You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
The trump supporters do not care what he did to get elected. That’s all this boils down to...
Wait a minute. DIdn't you vote for Clinton even though she rigged the nomination for herself? Somehow you've just accused the other side of - well - being you.
Re: US Politics Thread
“You don’t need to have been convicted of a crime. Impeachment isn’t about punishment. It’s about cleansing the office.”
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 14, 2018
- @LindseyGrahamSC
Sen. Graham himself established a standard that demands Trump’s impeachment. pic.twitter.com/s4937hsKaB
Re: US Politics Thread
So. Much.Winning Mitch!!
Mueller: Obstruction by Trump failed because others refused to "carry out orders"
In the report, special counsel Robert Mueller outlined why obstruction by President Trump failed. It failed because others refused to "carry out orders."
"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests," the report said.
So...he didn't break the law?
In all your celebrating, it seems even though he tried really hard to be Trump, he did nothing that they can do a damn thing about. 2 plus years wasted. Millions of dollars and time wasted. Absolutely nothing of any significance accomplished. That's great. Well done!
I don't think anyone is winning, but that's been the point the whole time, hasn't it? It's all just a fucking game that people get sucked into while the political machine and media celebrate how dumb most Americans are. All kinds of winning going on here...
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:So. Much.Winning Mitch!!
Mueller: Obstruction by Trump failed because others refused to "carry out orders"
In the report, special counsel Robert Mueller outlined why obstruction by President Trump failed. It failed because others refused to "carry out orders."
"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests," the report said.
So...he didn't break the law?
In all your celebrating, it seems even though he tried really hard to be Trump, he did nothing that they can do a damn thing about. 2 plus years wasted. Millions of dollars and time wasted. Absolutely nothing of any significance accomplished. That's great. Well done!
Yeah, no crime was committed lol. Only The President of the USA ASKED people to commit a crime, and they told him 'No'. So, yeah, no crimes were commited.
Remember the time Barack Obama asked David Axelrod to rob a bank and Axelrod told him 'No'? Well, neither do I, but if it DID happen, no crimes would have been commited.
Re: US Politics Thread
After Trump publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails at a July 2016 press conference, he privately and repeatedly “asked individuals affiliated with his campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails,” the report says.
The public request was also followed within five hours by Russian intelligence's first effort to infiltrate Clinton’s emails, the special counsel said.
They sent 15 email accounts connected to Clinton's campaign malicious links, Mueller said. This was only a small part of the broad effort the Russians made to hack the Democratic Party for damaging information and election officials.
One of the campaign people Trump asked was Michael Flynn, who later told investigators that Trump repeatedly made the request, according to the report. Flynn then tried to get Clinton’s emails and reached out to “multiple” associates — including GOP operative Peter Smith, whose efforts have been detailed in press accounts.
Why this matters: This confirms for the first time that a senior Trump campaign adviser was involved in Smith’s pursuit to find Clinton’s emails. Smith killed himself in May 2017 and left a note saying there was “no foul play.”
This seems to contradict what an unnamed Trump campaign official told The Wall Street Journal in June 2017, that if Mr. Flynn coordinated with Smith, it was only in Flynn’s capacity as a private individual.
During Smith’s shadowy pursuit of the emails, he told associates that he was working with Russian hackers. But the investigation concluded that Smith was never actually in contact with any Russians.
In emails to associates while trying to find the emails, Smith claimed he was working “in coordination” with the Trump campaign and name-dropped Flynn, Sam Clovis, Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway. The Mueller investigation established that Smith communicated with “at least” Flynn and Clovis but did not find any evidence suggesting that Smith was in contact with the other Trump campaign officials.
Mueller’s office interviewed multiple people about Smith’s efforts, according to footnotes in the report, and Flynn provided a lot of information about his role and Trump’s interest in the emails. Flynn was a marquee cooperator in the investigation and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017.
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:So. Much.Winning Mitch!!
Mueller: Obstruction by Trump failed because others refused to "carry out orders"
In the report, special counsel Robert Mueller outlined why obstruction by President Trump failed. It failed because others refused to "carry out orders."
"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests," the report said.
So...he didn't break the law?
Legal experts are already disputing this as a threshold. A "crime" doesn't need to be committed in order to meet Obstruction. Even just mucking around can warrant it.
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:Like I said, not a fucking clue. What is he indicted for? It ain’t Wikileaks. You peddled your conspiracy bullshit for 2 years and consistently get basic facts wrong (like this one).
He’s not on trial for “working with Wikileaks”. The indictment clearly makes the case he’s in trouble for lying about his involvement (process crimes). You don’t have a clue, you’re entering Jason and Mitch territory, and even when Mueller, Rosenstein and Barr tell you you’re wrong, you don’t give up. But call me a moron. I’m not the one who clearly can’t read and refuses to acknowledge they were part of a conspiracy and smear far worse than birtherism.
Read the fucking indictment and connect it back to your claim.
It’s in plain language on page 10. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Are you fucking stupid dude? I barely research this stuff & prove you wrong.
Organization 1 is widely believed to be WikiLeaks, which published a huge trove of stolen communications related to the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election.
Are you daft. Talking to Wikileaks isn’t a crime. He’s not indicted for talking to Wikileaks. You clearly can’t read. They explain the charges, talking to Wikileaks isn’t one of them. Call me all the names you want, but you clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. What crimes is Stone accused of?
You don’t even know. You’ve embarrassed yourself for the past 2 years talking about collusion and jail time and are losing your mind because your fantasy was just shattered.
I genuinely feel sorry for you if you think you’re informed on this and are stating factual information. It’s sad your this off the rails.
It’s in your own fucking article. Bullet #2. Nothing about Wikileaks. C’mon dude. Don’t fucking insult me because you refuse to acknowledge your claims are total fabrications.
He's walking a real thin line with this line of thinking. It's like...when those 3 stooges physically broke in to the DNC to steal things that was a bad and illegal thing. But it is okay to speak to a third party about your desire to obtain electronic documents through hacking, that third party obtaining those documents (or attempting to) and releasing them to whoever wanted them.
This is such a convoluted argument. I don't claim to be a legal expert like RF claims...I don't quite understand what constitutes a violation of the law or what meets which vague legal standards. But this thing is drenched with sleaze...and how anyone could be happy about it is beyond me.
I have no reason to believe RF's take on anything anymore. He's so self-important and he's really not engaging honestly with the topic at hand. He's getting lost in semantics and periphery shit. He wants to make this into some twisted legal argument. He's got no credentials to be doing that...and as usual he always sides with Trump. He's got less credibility than anyone here. At best, he's regurgitating shit he heard on FOX news by someone who is qualified to have these opinions. At worst, he's twisting words and misquoting his chosen experts bc he doesn't understand what's going on. He doesn't understand this any better or any worse than the rest of us.
