TrumPutinGate

#7,526
#7,526
#VFL__ said:
Bingo but he did not and we are left with more questions than answers, which seems to be the case with just about everything.
Click to expand...

We are not left with more questions because I have looked at the financial disclosure he filed. I'm satisfied and don't need his returns because I don't care what his net effective rate is.
 
#7,528
#7,528
I'd bet Maxine Waters is pissed she didn't do it first.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/337426-house-dem-proposes-article-of-impeachment

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) unveiled a proposed article of impeachment Monday against President Trump for allegedly obstructing justice in a federal investigation.

The legislative text argues that Trump’s alleged attempts to pressure since-fired FBI Director James Comey to drop the agency’s investigation into former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn amounts to obstruction of justice.

“In all of this, Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States,” the proposed article of impeachment states.

Sherman wrote in a letter to fellow lawmakers on Monday that he may try to force a floor vote on his article of impeachment if the House Judiciary Committee does not take it up.
Click to expand...
 
#7,529
#7,529
Per an interview with a Trump surrogate on PBS, Trump is "considering terminating" the special counsel Robert Mueller. I hope he does. That would have to come with a Republican backlash. Several Republicans in Congress have voiced their support of Mueller and his credentials and integrity. I doubt Trump has the audacity to do it but we'll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,530
#7,530
BowlBrother85 said:
Per an interview with a Trump surrogate on PBS, Trump is "considering terminating" the special counsel Robert Mueller. I hope he does. That would have to come with a Republican backlash. Several Republicans in Congress have voiced their support of Mueller and his credentials and integrity. I doubt Trump has the audacity to do it but we'll see.
Click to expand...

I don't even believe you think he is that stupid.
 
#7,531
#7,531
#VFL__ said:
Yeah, I agree and the two above mentioned items are not out there waiting to be uncovered. Trump is a smart cat when it comes to business and he wouldn't leave behind a trail, which is why I believe all of the calls for impeachment should really stop. It's not helping me or my country uncover the facts.

I say all of that to point out just how inappropriate it was for Trump and his team to have a back alley avenue of communication. You're right BHam, it isn't on Trump to prove he didn't collude but he damn sure has done just about everything imaginable to make the water as murky as possible. Agreed?
Click to expand...

Clearly intercepts exist (hence the unmasking). Apparently none of those intercepted communications even yielded enough evidence to put Trump himself under investigation - think about that. This has been going on (investigation) for almost 1 year and at least up until Comey's firing there wasn't anything that even made a case to investigate Trump himself.

As for back alley communications it depends on what you mean. Manafort and Page already had relationships with Russia. So hard to say this was a Trump strategy. Given how Trump isn't exactly the best at vetting associates (cough Flynn cough) I wouldn't be surprised if Trump had no idea these guys had Russian connections. Post election they looked to set up a back channel but that could have been needed since any discussion with Russia would be under suspicion. Interestingly, Obama set up a secret back channel with Iran (I believe before he was inaugurated).

Overall, Trump has handled this terribly. However, looking at all the real evidence (eg. sworn testimony by officials with knowledge) it's hard to think there's any evidence of collusion; especially given this investigation began last July and we know that intel has intercepts of communications with Russians.

If Trump goes down it will be for lying under oath and I can certainly see that happening because he can't help himself. I'd be shocked if he went down for obstruction of justice or collusion with Russia
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,532
#7,532
volinbham said:
Now he has to prove he didn't collude?

Trump is a buffoon and terrible president. That doesn't mean I have to lose all objectivity in evaluating this alleged Trump/Putin connection.
Click to expand...

Trump may be a buffoon, but he's not been given much of an opportunity to show his potential. He's been on the ropes and defending himself every minute of his presidency. He's been under assault from everyone including the "status quo" Republicans..... the liberal media with all of their hissy hits and what not..... it's really exposed the media bias and liberal agenda to be a real and documentable phenomenon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,534
#7,534
Can anyone tell us where the original suggestion of collusion came from?

I'm willing to bet it can be traced to a political appointee of the Obama administration.

Seriously, can anyone pinpoint the genesis of the allegation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,535
#7,535
volinbham said:
Can anyone tell us where the original suggestion of collusion came from?

I'm willing to bet it can be traced to a political appointee of the Obama administration.

Seriously, can anyone pinpoint the genesis of the allegation?
Click to expand...

Why is that important? There was no way around the suspicion and appearance of impropriety once Michael Flynn admitted to lying about his contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,536
#7,536
BowlBrother85 said:
Why is that important? There was no way around the suspicion and appearance of impropriety once Michael Flynn admitted to lying about his contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Click to expand...

