Trump and his ties to Russia

[retrospooty]

Wait, you're claiming that an executive agency has gone rogue and is now working with the opposition party to take down the country's elected leadership? This is an incredibly serious charge so surely you must have plenty of evidence to support it. When can we expect it?

Also, it's impressive that you seem to be so certain that there is nothing to get to the bottom of when basically every US intelligence agency disagrees. Where did you come by this knowledge and expertise that's allowed you to out-analyze some of the world's preeminent intelligence agencies with budgets in the billions? You should leverage this skill because you can make a lot of money.

Exactly. The FBI is no joke, they are serious mofo's. If there was no evidence to follow, they would have had a small team on it and then determined that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant a full investigation. Instead they expanded it it. They don't put 150+ people on "unconfirmed reports from the media". It just doesn't happen.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly. The FBI is no joke, they are serious mofo's. If there was no evidence to follow, they would have had a small team on it and then determined that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant a full investigation. Instead they expanded it it. They don't put 150+ people on "unconfirmed reports from the media". It just doesn't happen.

Yes, exactly. And still in the end it's entirely possible that nothing worth acting on is uncovered. That doesn't mean that such an investigation is spurious or unwarranted given the available evidence now.

EDIT: And by 'nothing' I mean improper ties to Russia. The obstruction of justice has already happened.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The FBI is doing the bidding of disgruntled Democrats and some RINOs. There is nothing to "get to the bottom of" and that is why I am convinced nothing will come of this tail chasing endeavor.

Define "nothing". If criminal acts directly against Trump aren't discovered will that be nothing? What if those around him did improperly deal with Russians and Trump didn't question their actions, is that nothing? If Flynn is found by investigators to have colluded with the Russians and Trump tried to protect him or influence an investigation, is that nothing?


So if you could give specific examples of "something" when we'd have a better understanding of precisely what you mean. Note specific.

 

[JMC2000]

Wait, you're claiming that an executive agency has gone rogue and is now working with the opposition party to take down the country's elected leadership? This is an incredibly serious charge so surely you must have plenty of evidence to support it. When can we expect it?

Also, it's impressive that you seem to be so certain that there is nothing to get to the bottom of when basically every US intelligence agency disagrees. Where did you come by this knowledge and expertise that's allowed you to out-analyze some of the world's preeminent intelligence agencies with budgets in the billions? You should leverage this skill because you can make a lot of money.

Remember, they're all "Deep State" Obama plants that want to "destroy" America by attacking Trump.



No matter how many times I say the above, I realize that there's no mind-altering drug in existence so powerful that could put me in such a state where I believe in the slightest that Trump is the 'innocent victim' of some grandiose conspiracy with Obama at the helm.

Seriously, no one can be that out of their mind, can they?

 

[hal2kilo]

Those sanctions should be lifted. They were put in place by the previous regime and are no longer needed.

So Russia's not interfering in the Ukraine anymore? They are our f'n enemies. All of their interests are diametrically opposed to ours. What is wrong with conservatives these days?

 

[interchange]

I think Democrats and those wanting Trump to go down may end up with egg on their face searching for overt collusion. The investigations may or may not find it, but the more that comes out the more I think not.

This "hope" is normalizing the deviance already sufficient enough for action IMO. It is clear that numerous conflicts of interest have been exposed and attempted to be covered up, and investigations into those conflicts has been actively discouraged by the administration with the possibility of overt obstruction a single testimony away.

On its face, this administration should not be acceptable by any American. Placing ire into quests for more villainy obstructs appreciation of the villainy that exists.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Wait, you're claiming that an executive agency has gone rogue and is now working with the opposition party to take down the country's elected leadership? This is an incredibly serious charge so surely you must have plenty of evidence to support it. When can we expect it?

Also, it's impressive that you seem to be so certain that there is nothing to get to the bottom of when basically every US intelligence agency disagrees. Where did you come by this knowledge and expertise that's allowed you to out-analyze some of the world's preeminent intelligence agencies with budgets in the billions? You should leverage this skill because you can make a lot of money.

Dude do you not read Infowars?

