[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 21 NEXT
 

tstorm823:

Those things aren't hearsay, they also aren't things that suggest he was trying to undermine or end the investigation. The hearsay is all the stories we've gotten over the past 2 years claiming things like "Trump in private says he's gonna fire Mueller and pardon himself". Your list is just bad evidence for your claim.

Circumstantial evidence, perhaps. But not bad evidence.

To your other points:

1) Aside from the fact that the FBI itself disputes the White House's characterization of Comey, it's also very telling that the message you're citing is not the message they started with. Point of fact, the stated rationale changed quite frequently in the wake of Comey's firing. Your rationale here is actually quite perplexing as firing Comey the wake of him asking for more resources for the investigation (the DoJ denies that such a request was ever made), that's actually more damning, not less, as it provides circumstantial evidence for an attempt to stop the investigation, cutting off the head of the snake, as it were.

2) Sessions recused himself because as a prominent member of Trump's election campaign, he was by necessity too close to a case focusing on Trump's team. Recusal is standard operating procedure under circumstances wherein the judge might even be perceived to have a vested interest in one outcome or another, or otherwise have a conflict of interest, and Sessions did so at the advice of the Justice Department.

And don't be obtuse. The implication isn't that Trump "had hands-on power over the investigation after Sessions was gone". The implication is that he wanted someone as AG who would influence the investigation in his favor, as further suggested by him reportedly telling his aides that he needed a loyalist overseeing the investigation. See also how the people he subsequently considered for the position being very vocal proponents of swiftly ending (or sabotaging, in the case of Whitaker's suggestion of quietly ending it by defunding it) the investigation. Ie, we have reason to believe that he wanted someone on the bench who would bury the investigation for him.

3) We're talking about Comey, not Cohen. Cohen is non-sequitur. If you're actually referring to Comey, you've got no reason to doubt him so severely.

4) You mean besides the claim that Sr. didn't even know about the meeting? Besides the statement strongly implying that the meeting wasn't arranged for the purpose of getting political dirt, but that the adoption talk was the goal all along? Besides Jr, Kushner, and Trump's lawyers allegedly favoring a more accurate statement only to be overruled by Trump, who favored the misleading variation we got?

5) To the overall point: No, it's not reasonable to tell your advisors to pen up a reason that would justify your decision fire someone. And that Trump did that is a matter of public record. He has since admitted in interviews that he was going to fire Comey regardless of what Rosenstein wrote. And I quote:

"Monday you met with the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein"
"Right".
"Did you ask for a recommendation?"
"What I did is - I was going to fire Comey. My decision, it was not-"
"You had made the decision before they came in the room?"
"I was going to fire Comey. There is no good time to do it, by the way."
"Because in your letter you said that 'I accepted their recommendation', so you had already made the decision?"
"Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation."

To borrow from fiction for a moment, have you ever seen A Few Good Men or Philadelphia? Because, if so, the chain of events should seem remarkably familiar.

To the point of why I think it looks bad: I think it looks bad because we know that Stephen Miller drafted the letter of dismissal for Comey on March 7. We know that when Trump shared it with Kushner, McGahn, and Pence on March 8, McGahn objected to it and bounced it over to Rosenstein to write a more defensible one. We know from Rosenstein's own account that Trump ordered to write the memo, and that he had to go against Trump's wishes to reference Russia in the memo.

I think it looks bad because the very next day Trump said that he felt that he felt that firing Comey took a great pressure off of him with regards to Russia, and because a few days after that in an NBC interview he admitted that the investigation was part of his rationale for firing Comey. I think it looks bad because Trump tweeting that Comey better hope that there were no secret recordings of their meetings sounds suspiciously like attempted witness tampering.

I think it looks bad because FBI sources have claimed that Comey was fired because he refused to end the investigation (and yes, that one is hearsay). I think it looks bad because of White House officials probing whether they could actually ask Comey to shut down the investigation into Flynn.

So no, I do not "only think this looks bad because you're judging it on the basis that Comey didn't deserve to fired and Trump was makiong up excuses to try and end the investigation". I think this looks bad because while you might dismiss any one piece of evidence as coincidental, at this point suggesting that all these points were incidental and coincidentally suggested the same conclusion strains credulity.

The people who flipped are still cooperating with prosecutors and Mueller's Grand Jury is still ongoing. Nothing Barr or any Republican says will ever change those facts. Don't let them set the narrative that it's over.

I would ask if people are aware that you can't prove a negative, but I strongly suspect that's exactly the point.

Myria:
I would ask if people are aware that you can't prove a negative, but I strongly suspect that's exactly the point.

You're not proving a negative, though. Proving a negative essentially applies to proving the non-existence of something. But a state of innocence is something that exists, therefore it can be proven: by supplying a load of evidence that firmly demonstrates guilt cannot be the case.

We can add to that "grey area". Is someone's conduct technically legal, but otherwise dangerous, problematic or unethical. In many cases, such as conduct of public officials, this is important to know - not least because we might want to do things like tighten up regulations and oversight.

There is more evidence that Trump is guilty than that he is not.

He praises Putin, Russia, and other dictators and other traditional enemies of the US often. Also often criticizes our allies. He takes Putin at his word, but not anyone telling him Putin isn't trustworthy.

He has secret meetings with Russia that he keeps lying about.

He has been proven to have lied about his wealth to become wealthy. Why is that not a bigger deal?

He refuses to submit tax reports. He refuses to work with the investigation. For so many who defend Trump via rule of law, they sure don't seem to trust in the notion that if you're innocent you have nothing to hide.

Tons of his underlings have been formally arrested and found guilty.

He blames Hillary of crimes she did not commit, forces investigation of her that actually prove to find her innocent, but refuses to do the same for himself? Hypocrisy is not a good legal defense.

Trump needs to put up or shut up and go to jail.

Agema:

Myria:
I would ask if people are aware that you can't prove a negative, but I strongly suspect that's exactly the point.

You're not proving a negative, though. Proving a negative essentially applies to proving the non-existence of something. But a state of innocence is something that exists, therefore it can be proven: by supplying a load of evidence that firmly demonstrates guilt cannot be the case.

No, you're asking for someone to prove that something doesn't exist -- guilt.

In the absence of proof of guilt, innocence is presumed.

Or, at least, should be presumed.

Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'colluding with the Russians' and people still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the news outlets in London' L.A. and New York should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Democratic leaders claiming they know for a fact the president was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the color orange, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a President they just don't like.

TheIronRuler:
Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'colluding with the Russians' and people still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the news outlets in London' L.A. and New York should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Democratic leaders claiming they know for a fact the president was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the color orange, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a President they just don't like.

Hillary did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'her emails' and Trump still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the White House and Fox News should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Republican leaders claiming they know for a fact Hillary was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the female sex, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a woman they just don't like.

Myria:

Agema:

Myria:
I would ask if people are aware that you can't prove a negative, but I strongly suspect that's exactly the point.

You're not proving a negative, though. Proving a negative essentially applies to proving the non-existence of something. But a state of innocence is something that exists, therefore it can be proven: by supplying a load of evidence that firmly demonstrates guilt cannot be the case.

No, you're asking for someone to prove that something doesn't exist -- guilt.

In the absence of proof of guilt, innocence is presumed.

Or, at least, should be presumed.

Its not like this investigation came out of nowhere. It came because Trump did a bunch of suspicious things involving Russia.

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:
Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'colluding with the Russians' and people still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the news outlets in London' L.A. and New York should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Democratic leaders claiming they know for a fact the president was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the color orange, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a President they just don't like.

Hillary did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'her emails' and Trump still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the White House and Fox News should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Republican leaders claiming they know for a fact Hillary was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the female sex, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a woman they just don't like.

.
Once Hillary gets the same caliber of FBI investigation I'd agree. Otherwise I believe people like you, who refuse to accept this conclusion of the story, will continue to put a wedge in the american society.

When Trump said that if he'd lose then it was proof the elections were tampered with, and would not accept it, he was vilified for his opinions. Nowadays the same people who vilified him for that same comment, say that the elections were tampered with, because they lost. It's a fucking joke.
.

