President Trump Thread (Part 2)

[Smitty]

God damn the sound of crickets is like victory in the morning.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

Demons can't die. It's in the manual.

Sadly, you’re right. She and Dragon Lady Hillary Clinton will live forever.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

No, that’s not obvious.

And if you didn’t take the “day one” talk as his standard braggadocio, then you’re the problem. We all get what he meant. That’s the problem with Trump, but if he delivers in 2 years instead of 24 hours that’s still a win.

And in his first term he delivered a lot of things that a Reagan Republican is supposed to like.

Yeah I got what he meant. That he'd promise anything to get himself elected.

And what did he do in his first term that was Reagan-esque besides de-regulation? Don't tell me what he SAID he did, tell me what he actually DID.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

Here’s the key findings of the Mueller report. Of course it doesn’t say “Trump is exonerated.” But that’s what it all means.

Key Findings of the Mueller Report | ACS

www.acslaw.org

Not only “insufficient evidence,” to charge, though that’s the key takeaway. But essentially the report found NO evidence of criminal conspiracy.

There’s not a SINGLE FUCKING THING in the “key findings” that outline any conspiratorial behavior by Trump or anyone in his orbit. The most they can do is say that they took a meeting to see if there was any dirt on Clinton (there wasn’t). If that’s a crime, what is the fucking Steele dossier then?? The Steele dossier is far worse! Trump surrogates took a meeting. Clinton paid for a fabricated report from foreign nationals and almost certainly knew it was false.

And the obstruction thing as I said was a political diversion and later made a billion percent irrelevant. It wasn’t possible at any time for a President to obstruct an investigation by his own Justice department because he was in constitutional full control of all investigations.

It might have been a shady ass thing for Trump to do, if he had shuttered an investigation by the DOJ into potential crimes, but, thems the breaks when you are elected president. Have a state investigate said crimes then; Trump doesn’t have authority over the justice department of California or New York for example. New York doesn’t have criminal conspiracy laws? They couldn’t make the case that he colluded with Russia to interfere with the New York elections? Since he wasn’t president at the time in question, the actions regarding any collusion/conspiracy wouldn’t have been related to his official capacity and not covered under the Supreme Court’s later opinion.

But they didn’t do that because, you know, there wasn’t anything to find.

Exonerated in Russia Gate. Period. The end. Irv couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

"Insufficient evidence" is not "no evidence".

You'll never see me defend that trash Steele dossier. You'll never see me defend either Clinton because they are just as shady. But remember when Trump started out his schtick was that he wasn't your typical politician, that he would do things different. Yes, he's definitely doing things different but in the big picture he's just as slimy as the Clintons.

Trump definitely could have fired Mueller and carried on, but he would have paid dearly politically for it, so his people warned him against it, don't make it like he let the system play out because he's a good guy.

 

[Smitty]

Yeah I got what he meant. That he'd promise anything to get himself elected.

And what did he do in his first term that was Reagan-esque besides de-regulation? Don't tell me what he SAID he did, tell me what he actually DID.

• He delivered massive tax cuts to individuals and businesses
• He got Arab nations to recognize Israel
• He made three excellent Supreme Court Justice nominations
• He stocked the federal judiciary in addition to the Supreme Court, with conservative justices
• He cleared the way for increased energy production (if you want to lump that in under de-regulation, that's fine)
• He made a ton of progress in securing the southern border
• Appointed Betsy Devos as Secretary of Education, which led to progress on key issues like encouraging states to break away from the public school monopoly, and allow student loan discharge in bankruptcy under certain circumstances

There's a lot. Way more than Biden delivered. Biden basically didn't do anything in office. He passed the Build Back Better bill and then went on mental vacation for 4 years and just pushed narratives and had the media run cover for him. He let underlings push trans narratives and stoke racial divides.

Trump was inarguably a more effective President than Biden.

