Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[chineseblues]

Anyone that thinks theirs no proof of collusion has got to be smoking some damn good shit.

Nah man the repubs don't smoke any good shit. Those fucks are too far into Jesus for that.

The closest thing to a source we have seen so far are the articles that were in the Washington Post and the NY Times. Sorry but a journalist saying they were read information from a document or a quote from an 'American official' is not concrete evidence.Maybe Trump did collude with Russia, , but there hasn't been any evidence presented yet to back it up.  With those newspapers circulation seems to be more important than reporting the facts.

I'd like to see what evidence Mueller can come up with and that was a good decision to have a special council. Either Trump will get exonerated or it will be proven that there was collusion with Russia.

And stereotyping just makes you look like an idiot....and an angry one at that. Trust me, some republicans do know about the good shit   

Have you not watched the congressional hearings where the heads of the intelligence agencies have come out and said that yes there is evidence of collusion between campaign officials and Russia? I don't need news outlets telling me shit when the people doing the investigating have said it from their own damn mouths! Seriously man, you can ignore it all you want but there is at least 7 fucking investigations ongoing into this shit.

Yes I am one salty mother fucker and I'm angry as hell and it's not even my own damn country! This guy is horrible for the entire planet, not just America. Republicans only care about themselves and their own pocketbooks. You can say what you want but everyone who isn't a republican knows that party and its supporters is full of racists, sexists, homophobes etc etc. you see it in their policies and their stances on the issues. The dems have their own issues to sort out as well but at least they aren't half as bad as republicans.

You have the White House and their supporters spreading fake news stories to try and take eyes off of them for the shit they are doing. Is that really what you want to support and have representing you?

[sandman]

Anyone that thinks theirs no proof of collusion has got to be smoking some damn good shit.

Nah man the repubs don't smoke any good shit. Those fucks are too far into Jesus for that.

The closest thing to a source we have seen so far are the articles that were in the Washington Post and the NY Times. Sorry but a journalist saying they were read information from a document or a quote from an 'American official' is not concrete evidence.Maybe Trump did collude with Russia, , but there hasn't been any evidence presented yet to back it up.  With those newspapers circulation seems to be more important than reporting the facts.

I'd like to see what evidence Mueller can come up with and that was a good decision to have a special council. Either Trump will get exonerated or it will be proven that there was collusion with Russia.

And stereotyping just makes you look like an idiot....and an angry one at that. Trust me, some republicans do know about the good shit   

Yes I am one salty mother fucker and I'm angry as hell

again....thank you! people like you keep this winning feeling going. it's so enjoyable. 

I encourage you to actually read about the lack of evidence. read the quotes of Maxine Waters and Dianne Feinstein (incredible source for this considering her roles). they specifically state there is no evidence.
 
but in all seriousness, I hope you find peace with all of this, in your safe space.

[sandman]

Anyone that thinks theirs no proof of collusion has got to be smoking some damn good shit.

Nah man the repubs don't smoke any good shit. Those fucks are too far into Jesus for that.

The closest thing to a source we have seen so far are the articles that were in the Washington Post and the NY Times. Sorry but a journalist saying they were read information from a document or a quote from an 'American official' is not concrete evidence.Maybe Trump did collude with Russia, , but there hasn't been any evidence presented yet to back it up.  With those newspapers circulation seems to be more important than reporting the facts.

I'd like to see what evidence Mueller can come up with and that was a good decision to have a special council. Either Trump will get exonerated or it will be proven that there was collusion with Russia.

And stereotyping just makes you look like an idiot....and an angry one at that. Trust me, some republicans do know about the good shit   

this is a great fair and open-minded post. posts like this will not be tolerated in this thread!. 

i agree with your points. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Some good points here

Trump's Allies, Convicted of High Crimes Without a Trial

Maybe Flynn committed treason. But so far no one has presented any evidence, just innuendo. That's not justice.
by Eli Lake
May 26, 2017, 6:00 AM EDT

Heard any good Mike Flynn jokes lately?

How about this one from "Morning Joe," this week? "When it comes to legal issues, he's like Charmin. You just keep squeezing." Maybe you've seen Stephen Colbert's segment from February about Trump's former national security adviser: "It's funny 'cause it's treason."

Don't miss this exchange in the New Yorker last month with former acting attorney general Sally Yates. Reporter Ryan Lizza asked Yates about how she informed the White House counsel that Flynn had lied to his colleagues about his monitored conversations with the Russian ambassador. "You didn't just text, 'Heads-up, your N.S.A. might be a spy'?" Lizza asked. Yates quipped: "Is there an emoji for that?"

Well it's nice to see our elites are in such good humor about something so grave. If there truly was treason, it's no joking matter. If there was not, then this man's name is being tarnished unfairly. Ha. Ha.

After all, Flynn has yet to be charged with a crime. If there is evidence that he betrayed his country, it has yet to be presented. None of the many news stories about Flynn's contacts with Russians and Turks has accused him of being disloyal to his country. And yet a decorated general has already been tried and convicted in the press.

