* * F A C T S * *
More unbiased INFO for enlightened minds not brainwashed by the faux news box.
The impeachment memes will continue.
TAKE THE POLL: HOW LONG BEFORE TRUMP GETS IMPEACHED
- Thread starter BigBlackBull76
- Start date
More unbiased INFO for enlightened minds not brainwashed by the faux news box.
The impeachment memes will continue.
As usual your arguments are thoughtful, rigorous and logical. I cannot personally discover any loophole that would declare Trump being innocent as in America people are generally assumed to be innocent until proven guilty by law, so I will presume the reverse where Trump is guilty until proven innocent. As I told @subhub174014 and/or @MacNfries the best test imaginable for Trump being not guilty is theoretically his greatest critics like yourself to ultimately declare Trump "not guilty" so it is unfortunate that you were not personally involved with these investigations as I can imagine you would make Trump truly sweat like a pig. Especially with your quote that I also heard through the media when these investigations began Trump was quoted that his presidency is fucked. When regular people are sued it brings fear into their hearts. Not sure about you, but where I live we get a ridiculous number of scam calls claiming that the police are going to arrest you unless you pay a sum of money in Bitcoin or the IRS is going to arrest you unless you do the same. Being in Canada I absolutely know that is a joke even though once upon a time years ago I temporarily worked in America and I paid every cent of my state and federal taxes while I lived there. I cannot say that I know what it is like to be in the typical day in the life of a C-level executive but they should be accustomed to the thought of being sued as people would want to extract every cent out of you. But it is not in an average person's mindset knowing the protocol of undergoing the anal examinations that Trump is going through. If I did, knowing I am innocent, I would have some fear about being unjustly convicted as many other people have been executed in America's history only to see DNA evidence declare their innocence after the fact. Here there is no DNA evidence that would exonerate Trump as if he appeared on the Maury Povich's show as he would have to pass a battery of unprecedented tests that would illustrate that Trump is "not guilty". If we go back on this thread a year or two we can discover several who said that Mueller would convict Trump and it did not occur, so keep investigating Trump until there are no accusers left and as unlikely as it might appear for Trump to be found "not guilty" in every one of those future lawsuits. Only time will tell if Trump ultimately succeeds there.I'll agree with that @STIFFBBC, - save the question for his 2nd term just like Nixon's crimes caught up to him in his 2nd term if there is one.
This is far from over and only just the start of this unethical crook's inevitable ending.
Similar to the other crook of a President Trump should just do the same and resign now or in his 2nd term as to quote Nixon, "...To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as president, I must put the interest of America first.”
* * * F A C T S * * *GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AG BARR is attempting to help cover up the obstruction case for Trump as he cherry picked his statements and left out whole quotes from Mueller's investigation.
* * * F A C T S * * *
The recorded annals on this apocalyptic presidency of Idocracy continues.
Mueller's report does not exonerate Trump one bit and his report is left up to Congress to determine what to do.
You can troll on here all you want spouting faux news nonsense with your heads buried in the sand but Trump admitted himself his Presidency is FUCKED - to use his words exactly.
BLUF: Four critical quotes from the report that AG Barr completely and conveniently left out in his early 4 pg summary statement:
- The special counsel's team emphasized that "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."
- "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred," the report continued. "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
- But when Mueller's report was released Thursday, it revealed that Barr omitted a significant caveat prosecutors included in their findings. Specifically, Mueller's team wrote that "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and ... the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."
If your so innocent why would you be worried about Mueller investigating you????
- When Trump learned Mueller had been appointed special counsel, he said, "I'm f--ked. This is the end of my presidency."
I called it in my vote it would take place in the 3rd year of Trump's presidency, this is the domino effect in which his downfall will finally begin. It took 17months to impeach Clinton in congress, and Nixon resigned finally after some 2 long years of congressional hearings (72 to 74') well into his 2nd term..
The 11 biggest takeaways from the Mueller report
1. A footnote fuels speculation about the most salacious allegation in the Steele dossier
What was perhaps the most interesting detail in the report was buried in a footnote.