Saelune:

Myria:

Agema:

You're not proving a negative, though. Proving a negative essentially applies to proving the non-existence of something. But a state of innocence is something that exists, therefore it can be proven: by supplying a load of evidence that firmly demonstrates guilt cannot be the case.

No, you're asking for someone to prove that something doesn't exist -- guilt.

In the absence of proof of guilt, innocence is presumed.

Or, at least, should be presumed.

Its not like this investigation came out of nowhere. It came because Trump did a bunch of suspicious things involving Russia.

.
DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:
Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'colluding with the Russians' and people still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the news outlets in London' L.A. and New York should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Democratic leaders claiming they know for a fact the president was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the color orange, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a President they just don't like.

Hillary did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'her emails' and Trump still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the White House and Fox News should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Republican leaders claiming they know for a fact Hillary was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the female sex, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a woman they just don't like.

.
Once Hillary gets the same caliber of FBI investigation I'd agree. Otherwise I believe people like you, who refuse to accept this conclusion of the story, will continue to put a wedge in the american society.

When Trump said that if he'd lose then it was proof the elections were tampered with, and would not accept it, he was vilified for his opinions. Nowadays the same people who vilified him for that same comment, say that the elections were tampered with, because they lost. It's a fucking joke.
.

Saelune:

Myria:

No, you're asking for someone to prove that something doesn't exist -- guilt.

In the absence of proof of guilt, innocence is presumed.

Or, at least, should be presumed.

Its not like this investigation came out of nowhere. It came because Trump did a bunch of suspicious things involving Russia.

.
DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

Oh ok, 'its only wrong when it happens to my side' is your argument. Got it.

Saelune:
.
Oh ok, 'its only wrong when it happens to my side' is your argument. Got it.

.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. If you can't handle what I'm saying, don't start arguing for your point.

It's not my side. I'm an observer, not an american. I observe disconnect from reality on the Democratic side.

TheIronRuler:
Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'colluding with the Russians' and people still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the news outlets in London' L.A. and New York should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Democratic leaders claiming they know for a fact the president was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the color orange, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a President they just don't like.

Do you know something no one else does? Have you seen the report yet? Trump has yet to be exonerated, even by what Barr has said thus far. It appears you as well have taken some opinion as fact and ran with it as well.

The issue is not if Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, it is that colluding with Russia is not technically illegal due to not being at war with Russia. We are currently existing in a time period where aggressive cyber attacks have not been classified as as acts of war even though Russia literally hacked US nuclear power plants, The US electrical grid, The Department of Defense, US hospitals, and numerous US officials. Donald Trump jr. Already admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt that was obtained illegally on Hillary. Trump himself openly asked publicly for Russia to send him hacked emails near the time of the Trump Tower meeting. Trumps Lawyer already said Trump knew about this meeting in advance. Flynn already admitted he was working as a foreign agent for another government while being head of national security for the US, Manafort was already shown to be on Russia's payroll by the ledger found in the Ukraine. That is not a media companies "opinion" that was what was already established to be true. The issue is that in the US, this has not yet made illegal, so there is nothing to prosecute there. None of that has anything to do with him making himself orange.

Trump is not even out of the woods yet as there are still other numerous investigations ongoing. His businesses are still under investigation in New York, where he will not be able to oversee or interfere with the investigations there, as they are on the state level, not under his federal control. Trump still very well may be charged at some point once he is out of office as well due to his constant interference and attempts to control the federal investigations into his actions. He actively and repeatedly attacked Comey, Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller and the FBI itself and had his lackeys doing everything they could to run interference for him.

These are the open, current ongoing investigations that Trump and his campaign are still facing:
http://time.com/5557644/donald-trump-other-investigations-mueller/

The results of those investigations could very well cause new investigations or charges to be brought. How on earth is it a "witch hunt" when we have even the President's own friend and attorney for years telling us he is con man. But Cohen was not alone in " being one of Trumps best people" who then leave him and tell everyone how screwed up he is. Why is it everyone around Trump who knows him winds up leaving him and tells everyone what a untrustworthy person he is? He now has a huge pile of people telling everyone he is a liar, a cheat, and a thief., including those close to him and people who did business with him. How many people does it take telling everyone this does it take for people to realize that is who Trump really is?

I have no idea why you seem to think otherwise. What has happened that makes you think otherwise?

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:
.
Oh ok, 'its only wrong when it happens to my side' is your argument. Got it.

.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. If you can't handle what I'm saying, don't start arguing for your point.

It's not my side. I'm an observer, not an american. I observe disconnect from reality on the Democratic side.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I translated the words you were saying to be more honest. You just flat out cannot claim Hillary is guilty if you think Trump is proven innocent. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump supporters who still claim Hillary is guilty despite being formally cleared by the FBI. Trump is even less cleared since ya know, the actual report hasn't been released.

The FBI said Hillary is not guilty. Trump Supporter Willaim Barr said a report he wont release said Trump is not guilty. The FBI definitely was not on Hillary's side and still said she wasnt guilty.

You could just go 'I guess you're right, Hillary is innocent too', but you didnt. You double downed.

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:
Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'colluding with the Russians' and people still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the news outlets in London' L.A. and New York should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Democratic leaders claiming they know for a fact the president was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the color orange, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a President they just don't like.

Do you know something no one else does? Have you seen the report yet? Trump has yet to be exonerated, even by what Barr has said thus far. It appears you as well have taken what some opinion as fact and ran with it as well.

The issue is not if Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, it is that colluding with Russia is not technically illegal due to not being at war with Russia. We are currently existing in a time period where aggressive cyber attacks have not been classified as as acts of war even though Russia literally hacked US nuclear power plants, The US electrical grid, The Department of Defense, US hospitals, and numerous US officials. Donald Trump jr. Already admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt that was obtained illegally on Hillary. Trump himself openly asked publicly for Russia to send him hacked emails near the time of the Trump Tower meeting. Trumps Lawyer already said Trump knew about this meeting in advance. Flynn already admitted he was working as a foreign agent for another government while being head of national security for the US, Manafort was already shown to be on Russia's payroll by the ledger found in the Ukraine. That is not a media companies "opinion" that was what was already established to be true. The issue is that in the US, this has not yet made illegal, so there is nothing to prosecute there. None of that has anything to do with him making himself orange.

Trump is not even out of the woods yet as there are still other numerous investigations ongoing. His businesses are still under investigation in New York, where he will not be able to oversee or interfere with the investigations there, as they are on the state level, not under his federal control. Trump still very well may be charged at some point once he is out of office as well due to his constant interference and attempts to control the federal investigations into his actions. He actively and repeatedly attacked Comey, Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller and the FBI itself and had his lackeys doing everything they could to run interference for him.

These are the open, current ongoing investigations that Trump and his campaign are still facing:
http://time.com/5557644/donald-trump-other-investigations-mueller/

The results of those investigations could very well cause new investigations or charges to be brought. How on earth is it a "witch hunt" when we have even the President's own friend and attorney for years telling us he is con man. But Cohen was not alone in " being one of Trumps best people" who then leave him and tell everyone how screwed up he is. Why is it everyone around Trump who knows him winds up leaving him and tells everyone what a untrustworthy person he is? He now has a huge pile of people telling everyone he is a liar, a cheat, and a thief., including those close to him and people who did business with him. How many people does it take telling everyone this does it take for people to realize that is who Trump really is?

I have no idea why you seem to think otherwise. What has happened that makes you think otherwise?

.
This seems to me like a witch-hunt against the candidate certain people didn't want to be elected. If they are looking for dirt, they will find it, but I was amused to hear that after 2 years FBI special investigation still couldn't pin a crime on Trump even after the assumption he was guilty was pumped into the airwaves rigorously ever since he got elected.

Capone sat in prison for tax-fraud. I think they're trying to get Trump the same way when they're looking after his businesses.

I am biased, though. I see a similar thing happening in my own country. I probably connect the dots that aren't there, but to me seems to be there, because it looks similar to a different thing altogether. Remember, I'm not an American. I don't feed off the same media as you do.