None of this would be happening without some very dirty business from the national security state. It's a two-pronged campaign. First there are the whispers. Anonymous officials describe in detail elements of an ongoing investigation: intercepts of conversations between Russian officials about how they could influence Flynn during the transition; monitored phone calls about how Flynn had lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to his colleagues; how Flynn failed to disclose his payment from the Russian propaganda network on his official forms. This prong of the campaign is at least factual, but the facts don't speak for themselves.

The second and more insidious element here is the innuendo. Yates never says Flynn was a spy for Russia. But her public remarks to Congress and the media appear designed to leave that impression. As she told Lizza, Flynn was "compromised by the Russians." This sounds far more sinister than Flynn's explanation when he left his post in February. Back then he said he had forgotten elements of his discussion with the Russian ambassador that covered a wide range of issues.

Yates's innuendo is nothing compared to that dropped by former CIA director John Brennan. This week he treated the House Intelligence Committee to a feast of ominous suggestions. "Frequently, people who go along a treasonous path do not know they are on a treasonous path until it is too late,? he warned. Contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian individuals "raised questions in my mind about whether Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals." This cooperation could be "witting" or "unwitting," he cautioned.

Notice that Brennan did not accuse anyone in Trump's orbit of espionage or treason. He didn't say the Russian plan worked. He just said that when he left office he had questions. A definite "maybe."

Now, it's entirely possible that the government will charge Flynn and other Trump associates with high crimes. This would be a political disaster for the president. But at least if the government does present such charges, Flynn will have the opportunity to defend himself. In the interim, if that day ever comes, Flynn must follow the advice of his lawyers and keep quiet.   

This is not how it's supposed to work. Normally if a U.S. official is suspected of treason, the government collects evidence before hinting to the public what it might be seeking evidence about. Think of FBI agent Robert Hanssen or CIA officer Aldrich Ames, both of whom provided the Soviet Union with information that led to the deaths of American agents. Ames and Hanssen are fiends. And yet the public learned about their treachery only when the government charged them.   

The discretion of our spy hunters is important not just to protect the rights of the accused. It also is vital to the health of our own political culture. Public discussion of ongoing counterintelligence probes by necessity relies on state secrets. When anonymous allegations of political figures find their way into the press, the guardians of those secrets control the debate. What's more, political debates that revolve around the loyalty of current or former high officials historically has degenerated into witch hunts.

It's too soon to say whether Mike Flynn is facing a witch hunt. There's no evidence coming from current and former government officials, just jokes and innuendo. He has not been charged with anything. The specific legal violations he is alleged to have committed -- such as failing to register as a foreign agent for a contract with a Turkish businessman -- do not amount to betraying his country. And yet our elites have already convicted a decorated general of being a bumbling traitor. What if they're wrong? Is there an emoji for that?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-26/trump-s-allies-convicted-of-high-crimes-without-a-trial

[sandman]

trump was not under investigation!!!

Comey proves MSM is fake news!!!

Clintons are actually the ones who obstructed justice!!!

on the day that was supposed to be great for the haters, Trump comes out on top again! this never gets old and continues to be so enjoyable.

I almost feel bad for all the millennials that called out of work to go sit in a bar drinking $5 PBRs at 10AM to watch Trump's demise. 

#MAGA
#winning
#trumptrain
#getonboard

[tim_m]

wrong again! Comey said Trump told him to let the Flynn investigation go. That's obstruction. You can't tell someone to stop an investigation. You cannot demand loyalty from the head of the FBI!

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Trump did not tell Comey to stop the investigation. I believe the quote was I hope you can let this go.  Not I demand / direct / command you to let this go.


 

[GypsySoul]

Trump did not tell Comey to stop the investigation. I believe the quote was I hope you can let this go.  Not I demand / direct / command you to let this go.

True.  Plus Comey said that Trump wanted them to investigate to see if any of Trump's "satellites" were involved in any collusion/wrongdoing.

 

[chineseblues]

I see the brainwashed right wingers are still clinging to the false hope of their dear fearless Cheetos leader not being a corrupt piece of shit. If anyone actually truly believes that he wasn't trying to influence Comey, I have a bridge in Brooklyn and some land in Florida to sell you.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Of course he was trying to influence Comey. Trump made a suggestion. Was it smart to do that ? Probrably not. Was it illegal or obstructing justice? Not even close.

[chineseblues]

Of course he was trying to influence Comey. Trump made a suggestion. Was it smart to do that ? Probrably not. Was it illegal or obstructing justice? Not even close.

According to the prosecutors from the watergate case yes it was obstruction of justice when you put it into context with him firing comey because of the Russia investigation (which trump admitted to in the NBC interview)

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Of course he was trying to influence Comey. Trump made a suggestion. Was it smart to do that ? Probrably not. Was it illegal or obstructing justice? Not even close.

According to the prosecutors from the watergate case yes it was obstruction of justice when you put it into context with him firing comey because of the Russia investigation (which trump admitted to in the NBC interview)

The quote from Ackerman was "Obstruction of justice is an intent crime. If his intent was to impede, interfere or stop that investigation, that's obstruction,"  Trump did none of those things.  But I guess if you are seeking out headlines I see how you may come of that conclusion.