In it, Mueller quoted a Russian businessman, Giorgi Rtskhiladze, as telling Michael Cohen via text message on October 30, 2016, that he had "stopped flow of tapes from Russia" that featured compromising, and potentially fabricated, material on Trump.
The revelation reignited intense speculation about one of the most salacious and sexually lurid allegations in the Steele dossier — that the Russian government possessed video evidence of the president engaging in sexual acts involving urination with Russian prostitutes in Moscow.
In the obstruction probe, the special counsel found that Trump's "efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
The special counsel then outlined several instances in which Trump ordered an adviser or administration official to do something, and they declined to do so:
2. Trump's many attempts to exert control over the Russia probe failed largely because aides refused to carry out his orders
In the obstruction probe, the special counsel found that Trump's "efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
The special counsel then outlined several instances in which Trump ordered an adviser or administration official to do something, and they declined to do so:
3. The Trump campaign 'expected it would benefit' from Russia's election interference
- Former FBI director James Comey's refusal to drop the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. That decision, Mueller said, "ultimately resulted in Flynn's prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI."
- Former White House counsel Don McGahn's refusal to tell then acting attorney general Rod Rosenstein to oust Mueller. McGahn was prepared to resign instead of following Trump's order.
- Former campaign advisers Corey Lewandowski's and Rick Dearborn's refusal to deliver a message to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions telling him to constrain the scope of the Russia probe to cover only future election meddling.
- McGahn's refusal to publicly deny reporting about Trump's efforts to have Mueller removed as special counsel. "McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President's direction" to remove Mueller, "despite the President's multiple demands that he do so," the report said.
*COLLUSION - COLLUSION - COLLUSION*
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press
Attorney General William Barr quoted directly from Mueller's report when he told Congress the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
But prosecutors prefaced that statement with a significant caveat: "The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and ... the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."
Barr made no mention of that finding by prosecutors in his initial summary of the report, in a subsequent letter to Congress, during several days of testimony before Congress, or at his Thursday morning news conference.
4. The real reason Mueller didn't charge Trump with obstruction
*BARR LIED AND SHOULD BE DIS-BARRED*
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
By far the most interesting, and the most nuanced, legal argument in the report appears in Mueller's obstruction findings.
He laid out 11 potential instances of obstruction by the president, but the special counsel declined to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment."
On Thursday morning, Barr told reporters Mueller's decision was not influenced by DOJ guidelines that state a sitting president cannot be indicted. He said that in fact, Mueller's determination — or lack thereof — was prompted by the inconclusive nature of the evidence.
But in his report, Mueller did not cite the nature, or lack of, evidence as a reason he did not come to a decision on obstruction. He did, however, cite the DOJ policy against charging a sitting president.
Moreover, the special counsel's team emphasized that "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not [emphasis ours] commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."
"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred," the report continued. "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
It is not new knowledge that Mueller's report did not exonerate the president. Indeed, Barr quoted that part of the sentence in his initial summary to Congress of the special counsel's findings.
But what stands out in the report is the reason Mueller states for not being able to exonerate the president.
* IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT *
It doesn't hinge on a lack of evidence. Instead, the special counsel appears to determine that even if he wanted to charge Trump with a crime — and he laid out multiple instances in which the president appeared to meet the threshold necessary for obstruction — he is constrained by the current legal framework.
5. Mueller directly contradicted Barr on 'collusion'
*NO EXONERATION THAT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN DID NOT COMMIT COLLUSION - ONLY CONSPIRACY*
Attorney General William Barr AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
Barr told reporters multiple times during Thursday's news conference that there was "no collusion" between Trump and/or anyone associated with his campaign and the Russian government.
But Mueller's report specified that prosecutors used the framework of conspiracy law — not "collusion" — when determining if there was coordination between the campaign and the Russian government.
"Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law," the report said. "For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in criminal law." Ultimately, Mueller's team did not find sufficient evidence to bring a conspiracy charge against the campaign or anyone associated with it.