Why is it important?

So far as I can tell every official involved in the investigation has said under oath that they haven't seen the collusion angle.

Yet it persists. It was planted in the larger investigation of Russian interference which these same officials say did occur. It's a clever bit of theater and the selective leaks have all been designed to leave the impression that collusion is the focus of the investigation. Testimony to date suggests that this is a counter-intelligence investigation rather than a criminal investigation (which collusion would be).

The collusion angle has been carefully orchestrated IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,537
#7,537
Was it leaks around the dossier? Interesting that at least 6 months after the dossier (maybe more) we still get statements of no evidence of collusion and Trump not being investigated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,538
#7,538
volinbham said:
Clearly intercepts exist (hence the unmasking). Apparently none of those intercepted communications even yielded enough evidence to put Trump himself under investigation - think about that. This has been going on (investigation) for almost 1 year and at least up until Comey's firing there wasn't anything that even made a case to investigate Trump himself.

As for back alley communications it depends on what you mean. Manafort and Page already had relationships with Russia. So hard to say this was a Trump strategy. Given how Trump isn't exactly the best at vetting associates (cough Flynn cough) I wouldn't be surprised if Trump had no idea these guys had Russian connections. Post election they looked to set up a back channel but that could have been needed since any discussion with Russia would be under suspicion. Interestingly, Obama set up a secret back channel with Iran (I believe before he was inaugurated).

Overall, Trump has handled this terribly. However, looking at all the real evidence (eg. sworn testimony by officials with knowledge) it's hard to think there's any evidence of collusion; especially given this investigation began last July and we know that intel has intercepts of communications with Russians.

If Trump goes down it will be for lying under oath and I can certainly see that happening because he can't help himself. I'd be shocked if he went down for obstruction of justice or collusion with Russia
Click to expand...

Comey knows so much more about this than any other private citizen. With just the slightest hint of perceived obstruction by Comey, he would not stick his neck on the line by making false statements about the president if there was nothing deeper than the obstruction allegation. Trump himself may have been caught up in some incidental surveillance as far as we know. All we know is that there were warrants for surveillance on a few people and from then to now we don't know jack about what information was gained but he does. He and maybe a handful of other people know the ins and out and depth of the investigation and the evidenced that it has produced. So I dare say he knows more than you or me and coming out with unwarranted obstruction allegations without first knowing the answer to why he would want to end the Flynn investigation would be foolish.

Who's name has been unmasked? You can probably guess but you don't know. Do you know why you don't know? All of this is classified information. You just want to spin the narrative that the process of unmasking was unethical or illegal and since you have not seen any evidence that it does not exist.
 
#7,539
#7,539
BowlBrother85 said:
Per an interview with a Trump surrogate on PBS, Trump is "considering terminating" the special counsel Robert Mueller. I hope he does. That would have to come with a Republican backlash. Several Republicans in Congress have voiced their support of Mueller and his credentials and integrity. I doubt Trump has the audacity to do it but we'll see.
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
#7,540
#7,540
volinbham said:
Why is it important?

So far as I can tell every official involved in the investigation has said under oath that they haven't seen the collusion angle.

Yet it persists. It was planted in the larger investigation of Russian interference which these same officials say did occur. It's a clever bit of theater and the selective leaks have all been designed to leave the impression that collusion is the focus of the investigation. Testimony to date suggests that this is a counter-intelligence investigation rather than a criminal investigation (which collusion would be).

The collusion angle has been carefully orchestrated IMHO.
Click to expand...


At this point I don't see how anything can be ruled out. We don't know what those testifying behind closed doors are saying or will say. We don't know if those in the IC that have access to conversations between the Russians and Trump people have even testified yet. We're only hearing maybe the one fourth to one half of it that is public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,541
#7,541
MT LeConte said:
At this point I don't see how anything can be ruled out. We don't know what those testifying behind closed doors are saying or will say. We don't know if those in the IC that have access to conversations between the Russians and Trump people have even testified yet. We're only hearing maybe the one fourth to one half of it that is public.
Click to expand...

Some of y'all need to learn to let things go. Trump is not going to be impeached. Hillary is not going to step in and be the president. It's over. Let it go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,542
#7,542
Mick said:
Comey knows so much more about this than any other private citizen. With just the slightest hint of perceived obstruction by Comey, he would not stick his neck on the line by making false statements about the president if there was nothing deeper than the obstruction allegation. Trump himself may have been caught up in some incidental surveillance as far as we know. All we know is that there were warrants for surveillance on a few people and from then to now we don't know jack about what information was gained but he does. He and maybe a handful of other people know the ins and out and depth of the investigation and the evidenced that it has produced. So I dare say he knows more than you or me and coming out with unwarranted obstruction allegations without first knowing the answer to why he would want to end the Flynn investigation would be foolish.

