Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

One cannot use the Mueller report for the past two years to state that Trump is some kind of Russian agent, and now disband the fact that it does "look" like the report will not prove this fact as "well there are other things that he is guilty of".

On this one, the Trump haters need to take a deep breathe - because if after two years this friggin thing cannot prove he and Putin were in direct contact to fix this election (The orginal scope, btw), then not sure what else could convince you.

All of the indictments of the close campaign aids etc does not disappear either - that is some slimy shit still - but one crime at a time please 

1) Until you have seen the report, you have no idea what it "looks" like.  You dont, i dont. Nobody does.

2) As i have said in every discussion we have had in this thread, on this topic: i dont know what happened. It was disturbing enough to warrant investigation (and if you disagree...your bias is showing). I have said from the get go, and most everyone here (including the good Senator...one of the most conservative posters) have said: Let Mueller finish his report. Now we wait, and see what it says. Either he did something wrong, something stupid, or he did nothing. We will see. I have said the exact same thing over and over. Until we see the report, its useless to rush to judgement.

3) Not colluding/conspiring doesnt mean he isnt a piece of shit human being and a terrible president. It doesnt mean he gets a free pass for all the other crap he does and has done. Sure, we take it one scandal at a time. But this isnt the "robert meuller report" thread (in fact....other than us tslking about letting him finish...you'll note very little discussion on mueller". Its the trump and his presidency thread. Look at the title.....so we will continue to discuss the aspects of that.

[pilferk]

All the Trump comments I'm reading about how the Mueller report being turned over to the Justice department exonerates Trump. A report that no details have been released yet.

Yeah....way too early to spike the football.

We dont know what we dont know til the report is public.

Any sort of comment or opinion on whats in the report, til then, is baseless and just makes you look like a trump nutswinger or troll.

We will, hopefully, see....sooner, rather than later.

I am not surprised there are no more indictments. JD opinion, which Mueller agreed with, says you cant indict a sitting president anyway.  That, in and of itself, isnt really telling.

We also know there is a sealed indictment for Assange sitting somewhere.

Yep that means nothing, for all we know there's a sealed one in there for Trump for the second he's no longer president. I'm highly doubting there any for anyone else in the administration including family members. There's nothing that could have prevented Mueller from indicting them.

They could also farm out indictments to the DC DA or SDNY.

Meullers team not pursuing indictments doesnt instantly mean absolutely no indictments. His team just isnt pursuing any. He seemed pretty set on farming out everything outside a varry narrow scope....as he should have.

[tim_m]

It doesn't mean there's no collision on Trump's part either. It only means he cannot indict a president. Though I cannot find any law or anything in the Constitution about this. Anyone? Where does this assumption come from?

[COMAMOTIVE]

One cannot use the Mueller report for the past two years to state that Trump is some kind of Russian agent, and now disband the fact that it does "look" like the report will not prove this fact as "well there are other things that he is guilty of".

On this one, the Trump haters need to take a deep breathe - because if after two years this friggin thing cannot prove he and Putin were in direct contact to fix this election (The orginal scope, btw), then not sure what else could convince you.

All of the indictments of the close campaign aids etc does not disappear either - that is some slimy shit still - but one crime at a time please 

1) Until you have seen the report, you have no idea what it "looks" like.  You dont, i dont. Nobody does.

2) As i have said in every discussion we have had in this thread, on this topic: i dont know what happened. It was disturbing enough to warrant investigation (and if you disagree...your bias is showing). I have said from the get go, and most everyone here (including the good Senator...one of the most conservative posters) have said: Let Mueller finish his report. Now we wait, and see what it says. Either he did something wrong, something stupid, or he did nothing. We will see. I have said the exact same thing over and over. Until we see the report, its useless to rush to judgement.