I'm not sure Trump wasn't more effective than Bush and Obama too, who also each had some signature legislation, then nothing. Bush wasted his mandates on the Afghan and Iraq wars which we mostly now acknowledge were bad. Trump was better than that.

 

[2233boys]

The Democrats and the FBI did fabricate the allegations for political gain.

And big fucking deal that the administration had “extensive contact with individuals with ties to Russian intelligence.” Thats a lot of big words to say nothing. It’s not illegal and it’s nothing that every other administration didn’t also do.

You know who ACTUALLY had ties with foreign intelligence to try to sink their political opponent? Hillary fucking Clinton with the Steele dossier, which, prepare yourself here… was completely fabricated and they knew it!

You are simply just wrong or lying to say that the Russians didn't interfere with the campaign
.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation confirmed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election through two primary operations:

1. Social media disinformation campaigns (run by the Internet Research Agency) to sow division and support Trump.
2. Hacking and releasing emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign (via Russian military intelligence, GRU).

Mueller's report stated:

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."

Obama Administration

• Claims that the Obama administration "made it up" or used the Russia investigation to sabotage Trump have been widely debunked.
• Former CIA and intelligence officials, including those like Susan Miller, have refuted Tulsi Gabbard’s and Trump allies’ suggestions that the intelligence community fabricated Russian interference.
• The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report (2020) also confirmed Russia's interference and did not find political bias in the intelligence community's conclusions.

Former CIA Official Susan Miller Refutes DNI Gabbard’s Accusations Against Obama Administration - SJO Daily
Mueller Report (Vol. I): https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Senate Intel Committee Report (Vol. 5, 2020): Senate.gov link
Public statements from bipartisan intelligence and DOJ officials confirming Russian involvement.

In addition, regarding the Steele dossier
The Mueller Report and Senate Intelligence Committee reports did not corroborate many of the dossier’s claims.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 2019 report found that the FBI:

• Relied too heavily on the dossier in its FISA surveillance of Carter Page.
• Did not sufficiently vet or corroborate Steele’s claims before using them.
• Found “significant errors and omissions” in the FBI’s FISA applications.
• However, it was not fabricated by the FBI or Obama administration. Steele compiled the information from his sources, some of which turned out to be unreliable or misleading. However, the Dossier was flawed, with unverified, inaccurate, or false claims. It should not have been treated as vetted intelligence, but rather raw leads requiring further investigation.
• Steele believed his sources were credible, but investigations later revealed that, Igor Danchenko, Steele’s primary source, disputed how Steele presented the information and, Danchenko was indicted in 2021 for allegedly lying to the FBI, though he was acquitted in 2022.

The Steele dossier was flawed and should never have been used as the foundation for surveillance or public narratives without proper verification. However, Russian interference in the 2016 election was real and confirmed independently of the dossier. The FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation began before the dossier even existed, and there were multiple verified connections between Trump’s team and Russian officials. While controversial, the dossier was just one part of a much broader investigation.
If the Obama administration broke the law, they should be held accountable — but that accountability must be based on facts. Trump and his allies have pushed false claims to distract from their own misconduct. Multiple investigations confirmed Russia interfered in the 2016 election and found no evidence of a political conspiracy by Obama officials. Truth and accountability should apply to everyone — not just political opponents.

All of that said, if the Obama administration broke the law, they should be held accountable. Accountability must be based on facts. Trump and his allies have pushed false claims to distract from their own misconduct. Multiple investigations confirmed Russia interfered in the 2016 election and found no evidence of a political conspiracy by Obama officials. Truth and accountability should apply to everyone not just political opponents.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

 

[Smitty]

"Insufficient evidence" is not "no evidence".

The discussion kickstarted with you taking foolish objection to the term "exonerated."

Exonerated means absolved from blame after due consideration.

The Mueller investigation was an unprecedented investigation of a sitting President led by political enemies on BOTH SIDES of the aisle who wanted nothing more than to find anything they could to take him down. There was nothing left out. They didn't fail to find any key pieces. It's comprehensive.