6. Sarah Huckabee Sanders admitted to lying to the public about Comey's firing
*A DEN OF THIEVES AND LIARS*
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders admitted under oath to Mueller's office that she lied to the media and the public on May 11, 2017, when she said she had heard from "countless" members of the FBI who told her they were "grateful and thankful" Trump had fired Comey two days earlier.
"Following the press conference, Sanders spoke to the President, who told her she did a good job and did not point out any inaccuracies in her comments," Mueller's report said. "Sanders told this Office that her reference to hearing from 'countless members of the FBI' was a 'slip of the tongue.'"
The report added that Sanders "also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made 'in the heat of the moment' that was not founded on anything."
7. Flynn told Mueller that Trump directed him to find deleted Hillary Clinton emails
Michael Flynn. AP Photo/Susan Walsh
Mueller's report revealed that after Trump, then the Republican presidential nominee, infamously called on Russia to "find the 30,000 [Hillary Clinton] emails that are missing" during a July 27, 2016, news conference, he asked people associated with his campaign to obtain the emails.
Flynn told Mueller that he contacted several people at Trump's direction, including the longtime Senate staffer Barbara Ledeen and the late GOP strategist Peter Smith.
One proposed plan to obtain "missing" Clinton emails included a phase of possibly contacting foreign intelligence services to determine if anyone had hacked Clinton's server.
"The proposal noted, 'Even if a single email was recovered and the providence [sic] of that email was a foreign service, it would be catastrophic to the Clinton campaign,'" according to the Mueller report.
The proposal was emailed by Ledeen to Smith, who declined to participate, the report said.
8. In response to Mueller's written questions, Trump said he did 'not recall' or 'remember' or 'have an independent recollection' more than 30 times
*IF YOUR SO INNOCENT WHY CAN'T YOU TESTIFY AND GIVE YOUR ACCOUNT OF THE STORY*
President Donald Trump. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Mueller's team told Trump's lawyers that the answers were insufficient and began weighing whether to subpoena the president for a sit-down interview with the special counsel.
But prosecutors ultimately decided that it wouldn't be worth fighting a drawn-out legal battle with Trump's lawyers over a subpoena. Crucially, they also determined that the "substantial quantity of information" they obtained from other sources allowed them to "draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility, which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation."
9. Paul Manafort discussed much more than just 2016 Trump campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik
*MORE PROOF THAT THERE WAS COLLUSION DURING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN- DIFFERENT FROM CONSPIRACY WHICH IS WHAT MUELLER SAID HE INVESTIGATED FOR*
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Mueller's team has already revealed through earlier court filings that Manafort, the former chairman of Trump's campaign, shared confidential campaign polling data with his longtime associate, the former Russian intelligence operative Konstantin Kilimnik.
It's also been revealed that the two met multiple times during the campaign, that they communicated frequently, and that Manafort used Kilimnik as a conduit to the Russian-Ukrainian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, to whom Manafort offered "private briefings" on the campaign.
But Mueller's report revealed that when Manafort and Kilimnik met on August 2, 2016, in addition to discussing a Ukraine "peace plan" that favored Moscow, the two men also discussed how they "believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent (were he to be elected president)."
Moreover, they discussed the Trump campaign's strategy to win over Democratic voters in key Midwestern battleground states.
The report also said Manafort and Kilimnik continued sharing polling data "for some period of time after their August meeting."
10. 'Substantial evidence corroborates' Comey's account of a key event before his firing over Trump's account
* TRUMP LIED AGAIN - HIS OWN PRESIDENTIAL DIARY CONTRADICTED HIM *
President Donald Trump and then-FBI Director James Comey , during an Inaugural Law
Enforcement Officers and First Responders Reception in the White House in January 2017. Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images
The former FBI director has become somewhat of a bête noire for the White House and the Republican Party ever since he was abruptly ousted from his post in May 2017.
Since then, Comey and the president have offered dueling accounts of their interactions in the days and months leading up to Comey's firing.
Key among their disputes was Comey's claim that Trump had asked him for his loyalty during a private dinner in early 2017.
Trump and his advisers have repeatedly denied that, and the president also indicated he did not invite Comey to the White House for dinner, telling a reporter he thought Comey had "asked for the dinner" because "he wanted to stay on."