3) Not colluding/conspiring doesnt mean he isnt a piece of shit human being and a terrible president. It doesnt mean he gets a free pass for all the other crap he does and has done. Sure, we take it one scandal at a time. But this isnt the "robert meuller report" thread (in fact....other than us tslking about letting him finish...you'll note very little discussion on mueller". Its the trump and his presidency thread. Look at the title.....so we will continue to discuss the aspects of that.

Agree with you - 100% actually

I didn't claim to know - which is why it was worded that way
I don't need a report from Mueller to tell me he's a horrible human being - he is

My point was and still is - that this report was seemingly the one - the one everyone was waiting for -
Well if it came out and indicted him for collusion you would be 100% treating it as gold

Now that it "looks" like that is not the case - you can't treat it as any less ..that is what Trump would do

And I"m not saying YOU batman...speaking in general terms after watching the news types already making excuses and re-positioning themselves -and it goes both ways -

Fox was condemning this damn report forever - now they use it to their advantage when it "looks" like it will not be able pin Trump to Putins beanbag

Wrong and dishonest both ways, my friend - as is usually the case

[PermissionToLand]

We also know there is a sealed indictment for Assange sitting somewhere.

There is? I hadn't heard this. Why is it sealed?

Just asking the same question i’ve been asking for 2 years.

I do know there’s no more indictments.

I can feel the frustration from the left. Lots of liberal tears (thanks rachel maddow!).

Nothing insane about asking the same question for 2 years, nope...

Dude, get a life. Why are you so obsessed with antagonizing "the left"? You're like a middle school girl that teases her crush.

One cannot use the Mueller report for the past two years to state that Trump is some kind of Russian agent, and now disband the fact that it does "look" like the report will not prove this fact as "well there are other things that he is guilty of".

On this one, the Trump haters need to take a deep breathe - because if after two years this friggin thing cannot prove he and Putin were in direct contact to fix this election (The orginal scope, btw), then not sure what else could convince you.

All of the indictments of the close campaign aids etc does not disappear either - that is some slimy shit still - but one crime at a time please 

Nobody has been doing that. How could anyone suggest a classified probe is evidence? However, it certainly had provided a lot of smoke as multiple campaign officials were indicted, and Trump didn't do himself any favors by acting like the guiltiest man on Earth.

On this one, the Trump lovers need to take a deep breath - because lacking direct contact with Putin does not mean he is not a common thug who hires other thugs to do his dirty work.

It doesn't mean there's no collision on Trump's part either. It only means he cannot indict a president. Though I cannot find any law or anything in the Constitution about this. Anyone? Where does this assumption come from?

Apparently it is only a DOJ policy since 1973. That could mean that anyone outside that department (for example, the SDNY) is not beholden to it. Also, there is nothing in the constitution to limit that ability, so originalists would probably say that DOJ poicy is unconstitutional anyway. Also:

"Ken Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s in the somewhat different role of independent counsel, in 1998 conducted his own analysis of the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted, indicating he did not consider the 1973 Justice Department memo binding on him."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

I would say, the purpose of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors is to get him out of office so you don't have to charge a sitting president. But I don't think the founding fathers foresaw Congress refusing to do its duty out of partisan allegiance. The GOP is very much testing the limits of our democratic system.

Here's an interesting take on the issue:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

Agree with you - 100% actually

I didn't claim to know - which is why it was worded that way
I don't need a report from Mueller to tell me he's a horrible human being - he is

My point was and still is - that this report was seemingly the one - the one everyone was waiting for -
Well if it came out and indicted him for collusion you would be 100% treating it as gold

Now that it "looks" like that is not the case - you can't treat it as any less ..that is what Trump would do

And I"m not saying YOU batman...speaking in general terms after watching the news types already making excuses and re-positioning themselves -and it goes both ways -

Fox was condemning this damn report forever - now they use it to their advantage when it "looks" like it will not be able pin Trump to Putins beanbag

Wrong and dishonest both ways, my friend - as is usually the case

What news outlets have been undermining the credibility of the report?