I linked the Mueller report above, and the link outlines the "key findings."

It literally found nothing that could be inferred to be criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, in the incident known as "Russiagate."

Nothing.

It's key takeaways were that the Trump campaign "took a meeting with Russian nationals." "Russian Nationals" is a scary way of saying Russian Citizens. It's not illegal.

Another key takeaway was that the Trump campaign "Welcomed dirt on the Clinton campaign." And? That's not illegal either. In fact, the Clinton campaign actively went out seeking dirt on it's political opponent and contacted "foreign nationals," in efforts to do so.

No one investigated her or accused her of criminal conspiracy with the United Kingdom because she was contacting "foreign nationals." Hell, she paid for a dossier that she knew was a lie and then propagated it. No charges. No investigations. No accusations by the mainstream. Nothing.

Trump was duly investigated and exonerated. Mueller's conclusion is point blank. "There is not sufficient evidence to charge him," after THAT investigation and it's thoroughness, means he didn't do anything illegal.

Your pivot away from "exonerated or not," (he was exonerated by every possible definition of the word, so you were wrong), to "insufficient evidence is not no evidence," is an embarassing face-saving maneuver by someone who talked a bunch of shit they were ignorant about and got put in their place and now is trying to salvage the last vestiges of an argument to make it seem like they had a coherent point.

You don't. Trump was exonerated of Russiagate. The end.

"No evidence," is a meaningless discussion. The key points of the Mueller report I posted above. The "evidence," they found is that the Trump campaign took a meeting with Russian "nationals" (there is that scary sounding word again, used to try to make a political point), but that's not "evidence," that means anything because it's not illegal.

He didn't do anything illegal.

You'll never see me defend that trash Steele dossier. You'll never see me defend either Clinton because they are just as shady. But remember when Trump started out his schtick was that he wasn't your typical politician, that he would do things different. Yes, he's definitely doing things different but in the big picture he's just as slimy as the Clintons.

And you'll never see me say that Trump is some wonderful beacon of Christianity or moral virtue. He banged a porn star. He engaged in skirting the rules about real estate development. He's filed bankruptcies. He brags and brags and bloats and boviates and those things skirt the truth.

But it's actually way better than the Clintons, who are sneaky, underhanded, shady, and deliberately trying to undermine capitalist Democratic America. At least Trump is for those things.

Trump definitely could have fired Mueller and carried on, but he would have paid dearly politically for it, so his people warned him against it, don't make it like he let the system play out because he's a good guy.

But that's not what you said.

You said "Mueller found evidence of Obstruction." And then you tried to dishonestly pass that irrelevant point off like it meant he was not exonerated. But that is incorrect.

Yes, the Mueller report goes heavily into all the awful things that Trump did that sounded a lot like Obstruction of Justice if it was someone not the President doing those things.

But it does that BECAUSE IT FOUND NOTHING ON COLLUSION/CONSPIRACY.

Mueller was brought in to find a crime Trump committed and he couldn't. He couldn't give his masters nothing after all that time and effort, so he relied on a legally flimsy theory that all those things Trump did (give the order to fire Mueller to McGahn, pressure Comey to let some targets go, etc) MIGHT BE OBSTRUCTION.

But they weren't. It's not like Trump "got lucky that he's President because otherwise he obstructed Justice." Trump knew when he did those things that it was not obstructing justice because he was the one making the decision, ultimately, about who to investigate!

So we can't pretend there's some alternative reality where Trump committed Obstruction crimes but got saved by the Supreme Court. It's the opposite. Trump did things that he KNEW were not obstruction at the time he did them.

If you want to argue that those things were shady, ok.

BUT

Let's not forget that after issuing the order to fire Mueller, he actually listened to counsel and rescinded the order.

So all this talk about how he legally could have ended the investgation at any time.... HE DID THE RIGHT THING IN THE END AND LET THE INVESTIGATION HAPPEN!

And then it found.... NOTHING!