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:
Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'colluding with the Russians' and people still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the news outlets in London' L.A. and New York should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Democratic leaders claiming they know for a fact the president was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the color orange, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a President they just don't like.

Hillary did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'her emails' and Trump still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the White House and Fox News should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Republican leaders claiming they know for a fact Hillary was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the female sex, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a woman they just don't like.

.
Once Hillary gets the same caliber of FBI investigation I'd agree. Otherwise I believe people like you, who refuse to accept this conclusion of the story, will continue to put a wedge in the american society.

When Trump said that if he'd lose then it was proof the elections were tampered with, and would not accept it, he was vilified for his opinions. Nowadays the same people who vilified him for that same comment, say that the elections were tampered with, because they lost. It's a fucking joke.
.

Saelune:

Myria:

No, you're asking for someone to prove that something doesn't exist -- guilt.

In the absence of proof of guilt, innocence is presumed.

Or, at least, should be presumed.

Its not like this investigation came out of nowhere. It came because Trump did a bunch of suspicious things involving Russia.

.
DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

Why would Hillary have the same calibur of investigation when even the Republican's investigating her said there as nothing left to investigate. They actually investigated Hillary for much longer and there was nothing left to investigate. What exactly should they be investigating on Hillary to begin with? That she opened emails on her personal device that did not have a proper classified header but instead had it shown to be classified within the body of the email? They already went through that. What else is there?

Trump was ridiculed for his opinions because he pulls them out of his arse, he is not even basing them on actions that have taken place. He lies constantly and just makes stuff up. HE even admits to just making stuff up publicly and jokes about it.

Both the DNC and the GOP are corrupt, the issue of course is the GOP doesn't care if everyone knows they are corrupt and the DNC fires people over it. That is it. The two party system in the US is terribly screwed up, that does not suddenly make one side good and the other bad. It just makes the side willing to do anything about the corruption at all a little better than the one who doesn't.

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:
.
Oh ok, 'its only wrong when it happens to my side' is your argument. Got it.

.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. If you can't handle what I'm saying, don't start arguing for your point.

It's not my side. I'm an observer, not an american. I observe disconnect from reality on the Democratic side.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I translated the words you were saying to be more honest. You just flat out cannot claim Hillary is guilty if you think Trump is proven innocent. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump supporters who still claim Hillary is guilty despite being formally cleared by the FBI. Trump is even less cleared since ya know, the actual report hasn't been released.

The FBI said Hillary is not guilty. Trump Supporter Willaim Barr said a report he wont release said Trump is not guilty. The FBI definitely was not on Hillary's side and still said she wasnt guilty.

You could just go 'I guess you're right, Hillary is innocent too', but you didnt. You double downed.

.
You translated what I said into what you think I said. I didn't claim hillary was guilty. She didn't get the same kind of legal treatment as Trump, yet he is vilified and she isn't. Regardless of the matter, I may be more ignorant of it than you, but it was you who even brought her up to begin with in your very childish response to my post. You also ignored, maybe by error, this gem of a paragraph I'd like to paste here.

When Trump said that if he'd lose then it was proof the elections were tampered with, and would not accept it, he was vilified for his opinions. Nowadays the same people who vilified him for that same comment, say that the elections were tampered with, because they lost. It's a fucking joke.

That paragraph is exactly the reason why I don't believe a lot of news outlets regarding this issue. It has come to herd mentality in the field and I'm tired of it. They did it with Iraq, they can do it with anything else.

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:
Hillary did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'her emails' and Trump still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the White House and Fox News should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Republican leaders claiming they know for a fact Hillary was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the female sex, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a woman they just don't like.

.
Once Hillary gets the same caliber of FBI investigation I'd agree. Otherwise I believe people like you, who refuse to accept this conclusion of the story, will continue to put a wedge in the american society.

When Trump said that if he'd lose then it was proof the elections were tampered with, and would not accept it, he was vilified for his opinions. Nowadays the same people who vilified him for that same comment, say that the elections were tampered with, because they lost. It's a fucking joke.
.

Saelune:
Its not like this investigation came out of nowhere. It came because Trump did a bunch of suspicious things involving Russia.

.
DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

Why would Hillary have the same calibur of investigation when even the Republican's investigating her said there as nothing left to investigate. They actually investigated Hillary for much longer and there was nothing left to investigate. What exactly should they be investigating on Hillary to begin with? That she opened emails on her personal device that did not have a proper classified header but instead had it shown to be classified within the body of the email? They already went through that. What else is there?

Trump was ridiculed for his opinions because he pulls them out of his arse, he is not even basing them on actions that have taken place. He lies constantly and just makes stuff up. HE even admits to just making stuff up publicly and jokes about it.

Both the DNC and the GOP are corrupt, the issue of course is the GOP doesn't care if everyone knows they are corrupt and the DNC fires people over it. That is it. The two party system in the US is terribly screwed up, that does not suddenly make one side good and the other bad. It just makes the side willing to do anything about the corruption at all a little better than the one who doesn't.

.
GOP didn't cheat to get Trump elected in the primaries. DNC did cheat. You can't equate the two honestly.

I should probably drop the hillary talking point. I don't know enough to argue about her.

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. If you can't handle what I'm saying, don't start arguing for your point.

It's not my side. I'm an observer, not an american. I observe disconnect from reality on the Democratic side.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I translated the words you were saying to be more honest. You just flat out cannot claim Hillary is guilty if you think Trump is proven innocent. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump supporters who still claim Hillary is guilty despite being formally cleared by the FBI. Trump is even less cleared since ya know, the actual report hasn't been released.

The FBI said Hillary is not guilty. Trump Supporter Willaim Barr said a report he wont release said Trump is not guilty. The FBI definitely was not on Hillary's side and still said she wasnt guilty.

You could just go 'I guess you're right, Hillary is innocent too', but you didnt. You double downed.

.
You translated what I said into what you think I said. I didn't claim hillary was guilty. She didn't get the same kind of legal treatment as Trump, yet he is vilified and she isn't. Regardless of the matter, I may be more ignorant of it than you, but it was you who even brought her up to begin with in your very childish response to my post. You also ignored, maybe by error, this gem of a paragraph I'd like to paste here.

When Trump said that if he'd lose then it was proof the elections were tampered with, and would not accept it, he was vilified for his opinions. Nowadays the same people who vilified him for that same comment, say that the elections were tampered with, because they lost. It's a fucking joke.

That paragraph is exactly the reason why I don't believe a lot of news outlets regarding this issue. It has come to herd mentality in the field and I'm tired of it. They did it with Iraq, they can do it with anything else.

She got the same treatment. She just wasn't guilty so it was over faster. Still took longer than needed. Also Trump's daughter and her husband did what Hillary did and did not get investigated for it, whats up with that?

Trump made excuses. The same kind you're making. If Trump is innocent, he should prove it. He hasn't. We don't know what the Mueller Report says. If it proves him not guilty, then they should just release it, but they haven't.

Trump and his supporters CONSTANTLY apply standards to others that they do not apply to themselves. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy, and I am sick and tired of it. Trump has no right to bitch, because what he claims is being done to him is what he did all the time, to Hillary and to Obama. But unlike himself, they actually proved their innocence.

You refuse to believe the news outlets, but you take William Barr and Trump at their word? If you're going to claim to be skeptical of bias, then be skeptical of bias, that includes bias in favor of Trump.

TheIronRuler:

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:
Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'colluding with the Russians' and people still can't stomach it. Those hacks at the news outlets in London' L.A. and New York should all get canned for repeating this piece of gossip as if it was the truth. Democratic leaders claiming they know for a fact the president was guilty - and were showed to be utter buffoons - should also get sacked.

Own up to your demagoguery. Apologize. Resign. Otherwise regular people, who had not been infected by this irrational hatred of the color orange, would see this for what it truly is - a witch hunt against a President they just don't like.

Do you know something no one else does? Have you seen the report yet? Trump has yet to be exonerated, even by what Barr has said thus far. It appears you as well have taken what some opinion as fact and ran with it as well.