[pilferk]

We also know there is a sealed indictment for Assange sitting somewhere.

There is? I hadn't heard this. Why is it sealed?

Yes. This was revealed during amistakenly unredacted court filing hack in November.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/accidental-filing-indicates-indictment-prepared-julian-assange-n937036

There has been some back and forth on this, but there was also recently a rumored scotus hearing regarding a grand jury sealed indictment and a "mystery company" that some are presuming to be wikileaks/assange. So......

As for why its still sealed....that's the million dollar question. Could be they are sealing it til they can find a way to arrest him so the statute of limitations clock doesnt start? But nobody knows for sure.....

[pilferk]

On assange...there were rumors yesterday of his rendition and extradition, but nothing was...or has been...confirmed. A dod plane had been parked in london since tursday, and its tail number is from a plane used in other extraditions in the past.

Today, it returned, and landed in Manassas. So far, assange has been quiet today...and his mom has been trying to raise money for a legal defense fund on twitter.

It could all be a total coincidence, and there is no reputable reporting it isnt. But its interesting and something to keep an eye on.

[sandman]

We also know there is a sealed indictment for Assange sitting somewhere.

There is? I hadn't heard this. Why is it sealed?

Just asking the same question i’ve been asking for 2 years.

I do know there’s no more indictments.

I can feel the frustration from the left. Lots of liberal tears (thanks rachel maddow!).

Nothing insane about asking the same question for 2 years, nope...

Dude, get a life. Why are you so obsessed with antagonizing "the left"? You're like a middle school girl that teases her crush.

One cannot use the Mueller report for the past two years to state that Trump is some kind of Russian agent, and now disband the fact that it does "look" like the report will not prove this fact as "well there are other things that he is guilty of".

On this one, the Trump haters need to take a deep breathe - because if after two years this friggin thing cannot prove he and Putin were in direct contact to fix this election (The orginal scope, btw), then not sure what else could convince you.

All of the indictments of the close campaign aids etc does not disappear either - that is some slimy shit still - but one crime at a time please 

Nobody has been doing that. How could anyone suggest a classified probe is evidence? However, it certainly had provided a lot of smoke as multiple campaign officials were indicted, and Trump didn't do himself any favors by acting like the guiltiest man on Earth.

On this one, the Trump lovers need to take a deep breath - because lacking direct contact with Putin does not mean he is not a common thug who hires other thugs to do his dirty work.

It doesn't mean there's no collision on Trump's part either. It only means he cannot indict a president. Though I cannot find any law or anything in the Constitution about this. Anyone? Where does this assumption come from?

Apparently it is only a DOJ policy since 1973. That could mean that anyone outside that department (for example, the SDNY) is not beholden to it. Also, there is nothing in the constitution to limit that ability, so originalists would probably say that DOJ poicy is unconstitutional anyway. Also:

"Ken Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s in the somewhat different role of independent counsel, in 1998 conducted his own analysis of the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted, indicating he did not consider the 1973 Justice Department memo binding on him."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

I would say, the purpose of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors is to get him out of office so you don't have to charge a sitting president. But I don't think the founding fathers foresaw Congress refusing to do its duty out of partisan allegiance. The GOP is very much testing the limits of our democratic system.

Here's an interesting take on the issue:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

Agree with you - 100% actually

I didn't claim to know - which is why it was worded that way
I don't need a report from Mueller to tell me he's a horrible human being - he is

My point was and still is - that this report was seemingly the one - the one everyone was waiting for -
Well if it came out and indicted him for collusion you would be 100% treating it as gold

Now that it "looks" like that is not the case - you can't treat it as any less ..that is what Trump would do

And I"m not saying YOU batman...speaking in general terms after watching the news types already making excuses and re-positioning themselves -and it goes both ways -

Fox was condemning this damn report forever - now they use it to their advantage when it "looks" like it will not be able pin Trump to Putins beanbag

Wrong and dishonest both ways, my friend - as is usually the case

What news outlets have been undermining the credibility of the report?