The only thing it found was fault for him trying to fire Mueller.... which he was allowed to do... and which he DIDN'T DO!

The whole fucking thing was a witch hunt and a nothing burger orchestrated by the Clintons and the Obamas.

Oh, what's that? Obama is guilty?

Yes.

Obama orchestrated the illegal Carter Page wiretaps that helped kick off the RussiaGate saga.

The Obama administration LIED TO A FISA COURT to get authorization to wiretap the Trump campaign because it "suspected" he was criminally colluding with Russia.

He wasn't.

The Obama administration committed a crime by lying to a FISA Court.

None of this is ever brought up though.

Meanwhile, you were wrong.

Trump is exonerated of Russia Gate collusion or criminal conspiracy. Trump did not Obstruct Justice despite whatever that politically motivated hack Robert Mueller said, Mueller was wrong (and probably knew he was wrong when he published the report, but the Supreme Court cleared that up afterwards).

Don't like it? Fine.

Then say you don't like how Trump behaved.

Of course, that's not sensationalist and no one would bother batting an eye at any of your irrelevant posts, so you have to tell lies like "Trump wasn't exonerated" when in fact he unequivocally was.

I'll await your rescinding of all the bullshit you spewed here, but I doubt it will come.

But seriously, an "I was wrong," on this from you would go a long way to restoring everyone's opinion of you here.

 

[Smitty]

You are simply just wrong or lying to say that the Russians didn't interfere with the campaign

I didn't say the Russians didn't interfere with the campaign.

I said the Democrats and the FBI fabricated evidence for political gain.

Which they did. It's record fact.

They lied on the FISA court application to wiretap Carter Page. They paid for a known false dossier called the Steele dossier (huh, that sounds an awful lot like collusion with a foreign power to influence an election!).

They did all that.

Trump did not do anything.

Obama Administration

• Claims that the Obama administration "made it up" or used the Russia investigation to sabotage Trump have been widely debunked.

It has not been widely debunked, in reality, it's record fact.

The Obama administration lied to a FISA court and the Clinton administration paid for a fraudulent dossier that constituted fictional dirt on a political opponent. Those things are pure facts.

In addition, regarding the Steele dossier
The Mueller Report and Senate Intelligence Committee reports did not corroborate many of the dossier’s claims.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 2019 report found that the FBI:

• Relied too heavily on the dossier in its FISA surveillance of Carter Page.
• Did not sufficiently vet or corroborate Steele’s claims before using them.
• Found “significant errors and omissions” in the FBI’s FISA applications.
• However, it was not fabricated by the FBI or Obama administration. Steele compiled the information from his sources, some of which turned out to be unreliable or misleading. However, the Dossier was flawed, with unverified, inaccurate, or false claims. It should not have been treated as vetted intelligence, but rather raw leads requiring further investigation.
• Steele believed his sources were credible, but investigations later revealed that, Igor Danchenko, Steele’s primary source, disputed how Steele presented the information and, Danchenko was indicted in 2021 for allegedly lying to the FBI, though he was acquitted in 2022.

Sorry, that's all bullshit. Errors are one thing, but "omissions," are deliberately left out. That's what the word means. In other words, lies.

Yeah, Steele really thought there was a pee tape of Trump urinating on Russian hookers.

If he thought that was true, then he's criminally reckless instead.

And everyone who was charged with lying ends up acquitted! It's ok! No harm no foul! Forgive and forget! Let's turn the page. They had the best of intentions when they propagated those obvious lies, they shouldn't be held accountable!

The Steele dossier was flawed and should never have been used as the foundation for surveillance or public narratives without proper verification. However, Russian interference in the 2016 election was real and confirmed independently of the dossier. The FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation began before the dossier even existed, and there were multiple verified connections between Trump’s team and Russian officials. While controversial, the dossier was just one part of a much broader investigation.

If the Obama administration broke the law, they should be held accountable — but that accountability must be based on facts.

Spin spin spin.