However, Mueller determined that there was "substantial evidence" to corroborate Comey's version of events surrounding the dinner invitation and request for loyalty.
Moreover, Mueller also said the President's Daily Diary confirmed he "extend[ed] a dinner invitation" to Comey on January 27. Prosecutors also pointed to Comey's contemporaneous notes of the dinner, his conversations with senior FBI officials, and his congressional and FBI testimony as bolstering his account of the night.
"Comey's memory of the details of the dinner, including that the President requested loyalty, has remained consistent throughout," the report said.
12. Mueller referred 14 criminal matters to other US Attorneys' offices — we only know about 2 of them
Robert Mueller. Aaron Bernstein/Reuters
"During the course of the investigation, the Office periodically identified evidence of potential criminal activity that was outside the scope of the Special Counsel's jurisdiction established by the Acting Attorney General," Mueller wrote. "After consultation with the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office referred that evidence to appropriate law enforcement authorities, principally other components of the Department of Justice and the FBI."
The two criminal investigations we know of that were referred by Mueller are those dealing with Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, and Gregory Craig, the former White House counsel under former President Barack Obama.
The other dozen ongoing matters for now remain a mystery.
ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/big...vent-before-his-firing-over-trumps-account-10
In the meantime, unless you already did so, I would think you could reach out to like-minded people like Lin-Manuel Miranda ( creator of the musical of Alexander Hamilton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_(musical)) ) who is also someone highly critical of Trump to say the least. Perhaps you could convince him to make an anti-musical about Trump before 2020, unless he is already doing so?
Last edited:
Careful you might be called a Trumptard by a malevolent harpy from the Netherlands, and I would agree but for the benefit of our bipartisan audience I won't say Trump is innocent as it would be best that they eventually arrived at that conclusion themselves, instead I will say he is not guilty.
nongolfer
Male
I'm not concerned with whatever name DaphneD might call me. She is of no consequence to serious people.
Trump is most certainly not innocent in a general sense. Few are. My point (and my prediction) is that so are several others. And it appears, and has for the last two years at least, these others are less innocent than Trump. In both seriousness of crime or ethical behavior, and in the negative consequences to our Republic Democracy. And we will all soon begin to be able to see this. Notwithstanding the fact I have no idea how people didn't see this over two years ago, but I digress.
Trump rubs people the wrong way. Most are unable to get over the emotion, and drill down to result. Consequently, many aren't going to like him. Even hate him. I am not many. I am part of the 10%, actually, probably closer to the 5% or even 2%. Which has less to do with my net worth, adn more to do with my thought processes. Hatred as an emotion which drives decisions is foolish to me. It is wasted energy. As an example, I didn't care for Obama's policies, some of his comments, and some of his behaviors. But I didn't hate him.
I am human though. I had two incidents of emotions which I couldn't overcome easily. Being audited by the IRS three times in a five year period. Right after I donated heavily to Judicial Watch, and while Lois Lerner was weaponizing that agency. I was pretty bitter for a short period of time. Short period of time is the key. The other event was the refusal by then President Obama to lower the flags after terrorists gunned down military recruiters in Tennessee. That emotion lasted longer, but not as long as people melting down over DJT obviously.
Trump is most certainly not innocent in a general sense. Few are. My point (and my prediction) is that so are several others. And it appears, and has for the last two years at least, these others are less innocent than Trump. In both seriousness of crime or ethical behavior, and in the negative consequences to our Republic Democracy. And we will all soon begin to be able to see this. Notwithstanding the fact I have no idea how people didn't see this over two years ago, but I digress.
Trump rubs people the wrong way. Most are unable to get over the emotion, and drill down to result. Consequently, many aren't going to like him. Even hate him. I am not many. I am part of the 10%, actually, probably closer to the 5% or even 2%. Which has less to do with my net worth, adn more to do with my thought processes. Hatred as an emotion which drives decisions is foolish to me. It is wasted energy. As an example, I didn't care for Obama's policies, some of his comments, and some of his behaviors. But I didn't hate him.