You r the resident “tough guy behind a computer screen”. And when “that” guy mentions middle school girls, it gets a whole new level of cringeworthy.

[sandman]

Malcolm Nance: "[Congress] should be saying right now: ‘I don’t care what’s in that report… we’re going to go to town, and we’re going to find out what the facts are." MSNBC clearly downaying mueller now.

Many liberals are doubling down. Confirmation bias all over the place.

I suggest reading “When Prophecy Fails”.


“The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away: not one single American was charged, indicted or convicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election - not even a low-level volunteer. The number is zero.” GG

“Don't even try to pretend the point of the Mueller investigation from the start wasn't to obtain prosecutions of Americans guilty of conspiring with Russia to influence the outcome of the election or that Putin controlled Trump through blackmail. Nobody will believe your denials.” GG

[sandman]

1) not only was there no collusion, but trump refused opportunities to collude.

2) Mueller punted to Barr on obstruction. Barr and Rosenstein together say no obstruction.

2800 subpoenas

500 witnesses

500 search warrants

230 communications records

50 phone traps

13 foreign govt intel requests 

Happy no collusion day!!! 

[tim_m]

As much as I disagree with Trump policies, think he's a terrible president, not to mention human being, I'm glad he didn't collude. If he was guilty, that would mean the president of the United States is a traitor. That would be a sad day for America and our democracy. Nobody should be happy if that were the case. As for obstruction, I'm satisfied given Rosenstein came to the same conclusion as Barr. I trust him, he's one the few Republicans with a pair who the rule of law and country over party means something too. It's important to note what the summary said though, it said they lacked sufficient evidence for obstruction and stopped short of exonerating him. So I don't think it completely exonerates Trump there. Which I take to mean there could be more evidence that shows there was. So I guess now the ball is in the SDNYS court.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

And there you have it....
 
NO COLLUSION

[COMAMOTIVE]

Democrats need to let this die a death now and talk about what they want to do for the country
This Nadler on tv today all but said they will keep investigating Trump
That's just terrific - congrats on electing him again

[PermissionToLand]

We also know there is a sealed indictment for Assange sitting somewhere.

There is? I hadn't heard this. Why is it sealed?

Just asking the same question i’ve been asking for 2 years.

I do know there’s no more indictments.

I can feel the frustration from the left. Lots of liberal tears (thanks rachel maddow!).

Nothing insane about asking the same question for 2 years, nope...

Dude, get a life. Why are you so obsessed with antagonizing "the left"? You're like a middle school girl that teases her crush.

One cannot use the Mueller report for the past two years to state that Trump is some kind of Russian agent, and now disband the fact that it does "look" like the report will not prove this fact as "well there are other things that he is guilty of".

On this one, the Trump haters need to take a deep breathe - because if after two years this friggin thing cannot prove he and Putin were in direct contact to fix this election (The orginal scope, btw), then not sure what else could convince you.

All of the indictments of the close campaign aids etc does not disappear either - that is some slimy shit still - but one crime at a time please 

Nobody has been doing that. How could anyone suggest a classified probe is evidence? However, it certainly had provided a lot of smoke as multiple campaign officials were indicted, and Trump didn't do himself any favors by acting like the guiltiest man on Earth.

On this one, the Trump lovers need to take a deep breath - because lacking direct contact with Putin does not mean he is not a common thug who hires other thugs to do his dirty work.

It doesn't mean there's no collision on Trump's part either. It only means he cannot indict a president. Though I cannot find any law or anything in the Constitution about this. Anyone? Where does this assumption come from?