Oh, so it's ok if the Democrats go digging for dirt on opponents. When they are caught red handed we will explain it away by saying "They thought it was the truth!" Even though it was later proven false.

Well, Trump thought all that stuff that he said was true then.

This is the fucking bullshit of it all. When Trump does it, he's undermining Democracy. When Obama does it, he's protecting Democracy.

It's no fucking different.

The truth is, the Democrats weaponized the system to stop their political opponents. That's the entire story.

"The FBI's Trump-Russia investigation began before the dossier even existed." You think this sentence helps your point?

The only thing it proves is that the FBI was politically weaponized and targeted at an innocent party, the Trump campaign, which was put through one of the most rigorous investigations in history and was completely exonerated of any criminality in the exchange leading up to the election.

To leap the assumption that the Clintons and Obamas were pure of heart and only wanted to protect Americans from that mean 'ol Trump is so naive as to be laughable. For you to to try to excuse away their wrongdoing with naivety is equally laughable.

It's not any better if they were just stupid anyway. Oh, so they weren't liars, they were just horrifically incompetent, and put a bunch of untrue stuff on a court document where they are swearing it's all the truth, because they didn't properly vet it before submitting it to the court, which they are required to do. Oh, that's all better then.

Trump and his allies have pushed false claims to distract from their own misconduct.

There was no misconduct that was any different than the Obama and Clinton stuff. Actually, they behaved way worse than Trump did.

All of that said, if the Obama administration broke the law, they should be held accountable. Accountability must be based on facts. Trump and his allies have pushed false claims to distract from their own misconduct. Multiple investigations confirmed Russia interfered in the 2016 election and found no evidence of a political conspiracy by Obama officials. Truth and accountability should apply to everyone not just political opponents.

Obama will be held accountable like Trump was held accountable (subject to multiple investigations, impeachments, criminal prosecutions) when pigs fly.

The reason for that is that Democrats are the ones who seek to silence their opposition, jail them, lock them up or cancel them for having the wrong opinions, etc.

Republicans let their superior ideas speak for themselves and don't need to use corrupt courts to do their dirty work.

 

[Smitty]

The Obama's didn't lie to the FISA court, says the Horowitz report.

They just got their hands on a report that they didn't vet (and was easily vettable with minimal effort), omitted material facts, made a bunch of errors, and submitted it hoping the judge would grant it without looking into it, which he did, and then didn't ever make any effort to correct any of those mistakes later even when the mistakes became clear, and instead just remained silent and continued to prosecute an investigation when it was clear that the source material was fraudulent.


It was just a series of unfortunate mistakes that anyone who was under time constraints to come up with dirt on a political opponent who was surging in the polls could make! What did you expect the Obamas and Clintons to do? The right thing, and come clean about the mistakes they had made? That would have handed Trump the election, so of course they couldn't be expected to admit they were investigating false leads and had submitted false information to a FISA court. Winning is more important than disclosure to the public and honesty, after all.

And hell, once they'd gone that far, why bother fessing up about all the lies when you can instead drag the President through the mud with an investigation you know stemmed from false information? Why bother fessing up now? What's the harm in letting Mueller continue to go down the rabbit hole anyway? If Trump is innocent he has nothing to hide!

It all worked out in the end anyway, he was exonerated. Definitely no reason to hold the Obamas or Clintons responsible for all these "errors," that they never bothered correcting and let cost the country it's political soul for their own political gain. No sir!

 

[Irving Cowboy]

You are saying then that crimes that were possibly committed prior to the election, Trump was immune from prosecution for? That's what you spent the last 20 minutes typing out?

You're wrong.

 

[2233boys]

I didn't say the Russians didn't interfere with the campaign.

I said the Democrats and the FBI fabricated evidence for political gain.

Which they did. It's record fact.

They lied on the FISA court application to wiretap Carter Page. They paid for a known false dossier called the Steele dossier (huh, that sounds an awful lot like collusion with a foreign power to influence an election!).