 

[dank69]

Why can't these people be brought up on charges of perjury and obstruction today? Why can't the investigation into collusion go on separately?

 

[woolfe9998]

What does this "conspiracy" of law enforcement against the Trump administration look like? Law enforcement isn't institutionally liberal. Law enforcement on the whole is well known to lean rightward.

So did Obama order all these agencies to investigate the Trump campaign last year? If so, then they have just been spinning their wheels all this time, and they know it. They must be quite frustrated and/or bored, investigating something that they know isn't going anywhere. Yet for some strange reason, after Trump took office, they continued to investigate. And still are four months later.

Was it Comey? A secret liberal. The guy who tanked Clinton's chances of winning last year with a strange and ill advised announcement of what turned out to be nothing 10 days before the election. OK, so Comey is a secret liberal. Yet he's gone now. And yet they're still investigating.

Who is behind this phony investigation at this point? These agents must be tearing their hair out after investigating something utterly pointless for 10 months now. So someone must be telling them they have to do this. Who is it? Is it Mueller now?

 

[soundforbjt]

Remember, they're all "Deep State" Obama plants that want to "destroy" America by attacking Trump.



No matter how many times I say the above, I realize that there's no mind-altering drug in existence so powerful that could put me in such a state where I believe in the slightest that Trump is the 'innocent victim' of some grandiose conspiracy with Obama at the helm.

Seriously, no one can be that out of their mind, can they?

Watch Fox News for about an hour a day for a week and get back to me.

 

[interchange]

Why can't these people be brought up on charges of perjury and obstruction today? Why can't the investigation into collusion go on separately?

I'm no expert, but this is still very early in the investigation. If someone is an active risk to the community then you'd consider making an arrest ASAP, but otherwise you don't want to attach jeopardy to a case that is still in doubt. Additionally, if a known crime is part of a bigger crime or conspiracy (which is what's being investigated), then you want to use lesser charges as leverage.

Because I state that the current evidence (to me) sounds actionable potentially to the level of removing a president, does not mean I am advocating taking that action now. We ought to investigate what seems feasible and most dangerous to our country. But the danger I see is thinking that fruitless investigation into collusion would mitigate the more readily apparent obstruction concern.

 

[dank69]

I'm no expert, but this is still very early in the investigation. If someone is an active risk to the community then you'd consider making an arrest ASAP, but otherwise you don't want to attach jeopardy to a case that is still in doubt. Additionally, if a known crime is part of a bigger crime or conspiracy (which is what's being investigated), then you want to use lesser charges as leverage.

Because I state that the current evidence (to me) sounds actionable potentially to the level of removing a president, does not mean I am advocating taking that action now. We ought to investigate what seems feasible and most dangerous to our country. But the danger I see is thinking that fruitless investigation into collusion would mitigate the more readily apparent obstruction concern.

That's great and all but if lying about a blowjob was enough to impeach Clinton, why is it not enough to remove Sessions, Kushner, etc. and why is obstruction not enough to impeach Trump now? Perjury was enough to impeach Clinton and I don't think it made him an active risk to the community.

 

[fskimospy]

That's great and all but if lying about a blowjob was enough to impeach Clinton, why is it not enough to remove Sessions, Kushner, etc. and why is obstruction not enough to impeach Trump now? Perjury was enough to impeach Clinton and I don't think it made him an active risk to the community.

Because Republicans controlled Congress then and now.

As far as perjury, proving it against Sessions is really hard because you have to improve intent. Same with Kushner. These are super powerful people and if you're going to take a shot at them you need to make sure your ducks are 100% in a row. From a good governance sense that's important too.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why can't these people be brought up on charges of perjury and obstruction today? Why can't the investigation into collusion go on separately?

There is what you think, what you know, and what you can prove. Only the last matters when it comes to the law and we aren't there yet, not enough to win on.

 

[dank69]

Because Republicans controlled Congress then and now.

As far as perjury, proving it against Sessions is really hard because you have to improve intent. Same with Kushner. These are super powerful people and if you're going to take a shot at them you need to make sure your ducks are 100% in a row. From a good governance sense that's important too.