The issue is not if Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, it is that colluding with Russia is not technically illegal due to not being at war with Russia. We are currently existing in a time period where aggressive cyber attacks have not been classified as as acts of war even though Russia literally hacked US nuclear power plants, The US electrical grid, The Department of Defense, US hospitals, and numerous US officials. Donald Trump jr. Already admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt that was obtained illegally on Hillary. Trump himself openly asked publicly for Russia to send him hacked emails near the time of the Trump Tower meeting. Trumps Lawyer already said Trump knew about this meeting in advance. Flynn already admitted he was working as a foreign agent for another government while being head of national security for the US, Manafort was already shown to be on Russia's payroll by the ledger found in the Ukraine. That is not a media companies "opinion" that was what was already established to be true. The issue is that in the US, this has not yet made illegal, so there is nothing to prosecute there. None of that has anything to do with him making himself orange.

Trump is not even out of the woods yet as there are still other numerous investigations ongoing. His businesses are still under investigation in New York, where he will not be able to oversee or interfere with the investigations there, as they are on the state level, not under his federal control. Trump still very well may be charged at some point once he is out of office as well due to his constant interference and attempts to control the federal investigations into his actions. He actively and repeatedly attacked Comey, Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller and the FBI itself and had his lackeys doing everything they could to run interference for him.

These are the open, current ongoing investigations that Trump and his campaign are still facing:
http://time.com/5557644/donald-trump-other-investigations-mueller/

The results of those investigations could very well cause new investigations or charges to be brought. How on earth is it a "witch hunt" when we have even the President's own friend and attorney for years telling us he is con man. But Cohen was not alone in " being one of Trumps best people" who then leave him and tell everyone how screwed up he is. Why is it everyone around Trump who knows him winds up leaving him and tells everyone what a untrustworthy person he is? He now has a huge pile of people telling everyone he is a liar, a cheat, and a thief., including those close to him and people who did business with him. How many people does it take telling everyone this does it take for people to realize that is who Trump really is?

I have no idea why you seem to think otherwise. What has happened that makes you think otherwise?

.
This seems to me like a witch-hunt against the candidate certain people didn't want to be elected. If they are looking for dirt, they will find it, but I was amused to hear that after 2 years FBI special investigation still couldn't pin a crime on Trump even after the assumption he was guilty was pumped into the airwaves rigorously ever since he got elected.

Capone sat in prison for tax-fraud. I think they're trying to get Trump the same way when they're looking after his businesses.

I am biased, though. I see a similar thing happening in my own country. I probably connect the dots that aren't there, but to me seems to be there, because it looks similar to a different thing altogether. Remember, I'm not an American. I don't feed off the same media as you do.

In your country though are they reporting this part here:

The issue is not if Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, it is that colluding with Russia is not technically illegal due to not being at war with Russia. We are currently existing in a time period where aggressive cyber attacks have not been classified as as acts of war even though Russia literally hacked US nuclear power plants, The US electrical grid, The Department of Defense, US hospitals, and numerous US officials. Donald Trump jr. Already admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt that was obtained illegally on Hillary. Trump himself openly asked publicly for Russia to send him hacked emails near the time of the Trump Tower meeting. Trumps Lawyer already said Trump knew about this meeting in advance. Flynn already admitted he was working as a foreign agent for another government while being head of national security for the US, Manafort was already shown to be on Russia's payroll by the ledger found in the Ukraine. That is not a media companies "opinion" that was what was already established to be true. The issue is that in the US, this has not yet made illegal, so there is nothing to prosecute there.

Because that is the big issue here that has to be addressed. Our reality is that if Trump were not president, he would not even be granted a security clearance. He would have been denied just as Kushner was. When we have a sitting US president that is considered a national security risk, we have a serious problem that should be addressed here. The US has a serious issue with corruption being legal here, that is what has to be addressed but cannot be as long as those that are corrupt are the ones who are responsible for passing laws against corruption.

As for other investigations, Trump has been in violation of the emoluments clause since day one, that has nothing to do with his money laundering, but the fact that he is exploiting the office of president for financial gain and selling presidential access to members of his golf club. That entire debacle is something you expect from dictatorships and kingdoms, not from democracies. Hell, his family is even profiting from His china and Saudi Arabia decisions. This should never be allowed to happen in the first place. It is just now we have a president willing to do anything and everything unscrupulous on full display exploiting it to the fullest, maybe that will actually motivate people to do something to actually address this corruption issue at some point. Either that or the US will go the opposite direction of becoming even far more corrupt to be able to "out do" Trump's corruption, which is going to b pretty hard to do considering the sheer level of it all.

Trump has actually "gotten away with" numerous crimes that other people would have been jailed for. He has lied under oath, he committed fraud on numerous occasions not only to investors, but to the general public with his fake scam school, he stole from businesses he had contracts with and from charity. I am not sure how anyone coming in will be able to top that.

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:
I didn't put words in your mouth, I translated the words you were saying to be more honest. You just flat out cannot claim Hillary is guilty if you think Trump is proven innocent. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump supporters who still claim Hillary is guilty despite being formally cleared by the FBI. Trump is even less cleared since ya know, the actual report hasn't been released.

The FBI said Hillary is not guilty. Trump Supporter Willaim Barr said a report he wont release said Trump is not guilty. The FBI definitely was not on Hillary's side and still said she wasnt guilty.

You could just go 'I guess you're right, Hillary is innocent too', but you didnt. You double downed.

.
You translated what I said into what you think I said. I didn't claim hillary was guilty. She didn't get the same kind of legal treatment as Trump, yet he is vilified and she isn't. Regardless of the matter, I may be more ignorant of it than you, but it was you who even brought her up to begin with in your very childish response to my post. You also ignored, maybe by error, this gem of a paragraph I'd like to paste here.

When Trump said that if he'd lose then it was proof the elections were tampered with, and would not accept it, he was vilified for his opinions. Nowadays the same people who vilified him for that same comment, say that the elections were tampered with, because they lost. It's a fucking joke.

That paragraph is exactly the reason why I don't believe a lot of news outlets regarding this issue. It has come to herd mentality in the field and I'm tired of it. They did it with Iraq, they can do it with anything else.

She got the same treatment. She just wasn't guilty so it was over faster. Still took longer than needed. Also Trump's daughter and her husband did what Hillary did and did not get investigated for it, whats up with that?

Trump made excuses. The same kind you're making. If Trump is innocent, he should prove it. He hasn't. We don't know what the Mueller Report says. If it proves him not guilty, then they should just release it, but they haven't.

Trump and his supporters CONSTANTLY apply standards to others that they do not apply to themselves. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy, and I am sick and tired of it. Trump has no right to bitch, because what he claims is being done to him is what he did all the time, to Hillary and to Obama. But unlike himself, they actually proved their innocence.

You refuse to believe the news outlets, but you take William Barr and Trump at their word? If you're going to claim to be skeptical of bias, then be skeptical of bias, that includes bias in favor of Trump.

.
I will wait for its release, and your subsequent rejection, of the investigation report.

I take what I hear with a gain of salt, as they say. I see the bias, talking points and pure lunacy and I can't take it seriously.

Again, when trump said that if he'd lose the elections were tampered with, he was attacked almost universally. However when he won, the losing side immediately said the same thing he had accused Trump of saying - that it was the tampering of the elections, not the people of the US, that had caused Trump to win the elections. It's a fucking joke. I can't get over this, and any subsequent arguments truly pale in comparison to this, in my opinion.

DNC was exposed with its crimes, causing many Democrats to not vote for the party. The leak was posted on wikileaks, anonymously as it is per custom there, and yet it doesn't stop the same Democrats who spat over American democracy to turn around and blame their lose in the general elections for Trump's collusion with the Russians. The sheer BALLS on them to do this with a straight face, Ahhhhhh. I'd credit them with that.

Lil devils x:
.