Apparently it is only a DOJ policy since 1973. That could mean that anyone outside that department (for example, the SDNY) is not beholden to it. Also, there is nothing in the constitution to limit that ability, so originalists would probably say that DOJ poicy is unconstitutional anyway. Also:

"Ken Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s in the somewhat different role of independent counsel, in 1998 conducted his own analysis of the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted, indicating he did not consider the 1973 Justice Department memo binding on him."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

I would say, the purpose of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors is to get him out of office so you don't have to charge a sitting president. But I don't think the founding fathers foresaw Congress refusing to do its duty out of partisan allegiance. The GOP is very much testing the limits of our democratic system.

Here's an interesting take on the issue:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

Agree with you - 100% actually

I didn't claim to know - which is why it was worded that way
I don't need a report from Mueller to tell me he's a horrible human being - he is

My point was and still is - that this report was seemingly the one - the one everyone was waiting for -
Well if it came out and indicted him for collusion you would be 100% treating it as gold

Now that it "looks" like that is not the case - you can't treat it as any less ..that is what Trump would do

And I"m not saying YOU batman...speaking in general terms after watching the news types already making excuses and re-positioning themselves -and it goes both ways -

Fox was condemning this damn report forever - now they use it to their advantage when it "looks" like it will not be able pin Trump to Putins beanbag

Wrong and dishonest both ways, my friend - as is usually the case

What news outlets have been undermining the credibility of the report?

You r the resident “tough guy behind a computer screen”. And when “that” guy mentions middle school girls, it gets a whole new level of cringeworthy.

... says the coward who cannot respond to my point. That's all you have to say? Thank you for proving my point. I accept your concession. No need to be such a sore loser.

[PermissionToLand]

1) not only was there no collusion, but trump refused opportunities to collude.

2) Mueller punted to Barr on obstruction. Barr and Rosenstein together say no obstruction.

2800 subpoenas

500 witnesses

500 search warrants

230 communications records

50 phone traps

13 foreign govt intel requests 

Happy no collusion day!!! 

Oh look, it's the tough guy behind a computer screen acting like a grade schooler again. Did I hit too close to home?

[sandman]

Democrats need to let this die a death now and talk about what they want to do for the country
This Nadler on tv today all but said they will keep investigating Trump
That's just terrific - congrats on electing him again

Bingo!  Thats because the bernies, pelosis, schumers, and all the other frauds on both sides of the aisle only care about controling large segments of the american people, which lines their pockets with millions. Power and money. Thats all they care about. Going after the boogieman is good for business.

[pilferk]

So, now we know.  The president is not a traitor (and thats a good thing)...he's just a lying idiot (which isn't).

He didn't willfully and knowingly commit acts to collude with the Russian Government.

He just unkowingly, naively, stupidly committed actions that made it easier for them to operate.  And then lied, encouraged others to lie, and fought against the investigation with every ounce of his being because he realized how bad his (and those he surrounded himself with) actions looked.  And after lying over and over about Trump Tower Moscow during the campaign, he realized they had to keep lying.

So no, no collusion. But it looks like potential obstruction.

At the end of the day, we still don't know is if there was obstruction.  We know Barr and Rosenstein have declined to pursue charges because they don't think there's enough evidence.  But we also know the report doesn't exonerate the president....in Barr's own words.  And, once again, this White House is lying to the American people about it, claiming the report was a "complete exoneration" when it LITERALLY SAYS it's not.

We still need to see the full report, so the American people (and Congress) can make their own determination.

What's funny here is the conservatives who are spiking the football. "The president and his minions are IDIOTS but they're not criminals. OK, well, they MIGHT be criminals, but they're not THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF CRIMINAL" isn't really an effective spike.  Its good to be happy they're not traitors. I know I am.  We can all be happy about that.  But they voted for a moron. Like...a "facts in evidence, no way to debate, 100% proven by the Mueller Report/Barr Summary moron". Of course, they'll all deny it, but....they're also all chanting "total exoneration" when it clearly says otherwise and lapping up the presidents lies about it.