Intent? How did they prove intent with Clinton?

 

[dank69]

There is what you think, what you know, and what you can prove. Only the last matters when it comes to the law and we aren't there yet, not enough to win on.

As far as I know, they have the documents where Sessions was supposed to disclose his meetings where he did not disclose them and he admitted the meetings happened so I am struggling to see the problem.

 

[interchange]

That's great and all but if lying about a blowjob was enough to impeach Clinton, why is it not enough to remove Sessions, Kushner, etc. and why is obstruction not enough to impeach Trump now? Perjury was enough to impeach Clinton and I don't think it made him an active risk to the community.

Because people actually want appropriate justice and not simply to take down an administration as fast as possible.

You have to keep in mind with Clinton, the Whitewater investigation began in 1994 and the impeachment charges were a result of findings from that investigation and his testimony pertaining to Whitewater. His famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" occurred in January of 1998, and impeachment proceedings occurred in December.

Be patient. Incompetence and buffoonery need to be tolerated long enough to rule out treason. Even if not true, it still takes some time.

 

[dank69]

Because people actually want appropriate justice and not simply to take down an administration as fast as possible.

You have to keep in mind with Clinton, the Whitewater investigation began in 1994 and the impeachment charges were a result of findings from that investigation and his testimony pertaining to Whitewater. His famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" occurred in January of 1998, and impeachment proceedings occurred in December.

Be patient. Incompetence and buffoonery need to be tolerated long enough to rule out treason. Even if not true, it still takes some time.

That's why I am asking if the two are inseparable. Say we remove everyone now for perjury and obstruction, does that preclude us from bringing up charges of collusion later?

 

[fskimospy]

Intent? How did they prove intent with Clinton?

Well first, he was acquitted. Secondly impeachment is political, not legal. There's no requirement for Congress to prove anything.

 

[interchange]

That's why I am asking if the two are inseparable. Say we remove everyone now for perjury and obstruction, does that preclude us from bringing up charges of collusion later?

Preclude? No. But if you have caught a small fish, you don't fry it up and eat it if there's a chance that fish is good bait for a biggun.

 

[dank69]

Well first, he was acquitted. Secondly impeachment is political, not legal. There's no requirement for Congress to prove anything.

Okay, that's fine, but why is intent involved? Can you explain to me how Sessions could possibly escape a perjury conviction for example?

 

[dank69]

Preclude? No. But if you have caught a small fish, you don't fry it up and eat it if there's a chance that fish is good bait for a biggun.

Makes sense, but what are we talking about now? The possibility that we are going to catch them in the act? That's the only scenario I can currently imagine where removing them now would prevent catching a bigger fish.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, that's fine, but why is intent involved? Can you explain to me how Sessions could possibly escape a perjury conviction for example?

In the immortal words of George Constanza: it's not a lie if you believe it.

Saying false things under oath isn't a crime, saying false things under oath on purpose is.

 

[agent00f]

It really does show how bad partisanship has gotten. Plenty of Republicans defended Nixon but there were enough principled and/or moderate people that they were able to do what was necessary when confronted with a criminal president. That seems to have gone out the window.

Dumping Nixon was in their self-interest, same as it would be in their self-interest to dump Trump for Pence if he became enough of a drag on the party.

The main difference is that 1. the parties weren't as cleanly align with liberalism vs backwardness back then, thus 2. Trump as an open wanton degenerate naturally inspires more support from his peers.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As far as I know, they have the documents where Sessions was supposed to disclose his meetings where he did not disclose them and he admitted the meetings happened so I am struggling to see the problem.

Because he has others saying it wasn't required and so this isn't a willful act, just error. No I don't buy it either, but again proving is another matter.

In the meantime Mueller isn't sharing anything with Congress and this is a very good sign. Gowdy will be taking over in a bit and there's nothing worse than that guy. It's hard but I'd rather get things right than fast. That does not mean no action will be taken with everything coming out at the end like a mystery book, but it will take time. I too want these people out ASAP, but what I want and what needs be aren't always the same.