President Trump Thread (Part 2)

[Smitty]

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

I'm going to quote my original response to you:

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

To which I was responding to a line in your post that read:

Trump often claimed that there was no interference by Russia, and suggested that the FBI and Democrats fabricated the allegations for political gain.

I literally never said there was no interference, I was pointing out that some of what Trump was saying was true.

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.

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

Well we live in crazy times, don't we?

I think we'd all agree Trump isn't an ideal candidate.

I always staked my position on the idea, however, that voting for the "lesser of two evils" shouldn't be palatable, but that a candidate should be a net positive. Frankly I don't think that Romney or McCain rose to that level and so my vote went to third parties.

My vote also went to a third party in 2016, I did not vote for Trump, because of some of the very stuff you point out. It was nuts.

But he proved to me after that election that he wasn't a lesser evil; he was a net positive. You just had to swallow a lot of his bad stuff, but the net effect wasn't an evil, it was a positive. Sure, I wish he wouldn't say stuff like "lock her up," but it's just how he is and is always gonna be and ultimately it's not harmful in comparison to the good he's done and it's ultimately not egregious when compared to the bad his opponents have done.

If I could have back Ronald Reagan who talked a great game as well, I'd prefer that, but I don't have that choice.

Perhaps the conversation with you ended up dovetailing with Irv, but the ultimate point I'm making is, Trump did not commit any crimes with Russiagate and if anyone did it was the Obamas and Clintons.

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.

Well, it's a fact that many of them received politically motivated, inappropriate sentences that were later overturned.

But what I was specifically referring to was the support of the left in baselessly prosecuting Trump for crimes in NY and other states for which he was not guilty and ACTUALLY trying to get him locked up or otherwise disqualified so he could not run for President again.

 

[Smitty]

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

Yes, I already explained that very article. Do you even read? The very first sentence in that article:

Mr Mueller said he had not exonerated Mr Trump of obstruction of justice.

Mueller said he's not exonerated BECAUSE MAYBE HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.

Mueller was later proven wrong by the Supreme Court. Trump could not have committed Obstruction of Justice.

So Mueller is wrong when he says "I didn't clear Trump of Obstruction." Wrong. He's wrong. The Supreme Court says so. Trump is exonerated of Obstruction of Justice per the Supreme Court.

...

And regardless of whether Mueller "announced" Trump was exonerated of Russia-gate, the non-bringing of charges because there was no evidence, is factual exoneration.

The second sentence in that article:

The former FBI director spent two years probing alleged collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia, but did not establish collusion in a crime.

Translation: Exoneration on collusion/criminal conspiracy.

Also, note the biased language in that article. "He did not establish collusion in a crime," is another way of saying "I positively did establish there was no collusion in a crime."

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

What scant "evidence" there is does not amount to any crimes, hence, exoneration on collusion/criminal conspiracy.

The Mueller report outlines what "evidence," there is. The admin took a meeting with Russian nationals. Not illegal. Not collusion.

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

Insane but true.

The remedy is impeachment and removal from office. And he could be prosecuted by a state entity if he committed the murder in a state's jurisdiction.

And of course he could not claim immunity from prosecution after removal if it wasn't related to an official act, which it would not be.

So this straw man you are trying to erect is pretty flimsy.

The real thing is that it's meant to protect against political decisions being weaponized into potential crimes, which the Democrats tried to make a thing. Good thing an intelligent Supreme Court stopped them.

So when you think about it, it's really not insane at all. They can remove him from office, thus stripping his ability to halt the investigation, then as long as it wasn't an official act (which murder would not be) they can prosecute him at that time. And a state can prosecute as well as long as it wasn't an official act, and he'd have no ability to even control a state's department of justice.

The system works. Are we really worried about a President murdering someone? I don't want a President being subject to these kind of witch hunts when he tries to curb partisan investigations. The 2016-2020 years were rife with Democratic nonsense.

 

[2233boys]

I'm going to quote my original response to you:

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

To which I was responding to a line in your post that read:

Trump often claimed that there was no interference by Russia, and suggested that the FBI and Democrats fabricated the allegations for political gain.