I am human though. I had two incidents of emotions which I couldn't overcome easily. Being audited by the IRS three times in a five year period. Right after I donated heavily to Judicial Watch, and while Lois Lerner was weaponizing that agency. I was pretty bitter for a short period of time. Short period of time is the key. The other event was the refusal by then President Obama to lower the flags after terrorists gunned down military recruiters in Tennessee. That emotion lasted longer, but not as long as people melting down over DJT obviously.
what kind of statement is that?....sounds kind of wishy washy to me
we all know he is guilty...so guilty when the time comes they will have to screw him into the ground like a cork screw
my conclusion right now...he has a lot of people fooled!
and he is a vindictive little prick....the little prick part comes from some who have slept with him
I was trying to sit on the fence, but my bias is to fall on the side of Trump being not guilty on windless days. As you say he is not perfect but among those that tossed their hat in the ring to be POTUS to me Trump was the best choice in 2016. There might be better unexpected candidates that could be a better POTUS than Trump but until they run for office and win it is still Trump in 2020, provided Trump is still allowed to run.
there are several good candidates running in 2020 on the dem side...a bunch....and there are some that go way to far to the left....as for your man....would love to see him impeached...and the talk has definitely picked up now since muellers suggestion that is the only recourse....but I agree with Pelosi on that I think right now...there is so much division in the country...it might be a bad move....as for him being the best bet....I am thinking the economy is going to tank before then and he won't be near as good a bet.....and right now there are some republicans even starting to turn on him...Romney yesterday spoke on all the corruption around this man
Voting Trump out in 2020 is a far easier process than impeachment though.
Trying to impeach Trump would backfire on the Dems - Pelosi is seasoned enough to know this - they’ll just whine - howl - and attack using the Mueller Report until the 2020 election is over - best the people decide.
yes right now with the right covering his ass in the senate....but looks like that is starting to wear thin....and if the economy turns sour...the right will turn on him in a heartbeat!
maybe maybe not...who knows....hate to leave it to the trumptards and Russia again.....world leaders have already voiced their opinions of him often enough....recently trumps lord and master p u t I n ….said the Mueller report was false...when last week he said it vindicated everyone....we all know N.K. likes trump...but he is to stupid to see N.K. using him...they haven't done ******* and have no intentions of doing so..our security has told him that...but trump has shot off his mouth about stopping them....yeah they tore down ONE missile base...but how long did it take them to put it back together a week!
we already know the Canadian PM doesn't like him...….the uk protests everytime he goes there...( 2 funerals and a wedding with no invite)...germany doesn't like him......and france just basically called him an asshole last week....and you know he is not real popular in Mexico...we are not real popular around the world right now..even with Obama out trying to repair the damage.....so that just leaves the trumptards...and we all know they lack in....perception?
usemygirl
Male
?? this is like Brexit in the UK. Basically the losers just can’t acceot the loss. Trump was voted in, just get on with it and let him do what he was voted in by Americans to do. If he’s so bad then he won’t win again. My bets are though that he’ll win the next set of elections if they arnt fudged. Just like leave would win another EU referendum. What people say to pollsters and what people vote in private are clearly 2 different things. Clearly more people agree with him than are publically letting on
Either way time will tell.
Agreed the best judges to decide whether or not Trump should be impeached is through the election process where the American people can be the judge for every vote. Should he win the second time that should be the end of Trump's impeachment process, but with all of the other lawsuits Trump has to contend with is another matter.
Pay attention!
didn't work last time...….Hillary won the popular vote!
trump won with the KKK and the religious right and RUSSIA
he has a bunch of them...but again you can't charge a sitting pres...and when he gets out of office...probably drag it out in the courts until he is dead.....but I think once he is out of office...Russia will have no need for him......can't use the office to enrich himself.....no bank in the world will loan him money....he's fucked!...can't even use campaign funds to pay his lawyers
Hey - GUESS WHAT - popular vote DON’T
mean *******.
NO COLLUSION - NO COLLUSION - try to comprehend - I know it’s hard with all the brainwashing you’ve been exposed to - but try - I know ya can DO it ;}
Similar threads