They did all that.

Trump did not do anything.




It has not been widely debunked, in reality, it's record fact.

The Obama administration lied to a FISA court and the Clinton administration paid for a fraudulent dossier that constituted fictional dirt on a political opponent. Those things are pure facts.





Sorry, that's all bullshit. Errors are one thing, but "omissions," are deliberately left out. That's what the word means. In other words, lies.

Yeah, Steele really thought there was a pee tape of Trump urinating on Russian hookers.

If he thought that was true, then he's criminally reckless instead.

And everyone who was charged with lying ends up acquitted! It's ok! No harm no foul! Forgive and forget! Let's turn the page. They had the best of intentions when they propagated those obvious lies, they shouldn't be held accountable!




Spin spin spin.

Oh, so it's ok if the Democrats go digging for dirt on opponents. When they are caught red handed we will explain it away by saying "They thought it was the truth!" Even though it was later proven false.

Well, Trump thought all that stuff that he said was true then.

This is the fucking bullshit of it all. When Trump does it, he's undermining Democracy. When Obama does it, he's protecting Democracy.

It's no fucking different.

The truth is, the Democrats weaponized the system to stop their political opponents. That's the entire story.

"The FBI's Trump-Russia investigation began before the dossier even existed." You think this sentence helps your point?

The only thing it proves is that the FBI was politically weaponized and targeted at an innocent party, the Trump campaign, which was put through one of the most rigorous investigations in history and was completely exonerated of any criminality in the exchange leading up to the election.

To leap the assumption that the Clintons and Obamas were pure of heart and only wanted to protect Americans from that mean 'ol Trump is so naive as to be laughable. For you to to try to excuse away their wrongdoing with naivety is equally laughable.

It's not any better if they were just stupid anyway. Oh, so they weren't liars, they were just horrifically incompetent, and put a bunch of untrue stuff on a court document where they are swearing it's all the truth, because they didn't properly vet it before submitting it to the court, which they are required to do. Oh, that's all better then.



There was no misconduct that was any different than the Obama and Clinton stuff. Actually, they behaved way worse than Trump did.



Obama will be held accountable like Trump was held accountable (subject to multiple investigations, impeachments, criminal prosecutions) when pigs fly.

The reason for that is that Democrats are the ones who seek to silence their opposition, jail them, lock them up or cancel them for having the wrong opinions, etc.

Republicans let their superior ideas speak for themselves and don't need to use corrupt courts to do their dirty work.

LOL ok, you said a ton without refuting anything I said with anything other than opinion. Great to see you haven't changed.

My whole post was about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. You did for all intents and purposes deny it. The Russian interference was real and confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. The FBI’s investigation into Trump’s campaign, known as Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016 before the Steele dossier existed—after Trump adviser George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Multiple Trump campaign officials had confirmed interactions with Russians. In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower expecting damaging information on Clinton. Paul Manafort later admitted to sharing internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian agent, which the Senate called a significant counterintelligence threat.


Trump also ran in 2016 on a message of imprisoning his political opponents, most notably Hillary Clinton ("lock her up"), and has continued pushing similar rhetoric against critics and rivals in subsequent years.

 

[Smitty]

You are saying then that crimes that were possibly committed prior to the election, Trump was immune from prosecution for? That's what you spent the last 20 minutes typing out?

You're wrong.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

The obstruction charges, Trump is immune from. Mueller outlined possible obstruction charges in his report but it all stems from things that Trump did during office while he was head of the DOJ. Mueller said "These things would have gotten normal citizens charged with obstruction, but maybe he can't be charged with that, it's not clear, so we aren't clearing him of obstruction, but there's evidence of it, if theoretically he could be charged with it."