I literally never said there was no interference, I was pointing out that some of what Trump was saying was true.

Which is contradicting my point that Russia did interfere with the election

"Trumps whole investigation into Obama is a farce, Tulsi Gabbard accused former President Barack Obama and his staff of "manufacturing intelligence" to suggest Russia attempted to influence the results of the 2016 election. "

In addition, “The documents Ms. Gabbard has produced, both Wednesday and last week, show that Obama administration officials wanted to complete a review before they left office and put pressure on the intelligence agencies to work quickly, but there is no evidence of criminal behavior.”

We have established factually that Russia did interfere with the election. Her charges weren't that they manufactured evidence against collusion but that the manufactured evidence that Russia interfered with the election which we both (and all rational people) agree they did.

Well we live in crazy times, don't we?

I think we'd all agree Trump isn't an ideal candidate.

That is putting it mildly from my perspective.

I always staked my position on the idea, however, that voting for the "lesser of two evils" shouldn't be palatable, but that a candidate should be a net positive. Frankly I don't think that Romney or McCain rose to that level and so my vote went to third parties.

My vote also went to a third party in 2016, I did not vote for Trump, because of some of the very stuff you point out. It was nuts.

But he proved to me after that election that he wasn't a lesser evil; he was a net positive. You just had to swallow a lot of his bad stuff, but the net effect wasn't an evil, it was a positive. Sure, I wish he wouldn't say stuff like "lock her up," but it's just how he is and is always gonna be and ultimately it's not harmful in comparison to the good he's done and it's ultimately not egregious when compared to the bad his opponents have done.

If I could have back Ronald Reagan who talked a great game as well, I'd prefer that, but I don't have that choice.

Perhaps the conversation with you ended up dovetailing with Irv, but the ultimate point I'm making is, Trump did not commit any crimes with Russiagate and if anyone did it was the Obamas and Clintons.

We will have to agree to disagree that Trump has done anything to better the country.

There has been nothing shown of any crimes committed by Obama or Hillary. I am a two-time registered Republican, and despise Trump, I believe he is ill equipped, doesn't have the right temperament, undisciplined, has no core values or principals, and just not smart enough for the job. He has made it hard for me to ever consider anyone who ever supported him,.

I don't believe I said he colluded with Russia. Do I suspect he did, I wouldn't put it past him, and some of the things i mentioned in another post make me strongly believe that at least his inner circle did.

Well, it's a fact that many of them received politically motivated, inappropriate sentences that were later overturned.

But what I was specifically referring to was the support of the left in baselessly prosecuting Trump for crimes in NY and other states for which he was not guilty and ACTUALLY trying to get him locked up or otherwise disqualified so he could not run for President again.

I saw one case where the sentence was being looked at for a reduction in sentencing. Trump pardoned all of the Rioters. The President doesn't have a say in what a federal judge or state prosecutors do. A couple of the judges in January 6th hearings were Trump appointees.

Also NY was a state case not a federal case in NY and he was found guilty by a jury of 12 New Yorkers falsifying business records as part of hush money payments to influence the 2016 election. The dangerous supreme court ruling for presidential immunity is the only reason why he got an unconditional discharge. He is a convicted felon.

Again, the Georgia Case was from the Fulton County DA who had a grand jury of 23 Georgians handing down the indictments. (nothing to do with Biden, or Obama or Hillary who weren't even in office) , and there is a plethora of evidence including his phone call to the Secretary of State asking them to find him more votes that one would conclude that he was involved in a crime trying to overturn the election (at least in Georgia)

 

[Smitty]

Which is contradicting my point that Russia did interfere with the election

I wasn't addressing that.

We will have to agree to disagree that Trump has done anything to better the country.

I don't agree to disagree.

You can feel free to not respond when I post however.

I don't believe I said he colluded with Russia. Do I suspect he did, I wouldn't put it past him, and some of the things i mentioned in another post make me strongly believe that at least his inner circle did.

Interestingly, they investigated that down to the studs and found nothing. So... your suspicions are kinda unfounded.