Speaking of chanting.....I expect the conservatives to now routinely chant "Lock him up" at all his rallies (NOT!).  Because, right now, they basically now have a president who is accused of a crime, with significant evidence it occurred, that the justice department doesn't think there is ENOUGH evidence to indict on.  Sound familiar?

[pilferk]

And there you have it....
 
NO COLLUSION

I refer back to one of our early conversations on this subject:

There were literally two choices here.  Either he was a traitor, who actively colluded with the Russian government OR he's a moron who (coincidentally) did some REALLY stupid, ill advised (and obviously so), naive stuff (and we've learned EVEN MORE...regarding Trump Tower Moscow) which made things a lot easier for the Russians (can we all agree it was the Russians who attacked the 2016 elections now? and with the intent to elect Trump?). That might not be criminal, but should certainly give you pause about the type of president this guy is.....and he will LIE about all of it, over and over and over and over again.

We now know he's not a traitor. That's a win for everyone.

He's a moron, who has shady business (and campaign) dealings, who will say REALLY stupid stuff that effectively cheers on our enemies who are attacking our elections.  Oh, and he will lie, repeatedly, to cover it all up....because it looks so bad it actually LOOKS improper, even if it's not actually criminal.  That...not so much.

Congrats on voting for that and being excited about it.

Why was it you didn't want to vote for Hillary, again?

[pilferk]

Democrats need to let this die a death now and talk about what they want to do for the country
This Nadler on tv today all but said they will keep investigating Trump
That's just terrific - congrats on electing him again

We need a clearer answer on obstruction. In the interest of transparency (and I know, this administration thinks that's a dirty word).

I would offer they should (and I think the pressure to do so will eventually cause it to happen) release the entire report to the public.  We all deserve to read whats there and make our own determinations.

Congress has, literally, a constitutional duty to pursue oversight.  If there is evidence of things that need oversight (and there is....I don't think there's any debate there), they should investigate.  The Republican Congress were certainly not shy about doing so under Obama...they just didn't ever find anything worth pursuing further (not that they didn't try).

It should not be the focus of the Dems next two years. I thought that before, I continue to think it now. I know it's the thing that has made the most noise their first few months...I'm hoping they can quell that noise a bit going forward (though the Repubs aren't going to want to let them...it's a convenient, if hypocritical, 2020 election talking point).  The Dems ran on healthcare, infrastructure, and several other pocketbook issues.  The House should be concentrating on making the Senate make some unpopular votes (or the President some unpopular vetos) on those issues.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

And there you have it....
 
NO COLLUSION

I refer back to one of our early conversations on this subject:

There were literally two choices here.  Either he was a traitor, who actively colluded with the Russian government OR he's a moron who (coincidentally) did some REALLY stupid, ill advised (and obviously so), naive stuff (and we've learned EVEN MORE...regarding Trump Tower Moscow) which made things a lot easier for the Russians (can we all agree it was the Russians who attacked the 2016 elections now? and with the intent to elect Trump?). That might not be criminal, but should certainly give you pause about the type of president this guy is.....and he will LIE about all of it, over and over and over and over again.

We now know he's not a traitor. That's a win for everyone.

He's a moron, who has shady business (and campaign) dealings, who will say REALLY stupid stuff that cheers on our enemies who are attacking our elections.  Oh, and he will lie, repeatedly, to cover it all up....because it looks so bad it actually LOOKS improper, even if it's not actually criminal.  That...not so much.

Congrats on voting for that and being excited about it.

Why was it you didn't want to vote for Hillary, again?

I'm not going to re-litigate the 2016 election here with you, what would be the point of that? 

Trump did not collude with Russia. If anyone was going to find it, would be Mueller and his team of mostly democrats.  Moving forward, if they want to stay relevant, Dems need to focus on their own agenda instead of starring as Capt Ahab hunting for their big white whale if they want to show they can actually govern.

But hate is alive and well when it comes to the left and Trump. What was it they kept saying, Love Trumps Hate?