The Supreme Court's later opinion cleared this issue up: Mueller is incorrect that Trump could possibly be charged with obstruction. It doesn't matter if any ordinary citizen might have been charged. The entire definition of obstruction is actions that constitute illegal interference with an investigation. It's a catch-all charge that is meant to prevent people from doing bad things to tamper with evidence, exert undue influence to try to forestall an investigation, etc. For example, if the DOJ was investigating Tonald Drump and Drump Enterprises, and CEO Tonald Drump told an employee that the employee would be fired if he cooperated with the DOJ, then that's obstruction. Trump's actions during the investigation were substantially similar to exerting that kind of pressure, which is why Mueller included it in his report.

The problem is, and the Supreme Court made this clear, that as the leader of the DOJ, Trump has authority to decide what to investigate. Trump cannot be illegally interfering with a DOJ investigation, it's definitionally impossible. He has constitutional authority to decide what to investigate so if Trump threatens to fire an investigator, that is by definition not obstruction.

Ergo, the entire Obstruction of Justice tangent was just a distraction. All the White House Attorneys knew that this would be the outcome to being with, including McGahn. McGahn said "Don't fire Mueller because this will be a firestorm politically," -- not because Trump would have been committing a crime by doing so. It wasn't possible for Trump to obstruct his own justice department.

...

The Supreme Court made it clear that a President can't be charged with crimes related to actions undertaken in his official capacity (the remedy for bad acts done in such a way is impeachment). Though this opinion was issued in relation to other things they were trying to drag Trump though the mud for, it WOULD HAVE APPLIED to firing the Special Prosecutor. Obstruction was a no-go. It never was a go. It was never a crime, what Trump did during the investigation. Nothing to exonerate. Mueller's mention of it in the report was mere dicta and ended up completely irrelevant.

....

Now, the things that the Trump CAMPAIGN did (comprising of Trump and his associates) before he was President, yes, of course he could be prosecuted for that stuff. No, he does not have immunity for that stuff.

But they did investigate that. That's the entire Mueller report.

It's findings were: No collusion. No criminal conspiracy. They did not have enough evidence to bring charges.

That's exoneration. Definitionally.

So when you said "he wasn't exonerated," that's incorrect. He was exonerated.

You then pivoted to "But they had more than zero evidence." That's not the same thing. Exoneration doesn't mean zero evidence, but let's go down that rabbit hole anyway.

I posted the Mueller report.

The findings were that the Trump campaign "met with Russian nationals [citizens]." That's not criminal action. It proves literally nothing. And because the Clinton campaign did way worse (met with British nationals and paid for a fraudulent dossier) I'm left to conclude that most or all campaigns act this way. So this "evidence," is the equivalent of a hill of beans. Nothing.

Trump of course could be prosecuted if he HAD engaged in criminal conspiracy with Russia, for example, if he had gone to Russian operatives and said "Give me a fake report about Clinton and I'll pay for it."

But he didn't do that.

Someone else did (Clinton) and never suffered any consequences, incidentally.

What I'm saying is Trump didn't commit any Russia Gate crimes before (or after) the election related to criminal conspiracy. They investigated that thoroughly and found nothing. A meeting with Russian Nationals. That's all. No crime.

 

[bbgun]

more winning

 

[Chocolate Lab]

That scumbag John Podesta fell for a lame phishing email that most octogenariams wouldn't buy. The Russians also had some weak Facebook campaign. Our enemies around the world have tried and done similar things (with the technology of the times, of course) in virtually every election we've ever had.

That in no way means Trump was colluding with them, or was a Russian asset, or was guilty of any of the other asinine charges we were inundated with back then.

 

[Smitty]

LOL ok, you said a ton without refuting anything I said with anything other than opinion. Great to see you haven't changed.

My whole post was about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. You did for all intents and purposes deny it.

Where did I deny it?

I said the FBI and the Democrats did in fact fabricate evidence of collusion. Not one-sided interference in general.

I never said the Russians didn't interfere in the election.

I'm sure they did. And I'm sure we interfere in their elections.

Of course, the interference wasn't aimed exclusively at helping Trump and hurting Clinton, it was aimed at sowing discord.