In your country though are they reporting this part here:

The issue is not if Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, it is that colluding with Russia is not technically illegal due to not being at war with Russia. We are currently existing in a time period where aggressive cyber attacks have not been classified as as acts of war even though Russia literally hacked US nuclear power plants, The US electrical grid, The Department of Defense, US hospitals, and numerous US officials. Donald Trump jr. Already admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt that was obtained illegally on Hillary. Trump himself openly asked publicly for Russia to send him hacked emails near the time of the Trump Tower meeting. Trumps Lawyer already said Trump knew about this meeting in advance. Flynn already admitted he was working as a foreign agent for another government while being head of national security for the US, Manafort was already shown to be on Russia's payroll by the ledger found in the Ukraine. That is not a media companies "opinion" that was what was already established to be true. The issue is that in the US, this has not yet made illegal, so there is nothing to prosecute there.

Because that is the big issue here that has to be addressed. Our reality is that if Trump were not president, he would not even be granted a security clearance. He would have been denied just as Kushner was. When we have a sitting US president that is considered a national security risk, we have a serious problem that should be addressed here. The US has a serious issue with corruption being legal here, that is what has to be addressed but cannot be as long as those that are corrupt are the ones who are responsible for passing laws against corruption.

As for other investigations, Trump has been in violation of the emoluments clause since day one, that has nothing to do with his money laundering, but the fact that he is exploiting the office of president for financial gain and selling presidential access to members of his golf club. That entire debacle is something you expect from dictatorships and kingdoms, not from democracies. Hell, his family is even profiting from His china and Saudi Arabia decisions. This should never be allowed to happen in the first place. It is just now we have a president willing to do anything and everything unscrupulous on full display exploiting it to the fullest, maybe that will actually motivate people to do something to actually address this corruption issue at some point. Either that or the US will go the opposite direction of becoming even far more corrupt to be able to "out do" Trump's corruption, which is going to b pretty hard to do considering the sheer level of it all.

Trump has actually "gotten away with" numerous crimes that other people would have been jailed for. He has lied under oath, he committed fraud on numerous occasions not only to investors, but to the general public with his fake scam school, he stole from businesses he had contracts with and from charity. I am not sure how anyone coming in will be able to top that.

.
Not much of that, no. The bit about Trump real-estate deals with the Saudis And Chinese investors, I have heard about. Much of what you said I can totally envision Trump doing, yet... he's still in office. In short - If there was something concrete to impeach him with, it would have happened. Yet it doesn't happen.

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

.
You translated what I said into what you think I said. I didn't claim hillary was guilty. She didn't get the same kind of legal treatment as Trump, yet he is vilified and she isn't. Regardless of the matter, I may be more ignorant of it than you, but it was you who even brought her up to begin with in your very childish response to my post. You also ignored, maybe by error, this gem of a paragraph I'd like to paste here.

When Trump said that if he'd lose then it was proof the elections were tampered with, and would not accept it, he was vilified for his opinions. Nowadays the same people who vilified him for that same comment, say that the elections were tampered with, because they lost. It's a fucking joke.

That paragraph is exactly the reason why I don't believe a lot of news outlets regarding this issue. It has come to herd mentality in the field and I'm tired of it. They did it with Iraq, they can do it with anything else.

She got the same treatment. She just wasn't guilty so it was over faster. Still took longer than needed. Also Trump's daughter and her husband did what Hillary did and did not get investigated for it, whats up with that?

Trump made excuses. The same kind you're making. If Trump is innocent, he should prove it. He hasn't. We don't know what the Mueller Report says. If it proves him not guilty, then they should just release it, but they haven't.

Trump and his supporters CONSTANTLY apply standards to others that they do not apply to themselves. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy, and I am sick and tired of it. Trump has no right to bitch, because what he claims is being done to him is what he did all the time, to Hillary and to Obama. But unlike himself, they actually proved their innocence.

You refuse to believe the news outlets, but you take William Barr and Trump at their word? If you're going to claim to be skeptical of bias, then be skeptical of bias, that includes bias in favor of Trump.

.
I will wait for its release, and your subsequent rejection, of the investigation report.

I take what I hear with a gain of salt, as they say. I see the bias, talking points and pure lunacy and I can't take it seriously.

Again, when trump said that if he'd lose the elections were tampered with, he was attacked almost universally. However when he won, the losing side immediately said the same thing he had accused Trump of saying - that it was the tampering of the elections, not the people of the US, that had caused Trump to win the elections. It's a fucking joke. I can't get over this, and any subsequent arguments truly pale in comparison to this, in my opinion.

DNC was exposed with its crimes, causing many Democrats to not vote for the party. The leak was posted on wikileaks, anonymously as it is per custom there, and yet it doesn't stop the same Democrats who spat over American democracy to turn around and blame their lose in the general elections for Trump's collusion with the Russians. The sheer BALLS on them to do this with a straight face, Ahhhhhh. I'd credit them with that.

I worried the report would come out and actually say he was not guilty. Instead ardent Trump supporters Barr and McConnel are doing everything they can to hide the report. I knew whatever it said, it wouldn't stop Trump supporters from supporting him, but this response only assures me that whatever it says, it is bad for Trump.

I have found that thinking the better of Trump is never the truth. Everytime it seemed like Trump did something right or good, it always turned out to be not true, or even worse than we thought. Trump is never actually surprising. We joked Trump would do what he does with his casinos, flop and fail and blame others and steal money. He did literally that with the government. Trump has proven to be exactly what I thought he was, and I doubt the report will change that, if we ever actually see it.

TheIronRuler:

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

.
Once Hillary gets the same caliber of FBI investigation I'd agree. Otherwise I believe people like you, who refuse to accept this conclusion of the story, will continue to put a wedge in the american society.

When Trump said that if he'd lose then it was proof the elections were tampered with, and would not accept it, he was vilified for his opinions. Nowadays the same people who vilified him for that same comment, say that the elections were tampered with, because they lost. It's a fucking joke.
.

.
DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

Why would Hillary have the same calibur of investigation when even the Republican's investigating her said there as nothing left to investigate. They actually investigated Hillary for much longer and there was nothing left to investigate. What exactly should they be investigating on Hillary to begin with? That she opened emails on her personal device that did not have a proper classified header but instead had it shown to be classified within the body of the email? They already went through that. What else is there?

Trump was ridiculed for his opinions because he pulls them out of his arse, he is not even basing them on actions that have taken place. He lies constantly and just makes stuff up. HE even admits to just making stuff up publicly and jokes about it.

Both the DNC and the GOP are corrupt, the issue of course is the GOP doesn't care if everyone knows they are corrupt and the DNC fires people over it. That is it. The two party system in the US is terribly screwed up, that does not suddenly make one side good and the other bad. It just makes the side willing to do anything about the corruption at all a little better than the one who doesn't.

.
GOP didn't cheat to get Trump elected in the primaries. DNC did cheat. You can't equate the two honestly.

I should probably drop the hillary talking point. I don't know enough to argue about her.

You actually can.Trump's campaign lied repeatedly to get him elected. He lied about his businesses, his finances, his opponents. The man cannot seem to stop lying about anything and everything tbh.

The GOP was responsible for voter suppression, widespread disinformation campaign, and ridiculously unscrupulous practices, mind you Roger Stone is also part of the GOP. The difference is that when the DNC is exposed for these things, people get fired. The GOP instead promotes the people responsible. It is seriously that bad.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/30/donald-trump-republicans-corruption-problem-drain-swamp-column/1112746002/
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145387/underplayed-story-2016-election-voter-suppression
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mbyg3x/the-most-damaging-election-disinformation-campaign-came-from-donald-trump-not-russia
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/06/24/trumps-company-tricked-investors-heres-how/86058802/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-111011/

TheIronRuler:

Lil devils x:
.

In your country though are they reporting this part here:

The issue is not if Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, it is that colluding with Russia is not technically illegal due to not being at war with Russia. We are currently existing in a time period where aggressive cyber attacks have not been classified as as acts of war even though Russia literally hacked US nuclear power plants, The US electrical grid, The Department of Defense, US hospitals, and numerous US officials. Donald Trump jr. Already admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt that was obtained illegally on Hillary. Trump himself openly asked publicly for Russia to send him hacked emails near the time of the Trump Tower meeting. Trumps Lawyer already said Trump knew about this meeting in advance. Flynn already admitted he was working as a foreign agent for another government while being head of national security for the US, Manafort was already shown to be on Russia's payroll by the ledger found in the Ukraine. That is not a media companies "opinion" that was what was already established to be true. The issue is that in the US, this has not yet made illegal, so there is nothing to prosecute there.

