Jump to content


DOJ Initial Russia Hearings


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Alot of times the coverup is bigger than the crime but this isn't one of those times imo. I really think Trump is Russias stooge whether he knows it directly or not and I think at the end of all of this it will come out that Trump was not working in Americas best interest. I think there is a possibility Trump is somewhat unaware of the gravity of the situation, but I do think Russia has been grooming Trump for this moment. They took their shot and its working. The USA is in a state of disarray right now.

 

 

When I say I think there was no collusion I mean only with Trump personally. I think it's pretty obvious that people with ties to Russia joined his campaign and team so they could try to control him. And that was easy because all you have to do is flatter him and have $ or know people he wants to know.

Edited by Moiraine
  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

16 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

When I say I think there was no collusion I mean only with Trump personally. I think it's pretty obvious that people with ties to Russia joined his campaign and team so they could try to control him. And that was easy because all you have to do is flatter him and have $ or know people he wants to know.

While I think that is likely I don't think that should excuse being under Russias thumb. For the President to be compromised to that degree is still treasonous imo whether he explicitly agreed to work with Russia to win the election or not. In any case if Russia helped Trump get elected through a hack of our election system, I really think that calls for the removal of Trump from office along with his entire adminastration. I mean if the election was rigged in their favor those results shouldn't stand whether Trump knew about it or not. It was still a phoney election. The extent to which Russia meddled is still unknown, but the way it looks to me is they were trying their darndest through other means (advertisment on social media) to make an impact on our election. If they did in fact put a finger on the scale, Donald is a part of that regardless of his knowledge of the situation. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

I don't think he is a part of it if he was ignorant of it. He's impeachable for a lot of other reasons, though.

How so? If this was the desired result for the Russians he is a part of it to some degree. This all didn't happen by accident, Donald was a part of this plan since its conception imo. He may not have known that he has been played and groomed and nudged and manipulated but he is still the major piece of the plan. The Russians clearly had an interest in getting Trump elected and supporting him at great lengths now that he is the president. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

35 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

How so? If this was the desired result for the Russians he is a part of it to some degree. This all didn't happen by accident, Donald was a part of this plan since its conception imo. He may not have known that he has been played and groomed and nudged and manipulated but he is still the major piece of the plan. The Russians clearly had an interest in getting Trump elected and supporting him at great lengths now that he is the president. 

 

 

If I run for president and it turns out Canada heavily influenced the election in my favor, including by having some of their American contacts cozy up to me,  I'm not a "part" of it in the way you're describing. I may be a total moron because I let them cozy up to me 'cause they said they like how pretty my hair is and how moneyish my money is and that made them good people in my book, but I'm not in a legal sense a "part of it." Recall that you used "treasonous" in the same paragraph.


Let's say they hacked the election (literally, with computers), if that were the case we should vote again. Now if they "hacked" the election by influencing voters, it's a lot more complicated. I don't know that it's a appropriate. But the response to it is where Trump is an enormous failure. Instead of taking the threat to our democracy seriously and giving a s#!t for his own country, he is a selfish prick who cares for nothing and no one but himself, so he does nothing about this threat, and calls it "fake news." In fact he does more than nothing about it. He plugs his ears and shouts nonsense as every intelligence agency tells him it's all real. After the fact, yes, he is a "part of it."

 

On a semi-related note, it should be illegal for people calling themselves the "news" to purposely lie to the American public.

Edited by Moiraine
Link to comment

I suppose it's a fresh bombshell, given the threat from the White House counsel, but I thought it was common knowledge from the very beginning that Trump wanted to fire Mueller, along with Jeff Sessions for recusing himself. 

 

And since Trump has teased his willingness to fire Mueller ever since, why exactly is this news?

Link to comment

 

Quote

President Donald Trump’s legal team has been studying a 1990s federal court ruling that could be the basis for delaying, limiting or avoiding an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller, who is heading an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people familiar the matter.

 

Mr. Trump this week told reporters he was “looking forward” to speaking to the special counsel’s office, which has already interviewed more than 20 members of his White House staff.

“I would love to do it, and I would like to do it as soon as possible,” the president said.


--------

 

Granting Mr. Mueller an interview poses legal risks that some people close to the president find unacceptable. The 1997 case potentially gives Mr. Trump some leverage.

In that case, a federal appeals court ruled that presidents and their closest advisers enjoy protections against having to disclose information about their decision-making process or official actions.

 

The court ruled that prosecutors hoping to overcome arguments of executive and presidential privilege must show that such information contains “important evidence” that isn’t available elsewhere.

 

So, I'm no brilliant legal mind. But I can't possibly see how using this to try to dodge a Trump sit down with Mueller could work.

 

First, you've got Trump flat out saying he wants to sit down with Mueller. That he'd "love" to do it.

 

But then he defers to his lawyers & says they have to make the call. So you've got his typically arrogant confidence in his own abilities butting right up next to everyone in his legal team realizing he's a liability alone in a room with Mueller & thus don't want him going anywhere near that.

 

But regarding the bold, couldn't Mueller's team easily do that?

If the answer is yes, this legal precedent is useless for Trump.

 

If the answer is no, Trump doesn't get to answer for himself on actions like trying to protect Flynn, firing Comey, trying to chase off people underneath him like McCabe & trying to fire Mueller. Without Trump weighing in on what happened, Mueller has to rely on everyone else he has already interviewed for what motivated those events - people like Papadopolous, Flynn, Bannon, Sessions & Comey. These people all presumably understand lying to Mueller is a felony & have varying degrees of motivation to sell out Trump to save themselves.

 

This is probably just the smart lawyer thing to do for your client on their part. But I don't think this assertion will hold up, and honestly, either way it seems like Trump is well & truly hosed.

Link to comment

35 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Bad news. 

 

 

I wonder if he is being 'forced' out?  I suspect so.  Isn't he the one that could lose his govt pension if he was fired? 

Maybe, he has more to tell and can't tell it freely while still wt the FBI??  I'm surprised by the news.

 

Regarding the several posts before this one:

1.  Yes often the coverup is worse than the crime.

2. If he sold his loyalty to Russia, then the crime is worse than the coverup and the coverup is a contiuation of the the crime.

3. I don't think Trump personally sold his loyalty, I think he is a greedy business guy, got entangled wt some bad guys (like him) and wants

to protect those business deals.

4.  I think his tax (where are those tax records anyway) reports will give clue that he has been going to the laundromat often.

5. While the Russians interfered in the election, I don't think there was enough interference to throw the election to Trump - that was done by a poorly run campaign by

Hillary and enough deceived voters who looked the other way (away from who Trump really is) while voting for Trump

6. The Russians, too, want to protect those business dealings.

7. I think Trump will go down due to the money issues - follow the money and because of obstruction.  My guess is that Mueller has 2 strong trails to go down to build his case. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

As of right now, I'm calling BS.  I'll have to hear this from other people other than her.  She has no credibility anymore.

 

 

 

I completely agree. There's a narrative being pushed on Twitter that Andrew McCabe was forced out after Christopher Wray read the infamous Nunes Memo over the weekend. Because if I'm the director of the world's foremost law enforcement agency,  there's one thing I'd act on immediately... a memo of hearsay and half-truths penned by Devin Nunes.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...