TrumPutinGate

[BowlBrother85]

Trump speaks in absolute terms when it is not in his best interest to do so... You can't look at that video without concluding that he is a complete liar.

 

[hog88]

Now you say that. At the time, Republicans were blissfully urging it on.

Not all.

Hell there wasn't even a big rukus when Clinton promised McDougal a pardon. Which he followed through on, I don't recall any attempts by the Rs to limit his powers then.

 

[Velo Vol]

And I don't think you are going to find many people here that think Starr should have went down that road after he finished up the Whitewater part.

Was there a single prominent Republican who objected to it at the time?

 

[Weezer]

Riddle me this, Trumpsters:

If Manafort, Corsi, Cohen, and Gates were all engaged in these shenanigans with the Russians over the emails, and without the knowledge of Trump or his campaign, wouldn't Trump WELCOME the investigation so as to confirm that?

Wouldn't Trump from the getgo have emphasized the disconnect between himself and them?

If Trump was not aware of it, then why go to such lengths to discredit the investigation? If he is so pro-America, he ought to be as concerned as the rest of us that there was Russian manipulation of our election to benefit one side or the other and he ought to endorse getting to the bottom of it.




You can't answer, because the premise is false. Trump and his campaign were very much aware of what was going on with Russian help. They encouraged it. They coordinated with it. They colluded. And they have lied about it frequently, including by Trump himself, under oath.

There is an answer that could fit. We all know Trump is an egomaniac. It could be his ego won't allow him to accept he won on anything less than his own merits. It's possible his subordinates acted without his knowledge for this reason. I'm not saying this is what happened, but you asked for a possible answer. I'm sure offering up this supposition will get me attacked again, but Trump's psychology provides a possible answer.

 

[hog88]

Was there a single prominent Republican who objected to it at the time?

Arlen Specter

 

[volfanjustin]

No, every candidate wouldn't have done that. Ethical ones would have kept it in play and notified the FBI and let them handle. You really think meeting with foreign governments for dirt on your political opponent is acceptable. Trump supporters are sacrificing their ethics to support him.



I am not assuming he is guilty, but that appears to be the direction of the investigation.

you are either naive or ignorant

 

[BowlBrother85]

Not all.

Hell there wasn't even a big rukus when Clinton promised McDougal a pardon. Which he followed through on, I don't recall any attempts by the Rs to limit his powers then.

There was a ruckus over those pardons... but since he did it on his last day in office there wasn't much that could be done about them. The Marc Rich pardon outraged a lot of people including Chuck Schumer.

 

[evillawyer]

Siap. No indication yet that it has to do with Trump

 

[ClearwaterVol]

you are either naive or ignorant

Now, to make this clear, I am not saying that Trump did conspire with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary.

However, not all presidential candidates would have conspired with an enemy to get dirt on a political opponent. That kind of behavior makes my skin crawl. Why was Russia willing to help? What did they expect in return?

 

[hog88]

There was a ruckus over those pardons... but since he did it on his last day in office there wasn't much that could be done about them. The Marc Rich pardon outraged a lot of people including Chuck Schumer.

McDougal was promised a pardon during the investigation, why do you think she kept he mouth shut and refused a deal?

 

[Weezer]

Really? The Mueller investigation has not even concluded yet. Impeachment involves politics, and in such a polarized time, is unlikely.

And the reason the investigation hasn't been concluded is because Trump hasn't been proven guilty as you claim.

 

[BowlBrother85]

you are either naive or ignorant

If you are implying that every candidate for President would accept a meeting with agents of a foreign adversary to discuss opposition research, then you are more cynical than you should be. That is definitely not the case. What the Trump campaign did was very foolish...

 

[BowlBrother85]

McDougal was promised a pardon during the investigation, why do you think she kept he mouth shut and refused a deal?

I don't recall that... Link?

 

[1972 Grad]

If you are implying that every candidate for President would accept a meeting with agents of a foreign adversary to discuss opposition research, then you are more cynical than you should be. That is definitely not the case. What the Trump campaign did was very foolish...

There are ruthless, bloodthirsty operatives at the heart of every campaign ever waged. To think otherwise is being extremely short sighted and naïve.

 

[Velo Vol]

Arlen Specter

True, though he was a Republican/Democrat

Arlen Specter Senatorial Papers - Clinton Impeachment Trial

 

[hog88]

I don't recall that... Link?

Accusations, hell even her husband admitted it.

 

[RockyTop85]

More than half of the convictions The Muell has produced are for lying, so far we have what, 1 or 2 convictions for other crimes besides lying and none are related to the election. So far there is zero proof or evidence Trump has done anything illegal and The Muell is trying to roll up his associates in the hope they can provide him evidence that Trump actually committed a crime.

After a year and a half I would expect someone would have been charged with a crime related to the election if there was anything there.

Aren’t there like 15 Russians who have been charged but have avoided prosecution by being outside our borders?

Trying to keep this short and as simple as possible:

What if Mueller doesn’t think that what happened, in terms of the election, is a crime for an American citizen? “Collusion is not a crime?” Maybe it’s true. How can he prosecute political speech and still respect the first amendment? Not my area of law by any stretch but it seems like a mess to try to tease that out as, I assume, he’d have to prove that the speech in question was false and known to be false.

Could Mueller believe that but also think that it’s his job to get to the bottom of what happened and let Congress, and the Courts decide whether there’s a way to use legislation to prevent it in the future?