Because that is the big issue here that has to be addressed. Our reality is that if Trump were not president, he would not even be granted a security clearance. He would have been denied just as Kushner was. When we have a sitting US president that is considered a national security risk, we have a serious problem that should be addressed here. The US has a serious issue with corruption being legal here, that is what has to be addressed but cannot be as long as those that are corrupt are the ones who are responsible for passing laws against corruption.

As for other investigations, Trump has been in violation of the emoluments clause since day one, that has nothing to do with his money laundering, but the fact that he is exploiting the office of president for financial gain and selling presidential access to members of his golf club. That entire debacle is something you expect from dictatorships and kingdoms, not from democracies. Hell, his family is even profiting from His china and Saudi Arabia decisions. This should never be allowed to happen in the first place. It is just now we have a president willing to do anything and everything unscrupulous on full display exploiting it to the fullest, maybe that will actually motivate people to do something to actually address this corruption issue at some point. Either that or the US will go the opposite direction of becoming even far more corrupt to be able to "out do" Trump's corruption, which is going to b pretty hard to do considering the sheer level of it all.

Trump has actually "gotten away with" numerous crimes that other people would have been jailed for. He has lied under oath, he committed fraud on numerous occasions not only to investors, but to the general public with his fake scam school, he stole from businesses he had contracts with and from charity. I am not sure how anyone coming in will be able to top that.

.
Not much of that, no. The bit about Trump real-estate deals with the Saudis And Chinese investors, I have heard about. Much of what you said I can totally envision Trump doing, yet... he's still in office. In short - If there was something concrete to impeach him with, it would have happened. Yet it doesn't happen.

They impeached Bill Clinton over lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Trump has lied repeatedly about Stormy Daniels. That alone would be "grounds" according to historical context of impeachment. The difference of course is Trump's Republican congress didn't care about ANYTHING he does. There is tons of data for "grounds for impeachment" however, there is no rule that says they must act. I for one, don't want him impeached. Pence is worse than Trump and many see Pence as Trump's "insurance policy" against impeachment since no one wants Pence in charge of anything.. ever.

Pelosi doesn't want Trump impeached because she is viewing this strategically, not because he hasn't done anything to be impeached, it is she knows it is better for him not to be impeached for the upcoming elections and due to the amount of damage Pence would inflict. There is a difference between not having grounds and not wanting to do so. The current situation is it is better not to impeach than to impeach and they should only consider it if Trump tries to nuke someone or does something that will not be able to be undone later. It is not a matter of having nothing concrete, but instead it is better not to do so due to the circumstances.

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:
She got the same treatment. She just wasn't guilty so it was over faster. Still took longer than needed. Also Trump's daughter and her husband did what Hillary did and did not get investigated for it, whats up with that?

Trump made excuses. The same kind you're making. If Trump is innocent, he should prove it. He hasn't. We don't know what the Mueller Report says. If it proves him not guilty, then they should just release it, but they haven't.

Trump and his supporters CONSTANTLY apply standards to others that they do not apply to themselves. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy, and I am sick and tired of it. Trump has no right to bitch, because what he claims is being done to him is what he did all the time, to Hillary and to Obama. But unlike himself, they actually proved their innocence.

You refuse to believe the news outlets, but you take William Barr and Trump at their word? If you're going to claim to be skeptical of bias, then be skeptical of bias, that includes bias in favor of Trump.

.
I will wait for its release, and your subsequent rejection, of the investigation report.

I take what I hear with a gain of salt, as they say. I see the bias, talking points and pure lunacy and I can't take it seriously.

Again, when trump said that if he'd lose the elections were tampered with, he was attacked almost universally. However when he won, the losing side immediately said the same thing he had accused Trump of saying - that it was the tampering of the elections, not the people of the US, that had caused Trump to win the elections. It's a fucking joke. I can't get over this, and any subsequent arguments truly pale in comparison to this, in my opinion.

DNC was exposed with its crimes, causing many Democrats to not vote for the party. The leak was posted on wikileaks, anonymously as it is per custom there, and yet it doesn't stop the same Democrats who spat over American democracy to turn around and blame their lose in the general elections for Trump's collusion with the Russians. The sheer BALLS on them to do this with a straight face, Ahhhhhh. I'd credit them with that.

I worried the report would come out and actually say he was not guilty. Instead ardent Trump supporters Barr and McConnel are doing everything they can to hide the report. I knew whatever it said, it wouldn't stop Trump supporters from supporting him, but this response only assures me that whatever it says, it is bad for Trump.

I have found that thinking the better of Trump is never the truth. Everytime it seemed like Trump did something right or good, it always turned out to be not true, or even worse than we thought. Trump is never actually surprising. We joked Trump would do what he does with his casinos, flop and fail and blame others and steal money. He did literally that with the government. Trump has proven to be exactly what I thought he was, and I doubt the report will change that, if we ever actually see it.

I would not expect any real answers until Trump and Republicans are out of office all together and they remove his lackeys from power to interfere all together. You have to remove his people in charge of investigating within the FBI before you can actually expect them to find anything. They were doing everything within their power to make sure nothing was found, not trying to actually find it. Everyone hears about Comey, Mccabe, and Sessions, but what about who else was promoted, demoted, and dismissed during this time period in the FBI over this? Even in the congressional committee's we have his lap dog Nunes running to Trump in the middle of the night to give him information that was supposed to go to the committee instead. It would be ignorant to think this was not happening at all levels here, because that was why Trump wanted to replace Comey in the first place. It is easy for people to claim they didn't find anything when they didn't want to find it in the first place. Trump was all over trying to replace anyone who he didn't think liked him or was not on his side. Being neutral and working for the FBI was not an option to Trump.

EDIT: Think about it, Comey, an outspoken Republican who helped get Trump elected and Sessions who was one of Trumps die hard supporters who Trump appointed himself was not even "Pro Trump" enough according to Trump to work for the DOJ or FBI, so who would be? If they were not willing to do anything and everything to do Trump's bidding they were "out". How can the DOJ or FBI be able to do a legitimate investigation into Trump in that atmosphere?

Myria:

No, you're asking for someone to prove that something doesn't exist -- guilt.

In the absence of proof of guilt, innocence is presumed.

Or, at least, should be presumed.

In terms of the law, innocence is presumed. Outside of the law, i.e. normal balance of evidence, it need not be.

In either case, it is obviously possible to prove someone cannot be guilty: a person at a football match caught on camera, witnesses, etc. cannot possibly be stabbing someone to death 500 miles away.

Asita:

So no, I do not "only think this looks bad because you're judging it on the basis that Comey didn't deserve to fired and Trump was makiong up excuses to try and end the investigation". I think this looks bad because while you might dismiss any one piece of evidence as coincidental, at this point suggesting that all these points were incidental and coincidentally suggested the same conclusion strains credulity.

It shouldn't strain you to think that.

Imagine there was a husband and wife, and the husband starts acting different. He's coming home late from work, made some mysterious cash withdrawals, and is often seen smiling at his phone like an idiot. So the wife suspects he's having an affair. She hires a private investigator to follow her husband, and the PI reports back to her that the man and some colleagues had just started a fantasy baseball league, that the money was for the prize pool, and the late time getting home/smiling at phone were all about fantasy trades, and there's no reason to worry about an affair. So the wife gets mad at the husband anyway because even if he wasn't having an affair, he sure was acting like he was hiding one.

That's where we're at with the Mueller investigation, other than the possibility that the summary we got was a lie and the full report shows Trump is guilty. There were fears Trump was conspiring with Russia for the election and he was compromised by that, so they had Mueller investigate thoroughly, and the result was that Trump wasn't working with Russia to win the election. And now people still want to indict Trump, cause even if he wasn't colluding with Russia, he sure was acting like he was hiding collusion.