The Russian interference was real and confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. The FBI’s investigation into Trump’s campaign, known as Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016 before the Steele dossier existed—after Trump adviser George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Yes and as I pointed out, that doesn't help your argument at all.

If your argument is that Russian interference occurred, we agree on that.

If your argument is that Trump is bad in a way that Clinton or Obama is not, you are incorrect.

Multiple Trump campaign officials had confirmed interactions with Russians. In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower expecting damaging information on Clinton.

And? Clinton did the same thing with other countries.

You say "confirmed interactions" as if it's a bad thing. I have a confirmed interaction with you right now. I can't be locked up.

Trump also ran in 2016 on a message of imprisoning his political opponents, most notably Hillary Clinton ("lock her up"), and has continued pushing similar rhetoric against critics and rivals in subsequent years.

And the Biden administration with the support of the Clintons and Obamas actually tried to lock up political opponents. So who was worse? The ones who say it to score political points but then do nothing about it, or the ones who are silent about it and preach "protecting democracy" but then actually try to do it to win elections that they can't otherwise win and lie to courts, lie to the American public, etc?

 

[2233boys]

Where did I deny it?

I said the FBI and the Democrats did in fact fabricate evidence of collusion. Not one-sided interference in general.

I never said the Russians didn't interfere in the election.

I'm sure they did. And I'm sure we interfere in their elections.

Of course, the interference wasn't aimed exclusively at helping Trump and hurting Clinton, it was aimed at sowing discord.

My original post you quoted had nothing to do with Trump Colluding only that there was interference from Russian. You called me wrong or which is denying what I said was true, even if you are now saying you agree. You are 100% right about us messing with others elections, and the hypocrisy of us being up in arms with others doing the same things. However, we have a population of uninformed voters who only votes for sides regardless, so its specifically harmful IMO.

Yes and as I pointed out, that doesn't help your argument at all.

If your argument is that Russian interference occurred, we agree on that.

If your argument is that Trump is bad in a way that Clinton or Obama is not, you are incorrect.

I didn't make an assertion either way, other than correctly pointing out Trump has been calling for the jailing of his political opponents and the press since the start.

And? Clinton did the same thing with other countries.

You say "confirmed interactions" as if it's a bad thing. I have a confirmed interaction with you right now. I can't be locked up.

proof that Clinton had confirmed interactions with the Russians asking for dirt on Trump and or help, and I will agree. I have never heard of a campaign doing some of the things Trumps campaign did in 2016, Calling for Russia to release documents, campaign manager meeting with Russian assets, and deemed as a significant counterintelligence threat by the Senate

And the Biden administration with the support of the Clintons and Obamas actually tried to lock up political opponents. So who was worse? The ones who say it to score political points but then do nothing about it, or the ones who are silent about it and preach "protecting democracy" but then actually try to do it to win elections that they can't otherwise win and lie to courts, lie to the American public, etc?

What are you talking about? Is this about January 6th if it is and you are referring to them as political prisoners there is no sense in us continuing this discussion.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I didn't make an assertion either way, other than correctly pointing out Trump has been calling for the jailing of his political opponents and the press since the start.

And which side has actually jalled their political opponents, not just talked about it?

 

[Irving Cowboy]

So when you said "he wasn't exonerated," that's incorrect. He was exonerated.

Trump was not exonerated by my report, Robert Mueller tells Congress

The US president criticises Mr Mueller's testimony to Congress and says it is a "great day for me".

www.bbc.com

You then pivoted to "But they had more than zero evidence." That's not the same thing. Exoneration doesn't mean zero evidence, but let's go down that rabbit hole anyway.

I said insufficient evidence is not the same as zero evidence. They are not interchangeable.

By your logic, if Trump committed murder between election day and inauguration day, he could tell the DOJ to kick rocks. That's insane.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

And which side has actually jalled their political opponents, not just talked about it?

So anyone who commits crimes in the name of Trump is considered a political opponent? That's basically what it comes down to.