If you assume that all of that is true, and it’s purely hypothetical speculation on my part, then using generally accepted practices to pressure admitted criminals like Manafort and Corsi to get to the bottom of it seems justifiable.

 

[BowlBrother85]

There are ruthless, bloodthirsty operatives at the heart of every campaign ever waged. To think otherwise is being extremely short sighted and naïve.

Not every candidate would be as reckless as to have their surrogates meet with agents of a foreign adversary to discuss opposition research during the middle of a campaign. To think otherwise, is being cynical and just plain wrong. This was one example of how the Trump campaign's inexperience and lack of ethics, has come back to bite them.

...and when a close adviser to Vice President Al Gore, Tom Downey - a former Representative of Long Island, New York, received a package containing George W. Bush debate preparation materials in 2000 (including a videotape of Bush practicing with top advisers and more than 120 pages of strategies, facts, and "comeback responses") from an employee of a media research firm named Juanita Yvette Lozano, he immediately turned them over to the F.B.I. So, you are dead wrong, that every member of a campaign would do anything to win... some have ethics and some don't. That depends largely on the candidate.

 

[hog88]

Aren’t there like 15 Russians who have been charged but have avoided prosecution by being outside our borders?

Trying to keep this short and as simple as possible:

What if Mueller doesn’t think that what happened, in terms of the election, is a crime for an American citizen? “Collusion is not a crime?” Maybe it’s true. How can he prosecute political speech and still respect the first amendment? Not my area of law by any stretch but it seems like a mess to try to tease that out as, I assume, he’d have to prove that the speech in question was false and known to be false.

Could Mueller believe that but also think that it’s his job to get to the bottom of what happened and let Congress, and the Courts decide whether there’s a way to use legislation to prevent it in the future?

If you assume that all of that is true, and it’s purely hypothetical speculation on my part, then using generally accepted practices to pressure admitted criminals like Manafort and Corsi to get to the bottom of it seems justifiable.

The charges against the Russians were a stunt by Muelly, one of which appears to have backfired on him when they actually sent representation to the hearing. He took egg on his face.

I don't think we need The Muell to get to the bottom of what should be an FBI or intelligence service investigation. If congress is convinced that there was collusion between Trumps campaign and the Russians wouldn't it make sense that someone would have already filed legislation trying to prevent it from happening again?

While I understand that it is common practice by prosecutors to roll up associates on minor charges trying to get them to flip I find it a disgusting practice.

 

[hog88]

Not every candidate would be as reckless as to have their surrogates meet with agents of a foreign adversary to discuss opposition research during the middle of a campaign. To think otherwise, is being cynical and just plain wrong. This was one example of how the Trump campaign's inexperience and lack of ethics, has come back to bite them.

...and when a close adviser to Vice President Al Gore, Tom Downey - a former Representative of Long Island, New York, received a package containing George W. Bush debate preparation materials in 2000 (including a videotape of Bush practicing with top advisers and more than 120 pages of strategies, facts, and "comeback responses") from an employee of a media research firm named Juanita Yvette Lozano, he immediately turned them over to the F.B.I. So, you are dead wrong, that every member of a campaign would do anything to win... some have ethics and some don't. That depends largely on the candidate.

And I'm sure they didn't use the info....

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[Weezer]

Again, the Starr Investigation started with Whitewater and ended up lies about consensual sex.

To a point I agree, but Starr didn't go looking for the Lewinski scandal. It was hand delivered to him by Linda Tripp and the conversations she recorded between her and Monica. At that point, what should he have done? And wasn't perjury in another case involving a Clinton accuser involved?

 

[luthervol]

Wasn't talking about Manafort but you bring up a good point. Why did the Muell decide to prosecute the same case the DOJ let slide under the Obama administration?

Obviously because they were trying to pressure Manafort into being honest for once in his life and telling the truth about the crimes Trump has committed. Isn't that self evident?

 

[RockyTop85]

The charges against the Russians were a stunt by Muelly, one of which appears to have backfired on him when they actually sent representation to the hearing. He took egg on his face.

I don't think we need The Muell to get to the bottom of what should be an FBI or intelligence service investigation. If congress is convinced that there was collusion between Trumps campaign and the Russians wouldn't it make sense that someone would have already filed legislation trying to prevent it from happening again?

While I understand that it is common practice by prosecutors to roll up associates on minor charges trying to get them to flip I find it a disgusting practice.

Is there a link to info on this hearing thing? I haven’t heard about that.

I’m a little fuzzy on the timeline but wasnt Trump meddling with the FBI to keep them from handling it what got Mueller appointed in the first place?

Also haven’t both chambers been run by Trumpists for the last two years? There’s been no meaningful congressional investigation or push back on anything he’s done until this week. They had whatever hearings they had where the campaign staff showed up and said they didn’t know anything about Russia, which has proven to be a lie in many cases. A lie which would have gone unpunished if things had been left up to the usual suspects.

Even if Putin had personally frog marched these guys into the House wearing nothing but those tiny souvenier Russian flags over their man-parts, McConnel probably wouldn’t let a bill come Up for a vote when it got to the Senate.

Finally, it’s not like Mueller is dropping the hammer on the guy from the campaign mailroom who didn’t know anything. He’s prosecuting Campaign staffers for crimes they actually committed and, so far, they’re getting sentences commensurate with what they’ve been convicted of.

 

[RockyTop85]

I’m not sure why my phone is capitalizing random words today.