Trump said he had nothing to hide, and as far as I know, cooperated with Mueller's investigation, and was found to have had nothing to hide. It's absurd at this point to consider it a crime that Trump looked suspicious of a crime he didn't commit.

tstorm823:

Asita:

So no, I do not "only think this looks bad because you're judging it on the basis that Comey didn't deserve to fired and Trump was makiong up excuses to try and end the investigation". I think this looks bad because while you might dismiss any one piece of evidence as coincidental, at this point suggesting that all these points were incidental and coincidentally suggested the same conclusion strains credulity.

It shouldn't strain you to think that.

Imagine there was a husband and wife, and the husband starts acting different. He's coming home late from work, made some mysterious cash withdrawals, and is often seen smiling at his phone like an idiot. So the wife suspects he's having an affair. She hires a private investigator to follow her husband, and the PI reports back to her that the man and some colleagues had just started a fantasy baseball league, that the money was for the prize pool, and the late time getting home/smiling at phone were all about fantasy trades, and there's no reason to worry about an affair. So the wife gets mad at the husband anyway because even if he wasn't having an affair, he sure was acting like he was hiding one.

That's where we're at with the Mueller investigation, other than the possibility that the summary we got was a lie and the full report shows Trump is guilty. There were fears Trump was conspiring with Russia for the election and he was compromised by that, so they had Mueller investigate thoroughly, and the result was that Trump wasn't working with Russia to win the election. And now people still want to indict Trump, cause even if he wasn't colluding with Russia, he sure was acting like he was hiding collusion.

Trump said he had nothing to hide, and as far as I know, cooperated with Mueller's investigation, and was found to have had nothing to hide. It's absurd at this point to consider it a crime that Trump looked suspicious of a crime he didn't commit.

Ok, first of all, as someone who actually had to study physicality as part of my education (long story short, very involved in the theater through college), I am obliged to point out that the scenario you posit is ridiculous on physicality grounds. A fond enamored smile is very different from a "this is fun" smile. To borrow again from fiction, it's like the claim that "those idiots are convinced that Korra and Asami are gay in the finale just because they were holding hands", which completely ignores the nuance in physicality that distinguishes romantic and platonic hand holding.[1].

Second, you're being obtuse again. "It's absurd at this point to consider it a crime that Trump looked suspicious of a crime he didn't commit" is mischaracterization, pure and simple. In the last two responses to me alone you have done that several times, in fact. Remember, you were just suggesting that I only thought it "looked bad" because I'd already made up my mind on the subject, and in my last post I was explaining everything that actually made me think it looked bad. Cue you trying to characterize it as claiming that we were saying it should be criminal for him to act suspiciously, rather than defending why we have reason to suspect Barr's characterization.

And it's things like that that make me suspect that you are not as impartial as you believe yourself to be. You've gone past entertaining alternate explanations and chastising overzealousness and have instead been inflating contrary opinions into something easier to dismiss out of hand. You've suggested that we only disagree with you because we're closed minded. And that when we counter that claim we're instead arguing that the appearance of criminality was a crime in itself. Take a step back and look at what and how you're arguing. What you've been arguing is closer to "it's ridiculous to have ever suspected Trump at all" than it is "Trump's guilt was never proven".

[1] A pair grabbing each other's hand as they walk forward? Interpretable any number of ways and decided by a lot of unspoken details. A pair smiling, holding hands, and staring into each other's eyes as they walk forward, before turning to fully face each other and grab the other hand? That's romantic blocking.

tstorm823:

Asita:

So no, I do not "only think this looks bad because you're judging it on the basis that Comey didn't deserve to fired and Trump was makiong up excuses to try and end the investigation". I think this looks bad because while you might dismiss any one piece of evidence as coincidental, at this point suggesting that all these points were incidental and coincidentally suggested the same conclusion strains credulity.

It shouldn't strain you to think that.

Imagine there was a husband and wife, and the husband starts acting different. He's coming home late from work, made some mysterious cash withdrawals, and is often seen smiling at his phone like an idiot. So the wife suspects he's having an affair. She hires a private investigator to follow her husband, and the PI reports back to her that the man and some colleagues had just started a fantasy baseball league, that the money was for the prize pool, and the late time getting home/smiling at phone were all about fantasy trades, and there's no reason to worry about an affair. So the wife gets mad at the husband anyway because even if he wasn't having an affair, he sure was acting like he was hiding one.

That's where we're at with the Mueller investigation, other than the possibility that the summary we got was a lie and the full report shows Trump is guilty. There were fears Trump was conspiring with Russia for the election and he was compromised by that, so they had Mueller investigate thoroughly, and the result was that Trump wasn't working with Russia to win the election. And now people still want to indict Trump, cause even if he wasn't colluding with Russia, he sure was acting like he was hiding collusion.

Trump said he had nothing to hide, and as far as I know, cooperated with Mueller's investigation, and was found to have had nothing to hide. It's absurd at this point to consider it a crime that Trump looked suspicious of a crime he didn't commit.

So you are actually trying to state that Trump's campaign did not in any way " collude" with Russia when it has already been shown that they did, just it isn't illegal?

To clarify:
1) Do you believe that Donald Trump Jr. met with Russians to get "dirt on Hillary" as he has stated he has?
2) Do you believe that Cohen stated that Trump was aware of Trump tower meeting ahead of time?
3) Do you believe Donald Trump jr was in direct contact with Wikileaks?
4) Do you believe that the Ukraine has a ledger that shows that Manafort was on Russia's payroll to influence Ukrainian elections to favor the Pro Russia candidate?
5) Do you believe that Flynn has admitted he was a foreign agent when Trump appointed him as head of National Security?
6) Do you believe that Trump openly, publicly asked for a US official's hacked emails near near the time of the Trump Tower meeting?
7) Do you believe Roger Stone was in direct contact with Wikileaks?

I just want to fully understand what you believe and do not believe has actually happened here. These were things that were already established, so trying to pretend like these things were the equivalency between an affair and a fantasy baseball league are absurd. Collusion ha already been established, but it is not technically illegal. There is a difference between not happening at all and being bad but not technically illegal. I just want to be sure we have our facts straight here and exist in the same reality.

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

Lil devils x:
.

In your country though are they reporting this part here:

Because that is the big issue here that has to be addressed. Our reality is that if Trump were not president, he would not even be granted a security clearance. He would have been denied just as Kushner was. When we have a sitting US president that is considered a national security risk, we have a serious problem that should be addressed here. The US has a serious issue with corruption being legal here, that is what has to be addressed but cannot be as long as those that are corrupt are the ones who are responsible for passing laws against corruption.

As for other investigations, Trump has been in violation of the emoluments clause since day one, that has nothing to do with his money laundering, but the fact that he is exploiting the office of president for financial gain and selling presidential access to members of his golf club. That entire debacle is something you expect from dictatorships and kingdoms, not from democracies. Hell, his family is even profiting from His china and Saudi Arabia decisions. This should never be allowed to happen in the first place. It is just now we have a president willing to do anything and everything unscrupulous on full display exploiting it to the fullest, maybe that will actually motivate people to do something to actually address this corruption issue at some point. Either that or the US will go the opposite direction of becoming even far more corrupt to be able to "out do" Trump's corruption, which is going to b pretty hard to do considering the sheer level of it all.

Trump has actually "gotten away with" numerous crimes that other people would have been jailed for. He has lied under oath, he committed fraud on numerous occasions not only to investors, but to the general public with his fake scam school, he stole from businesses he had contracts with and from charity. I am not sure how anyone coming in will be able to top that.

.
Not much of that, no. The bit about Trump real-estate deals with the Saudis And Chinese investors, I have heard about. Much of what you said I can totally envision Trump doing, yet... he's still in office. In short - If there was something concrete to impeach him with, it would have happened. Yet it doesn't happen.

