
This investigation SHOULDN'T have been started. And after 2+ years of this, no smoking gun was found, and what we are left with is Mueller sending the issue to congress which, as far as I know, found nothing to work with.
The left can't move on from Trump. Either that, or Mueller's real job is to vindicate Obama Administration's use of the FBI, CIA, and NSA as a free opposition research tools for the Democrats. Those agencies dont exist to hunt for dirt on political opponents. That's what really irritates me as a libertarian.
I havent read the whole thing, but the Mueller report is a joke. Ridiculously biased. It's summed up in this line from it
"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
As if Mueller's report has the capacity to exonerate him.
This whole thing is a sham...and it seems it's all because the DNC's golden candidate lost to literally Donald Trump
|
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant.
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant.
No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime.
|
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up.
|
On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. Ehm, if Trump doesn't get elected the FBI gets to complete their investigation (no firing of Comey) and the people that ended up lying to Mueller would have lied to the FBI and gone to jail for it all the same.
|
On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up.
We had Mueller because Trump fired James Comey, which disrupted the FBI's already existing prior to the election investigation into Trumpworld.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