 I don't see where Trump said he fired him because of the Russia investigation.  But Comey needed to be fired. Just take a look at how he handled  the Hillary Clinton investigation.  ( or matter if you believe Loretta Lynch)  So much for a truly independent FBI.  Comey's job was more important to him than his principles.  And his behavior after he was fired by leaking info to the NY Times thru an intermediary in order to influence the appointment of an independent counsel  with Mueller speaks volumes that he wasn't a straight shooter. 

With that said, I am glad Mueller is looking into things. Perhaps we will get some real answers at the end of this.

[chineseblues]

Trump absolutely was trying to get comey to stop the investigation into Flynn. It's also quite clear that trump himself said he fired comey because of the Russia investigation. The words came out of the mans mouth in an interview with NBC. I don't see how you can deny that. Not to mention that he told the Russians the same thing in the Oval Office.

It's so funny how you guys believe comey on certain things but not others when trump is the proven liar. His own lawyers always had 2 guys in the room with him because he was known to lie about what was said in meetings.

[pilferk]

Of course he was trying to influence Comey. Trump made a suggestion. Was it smart to do that ? Probrably not. Was it illegal or obstructing justice? Not even close.

Just for some historical perspective:

Nixon basically "harrumpfed" (and it was almost barely audible) agreement to a cover up, on tape, and it was considered obstruction and conspiracy. That's why he resigned.

The power of "suggestion", in that office, is considered pretty powerful.  Those words "I hope", have been used, by past presidents, with some pretty heavy gravitas in that very office. It's like when I say to my kids "I really HOPE you did your homework".  That's the history....and there's legal precedent.

Different day, different order, different congress, but....

And as for "was it illegal", really....none of us can say "not even close". That's for Mueller to decide.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I just hope Mueller is as far and as impartial as people say he is. I think we deserve that after the drama the country has been going thru the past year.

The fact that Comey intentionally leaked details of his private conversations with Trump to the NY Times thru his friend at Columbia U to prompt the appointment a special counsel makes me a bit nervous about his impartiality.   

[GeorgeSteele]

A lot of Trump supporters have been reminding me of the O'Doyles from Billy Madison.  They'll be chanting 'Trump Rules' even as the car is going over the cliff.

 

[pilferk]

I just hope Mueller is as far and as impartial as people say he is. I think we deserve that after the drama the country has been going thru the past year.

The fact that Comey intentionally leaked details of his private conversations with Trump to the NY Times thru his friend at Columbia U to prompt the appointment a special counsel makes me a bit nervous about his impartiality.   

I think he will be.

I think whatever side doesn't get the outcome they want from him will think he isn't. You can already see that tide building.

And I think, based on what I've already seen here and in other places, that people are going to discount anything they hear, see, or is presented to them....you know, those pesky facts....to hear, see, and get presented to them the things that reinforce their own echo chamber. To be clear, I am talking about BOTH sides.

Which, IMHO, is just going to perpetuate more of the same rah rah ditto head root for team red vs team blue politics we've seen for awhile now.

[pilferk]

The fact that Comey intentionally leaked details of his private conversations with Trump to the NY Times thru his friend at Columbia U to prompt the appointment a special counsel makes me a bit nervous about his impartiality.   

One other thing:

You can't "leak" information that isn't classified. You can share it...but you can't leak it. Not in the traditional sense.

Executive privilege is not absolute. Trump would have had to envoke it during the conversation for it to hold sway, and it's on the President to make it obvious that is in place.  They can, sometimes, retroactively apply it....but that has had poor precedent (US vs Nixon) in enforcement.

So, Comey did nothing strictly illegal (no matter how much the Repubs and the Pres wish it was).

I agree it was not good optics, and appears at least borderline inappropriate. BUT, I think Comey did so to combat what he saw as a coming PR war with Trump on truthfulness, post Trumps "tapes" tweet.  He viewed it as protecting and proving the implement existed and wasn't created after the fact. As "whistleblowing", actually, in some form. Again, the SC has held up similar precedent, and not just in the Nixon case. And I suspect, given his interaction with Justice (and their unwillingness to shield him..which was ALSO inappropriate...that's their job), he was working to try to ensure that when the time came, his "case" was going to be handled by someone independent.

Lets face it: Borderline inappropriate gets you fired...from a job he was already fired from. What are they going to do? Fire him again?

AND, I think Comey's admission during the testimony adds credence to his honesty during that same testimony.  That tidbit certainly did not reflect well on him, and yet he shared it anyway.  I see both sides trying to pick and choose which parts they like, and apply "truth" to only those parts.  He's either credible or not. I think his forthrightness bolsters the case for "credible".

OK...I'm out again for awhile.  Enjoy the thread, regular denizens.  I just wanted to add some context...and got sucked into a bit more.  It will be an interesting 6 months or so....

[Dr. Blutarsky]

You're like a recurring guest star in this thread, Pilferk. 



 

[AxlsMainMan]

A lot of Trump supporters have been reminding me of the O'Doyles from Billy Madison.  They'll be chanting 'Trump Rules' even as the car is going over the cliff.

 

Some appallingly ignorant and stupid people in America (and this thread), that's for sure.