They impeached Bill Clinton over lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Trump has lied repeatedly about Stormy Daniels. That alone would be "grounds" according to historical context of impeachment. The difference of course is Trump's Republican congress didn't care about ANYTHING he does. There is tons of data for "grounds for impeachment" however, there is no rule that says they must act. I for one, don't want him impeached. Pence is worse than Trump and many see Pence as Trump's "insurance policy" against impeachment since no one wants Pence in charge of anything.. ever.

Pelosi doesn't want Trump impeached because she is viewing this strategically, not because he hasn't done anything to be impeached, it is she knows it is better for him not to be impeached for the upcoming elections and due to the amount of damage Pence would inflict. There is a difference between not having grounds and not wanting to do so. The current situation is it is better not to impeach than to impeach and they should only consider it if Trump tries to nuke someone or does something that will not be able to be undone later. It is not a matter of having nothing concrete, but instead it is better not to do so due to the circumstances.

.
I accept your reasoning, within your world-view and what you believe, it does sound very compelling. However when thinking of impeachment I'm more comfortable with looking at Nixon's and Watergate. I do believe the US authorities did a good job of checking the allegations over Trump. This is why the mainstream has moved away from this line of attack against the white-house, because the facts make them look silly.

The report will be released, only after it is checked for security issues and redacted accordingly. I think both parties support it wholeheartedly (on congress votes, I think).I do think its disengenious to claim you know better than the FBI that Trump did commit a crime...

A small clarification - Clinton was charged with lying under oath? No? I'm not certain.
.

Kwak:

TheIronRuler:

DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

Oh fuck off. It was the fucking intelligence agencies that alerted the world to that you fucking idiot.

.
Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

TheIronRuler:

Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Outright lies are not a matter of polite disagreement. They disgust me and should be forcefully opposed at every opportunity.

TheIronRuler:

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

.
Not much of that, no. The bit about Trump real-estate deals with the Saudis And Chinese investors, I have heard about. Much of what you said I can totally envision Trump doing, yet... he's still in office. In short - If there was something concrete to impeach him with, it would have happened. Yet it doesn't happen.

They impeached Bill Clinton over lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Trump has lied repeatedly about Stormy Daniels. That alone would be "grounds" according to historical context of impeachment. The difference of course is Trump's Republican congress didn't care about ANYTHING he does. There is tons of data for "grounds for impeachment" however, there is no rule that says they must act. I for one, don't want him impeached. Pence is worse than Trump and many see Pence as Trump's "insurance policy" against impeachment since no one wants Pence in charge of anything.. ever.

Pelosi doesn't want Trump impeached because she is viewing this strategically, not because he hasn't done anything to be impeached, it is she knows it is better for him not to be impeached for the upcoming elections and due to the amount of damage Pence would inflict. There is a difference between not having grounds and not wanting to do so. The current situation is it is better not to impeach than to impeach and they should only consider it if Trump tries to nuke someone or does something that will not be able to be undone later. It is not a matter of having nothing concrete, but instead it is better not to do so due to the circumstances.

.
I accept your reasoning, within your world-view and what you believe, it does sound very compelling. However when thinking of impeachment I'm more comfortable with looking at Nixon's and Watergate. I do believe the US authorities did a good job of checking the allegations over Trump. This is why the mainstream has moved away from this line of attack against the white-house, because the facts make them look silly.

The report will be released, only after it is checked for security issues and redacted accordingly. I think both parties support it wholeheartedly (on congress votes, I think).I do think its disengenious to claim you know better than the FBI that Trump did commit a crime...

A small clarification - Clinton was charged with lying under oath? No? I'm not certain.
.

Kwak:

TheIronRuler:

DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

Oh fuck off. It was the fucking intelligence agencies that alerted the world to that you fucking idiot.

.
Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Nixon wasn't impeached, Bill was. Nixon resigned before impeachment was possible. Nixon knew it was going to happen and left before it could. What media are you talking about, here in the US, the media is still saying there is much investigating to be done and stating he was not exonerated. Only Right wing media is suggesting anything different.

I am not sure what you have been reading/ watching here but the facts are what I stated above, in that it has already been proven, and admitted to that Trump's campaign was colluding with Russia for dirt on Clinton, That Trump jr and Roger Stone were in direct contact with Wikileaks, that Manafort was on Russia's payroll, that Michael Flynn was a foreign agent. None of that is even being debated at this point. What is being debated is whether or not they can charge him or his campaign with crimes for doing so. Trump got rid of Sessions, Comey, and McCabe for not doing his bidding on the investigation. Due to Trump's continuous interference with the Department of Justice and the FBI, I do not think they will be able to do a thorough investigation until he is out of office and no longer able to influence it.

Keep in mind they very well may bring charges once he is out of office regardless.

ALSO: According to Trumps own attorney, Trump has already lied under oath. According to others throughout Trumps past, he has lied under oath.
For example:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-lies-under-oath-20170612-story.html
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/video-emerges-of-trump-lying-under-oath
https://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/michael-cohen-alleges-donald-trump-lied-under-oath-in-2013-deposition-about-failed-trump-fort-lauderdale-project-11098852

Kwak:

TheIronRuler:

Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Outright lies are not a matter of polite disagreement. They disgust me and should be forcefully opposed at every opportunity.

.
I think you're lying and I'm not being rude and disrespectful to you. I know this wasn't leaked by the world's intelligence agencies. The information was copied from the DNC servers and dumped onto wikileaks. Following cover-ups tried to pin this on the nebulous "russians" to try and point attention away from the DNC's corruption scandal.
.

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

Lil devils x:
They impeached Bill Clinton over lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Trump has lied repeatedly about Stormy Daniels. That alone would be "grounds" according to historical context of impeachment. The difference of course is Trump's Republican congress didn't care about ANYTHING he does. There is tons of data for "grounds for impeachment" however, there is no rule that says they must act. I for one, don't want him impeached. Pence is worse than Trump and many see Pence as Trump's "insurance policy" against impeachment since no one wants Pence in charge of anything.. ever.

Pelosi doesn't want Trump impeached because she is viewing this strategically, not because he hasn't done anything to be impeached, it is she knows it is better for him not to be impeached for the upcoming elections and due to the amount of damage Pence would inflict. There is a difference between not having grounds and not wanting to do so. The current situation is it is better not to impeach than to impeach and they should only consider it if Trump tries to nuke someone or does something that will not be able to be undone later. It is not a matter of having nothing concrete, but instead it is better not to do so due to the circumstances.

.
I accept your reasoning, within your world-view and what you believe, it does sound very compelling. However when thinking of impeachment I'm more comfortable with looking at Nixon's and Watergate. I do believe the US authorities did a good job of checking the allegations over Trump. This is why the mainstream has moved away from this line of attack against the white-house, because the facts make them look silly.

The report will be released, only after it is checked for security issues and redacted accordingly. I think both parties support it wholeheartedly (on congress votes, I think).I do think its disengenious to claim you know better than the FBI that Trump did commit a crime...

A small clarification - Clinton was charged with lying under oath? No? I'm not certain.
.

Kwak:

Oh fuck off. It was the fucking intelligence agencies that alerted the world to that you fucking idiot.

.
Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Nixon wasn't impeached, Bill was. Nixon resigned before impeachment was possible.
What media are you talking about, here in the US, the media is still saying there is much investigating to be done and stating he was not exonerated. Only Right wing media is suggesting anything different.

I am not sure what you have been reading/ watching here but the facts are what I stated above, in that it has already been proven, and admitted to that Trump's campaign was colluding with Russia for dirt on Clinton, That Trump jr and Roger Stone were in direct contact with Wikileaks, that Manafort was on Russia's payroll, that Michael Flynn was a foreign agent. None of that is even being debated at this point. What is being debated is whether or not they can charge him or his campaign with crimes for doing so. Trump got rid of Sessions, Comey, and McCabe for not doing his bidding on the investigation. Due to Trump's continuous interference with the Department of Justice and the FBI, I do not think they will be able to do a thorough investigation until he is out of office and no longer able to influence it.

Keep in mind they very well may bring charges once he is out of office regardless.

.
I don't think the reason why Trump isn't being charged with crimes and impeached is because he is still in office. I think they don't have anything substantial against him at this point, and they may never will have anything.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here