I saw one case where the sentence was being looked at for a reduction in sentencing. Trump pardoned all of the Rioters. The President doesn't have a say in what a federal judge or state prosecutors do. A couple of the judges in January 6th hearings were Trump appointees.

You are ill informed, many of the cases were improperly charged or sentenced.

Also NY was a state case not a federal case in NY and he was found guilty by a jury of 12 New Yorkers falsifying business records as part of hush money payments to influence the 2016 election.

The dangerous supreme court ruling for presidential immunity is the only reason why he got an unconditional discharge. He is a convicted felon.

Again, the Georgia Case was from the Fulton County DA who had a grand jury of 23 Georgians handing down the indictments. (nothing to do with Biden, or Obama or Hillary who weren't even in office) , and there is a plethora of evidence including his phone call to the Secretary of State asking them to find him more votes that one would conclude that he was involved in a crime trying to overturn the election (at least in Georgia)

That nonsense has been thoroughly addressed in this thread and I'm not of the current persuasion to rebut it all again.

Perhaps later if I have time.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Not surprising you would think Biden (or the people pulling his strings and running the Dem apparatus) had nothing to do with those state cases.

 

[Cotton]

So. many. words.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Much easier to just post this tweet:

 

[Chocolate Lab]

 

[Smitty]

The gist of the bullshit conviction in NY is that Trump paid hush money to Stormy Daniels, which actually isn't a crime. And he did so by paying back Michael Cohen, who fronted the money, which also wasn’t a crime.

But because he wrote "legal services," on an internal memo that wasn't intended for public consumption, and therefore wasn’t actually meant to mislead a single person, and because he paid him in 34 installments instead of all at once, it was 34 counts and it was to "hide" the nature of the payments.

34 felonies. Miss me with all that bullshit.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I'm not going to read all these posts. But I must say I'm shocked at the minimizing the Democrats in this thread are doing about the Steele Dossier. Its crazy to me how easily some can dismiss something like that because "Trump".

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I'm not going to read all these posts. But I must say I'm shocked at the minimizing the Democrats in this thread are doing about the Steele Dossier. Its crazy to me how easily some can dismiss something like that because "Trump".

No kidding. Seems subverting a duly elected official is fine if they're orange and bad enough.

 

[Smitty]

I'm not going to read all these posts. But I must say I'm shocked at the minimizing the Democrats in this thread are doing about the Steele Dossier. Its crazy to me how easily some can dismiss something like that because "Trump".

Obama meant well. It’s ok.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Obama meant well. It’s ok.

I mean to fabricate a document to then use it to get a FISA warrant seems like the peak of corruption. Imagine if an officer hated your guts so he manufactured a document and used it in an application for a search warrant to go in your home and go through your shit. You telling me you wouldn't be outraged? Of course you would.

But it was Trump so no big deal, just look away and move on. I hate corruption like that no matter who it comes from. Same reason why I think the bullshit on Epstein shouldn't be a look away and move on situation. And I think the fact Trump wants to do that is bullshit to. These people at the highest levels of power think they can do anything and get away with it.

 

[2233boys]

I wasn't addressing that.


I don't agree to disagree.

You can feel free to not respond when I post however.



Interestingly, they investigated that down to the studs and found nothing. So... your suspicions are kinda unfounded.



You are ill informed, many of the cases were improperly charged or sentenced.



That nonsense has been thoroughly addressed in this thread and I'm not of the current persuasion to rebut it all again.

Perhaps later if I have time.

 

[Bipo]

I think most of us, (except for 2 obviously), can agree the political forums should go back to memes and unsubstantiated Twitter bullshit.

 

[Smitty]

I think the political forums should remain a vehicle for refuting liberal lies about the President.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

So GDP was higher than expectations at 3% and inflation lower than expectations at 2%.

Sorry, Dems.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

So GDP was higher than expectations at 3% and inflation lower than expectations at 2%.

Sorry, Dems.

It's because of Biden's policy's or the world economy (Standard Liberal answer when something is positive under Trump's administration)

 

[Cotton]

I think most of us, (except for 2 obviously), can agree the political forums should go back to memes and unsubstantiated Twitter bullshit.

Which 2? And, no, I don't agree.

 

[Cotton]