Who's name has been unmasked? You can probably guess but you don't know. Do you know why you don't know? All of this is classified information. You just want to spin the narrative that the process of unmasking was unethical or illegal and since you have not seen any evidence that it does not exist.
Click to expand...

You're seeing things that aren't there my friend. My comments about unmasking were meant as indications that the intel community has intercepts involving communications between US citizens and Russia. Given they have these and have been looking at them for nearly a year it is telling that they say no evidence of collusion and Trump not a subject of investigation. I was not commenting on the ethics or legality of unmasking; it is simply how we know that intel has the intercepts.

As for the first part we have to go on Comey's word. He testified he had seen no attempts to interfere with his investigation and also that the Trump comments were limited solely to the matter of Flynn and were NOT about the larger investigation into Russia.

So maybe Clapper, Comey, the head of DNI, the Asst AG and acting head of FBI all lied in sworn testimony vis a vis evidence of collusion, Trump as subject of investigation and any efforts to deter the investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,544
#7,544
Obsessed said:
Some of y'all need to learn to let things go. Trump is not going to be impeached. Hillary is not going to step in and be the president. It's over. Let it go.
Click to expand...
There's still a chance Hillary will be President.......isn't there? Luther and LG say Trump won't make it the whole term.
 
#7,545
#7,545
volinbham said:
Can anyone tell us where the original suggestion of collusion came from?

I'm willing to bet it can be traced to a political appointee of the Obama administration.

Seriously, can anyone pinpoint the genesis of the allegation?
Click to expand...

British and Dutch intelligence notified the FBI that their assets saw Carter Page in Moscow meeting with Russian Government officials and with a Russian Oligarch who is close friends with Vladimir Putin. It also was suggested when it was found out that Paul Manafort had taken millions of $$$ to help orchestrate the Russian takeover of Crimea and the Ukrainian and Russian response to the Euromaidan protests in which 700 Ukrainian protesters were killed. Manafort has been tied to their deaths and is wanted for questioning in Ukraine. This was all around the early summer late spring of 2016
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#7,546
#7,546
volinbham said:
Was it leaks around the dossier? Interesting that at least 6 months after the dossier (maybe more) we still get statements of no evidence of collusion and Trump not being investigated.
Click to expand...

At least 50% of the intel in the dossier is true. That is one reason why the FBI offered the guy who collected the intel in the dossier a job at one point.
 
#7,547
#7,547
MT LeConte said:
At this point I don't see how anything can be ruled out. We don't know what those testifying behind closed doors are saying or will say. We don't know if those in the IC that have access to conversations between the Russians and Trump people have even testified yet. We're only hearing maybe the one fourth to one half of it that is public.
Click to expand...

Agree - nothing can be ruled out.

That said, plenty of what's been said under oath does not support the collusion story.

Virtually all of what "supports" the collusion story is from un-named source leaks to the media. Sworn testimony points the opposite direction.

Did Russia attempt to interfere in the election? Yes. Repeated testimony says full confidence in this conclusion.

Did Russia prefer Trump to Clinton? Qualified yes. Testimony indicates that is the opinion reached but not as confident as attempt to interfere.

Did Russia infiltrate voting process? No. Testimony says no evidence.

Did Russian attempted interference impact the election results? Testimony says they cannot assess and are not assessing (other than attempt to see if actual votes were changed).

Did Trump's campaign work directly with Russia in some way? Testimony so far has said no evidence.

Are Trump associates under investigation? Yes - one for sure, Flynn who apparently lied about connections to Russia. Speculated that others Manafort, Page, Stone are all of whom had prior relationships with Russia. No evidence presented (or assertion or suggestion) in testimony to suggest Russian relationship was collusion on campaign.

A story has been floated supported by Dems that the answer to all of the above is YES. An important question would be do Dems have a motive for floated this version of events? We all know the answer.

My point? What we know so far points away from collusion. That doesn't preclude it but as we all know this thread began as a conclusion it occurred. Seems the skeptic would want more than the thin gruel provided so far before buying the story promoted by Trump's political opponents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,550
#7,550
One way or another this country will be worse off when this thing is over. We are too divided and continue to become more bitter towards each other.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top