Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
There are no bare, uninterpreted facts...whether we hate POTUS or love him.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think that the overarching reason that Trump won is that Hillary was an absolute **** candidate. The old line "if it ain't close, they can't cheat" comes to mind. It shouldn't have been close. While it's difficult to win a "third term" election, it's not unprecedented. Poppy Bush did it, Al Gore very nearly did. The candidate was bad, her campaign staff was worse, and the national organization was a mess.
Of course, that last item was affected by their dirty laundry being publicly aired by Russian hackers, so...I dunno.
As for your question about purported/supposed Russian collusion, I'm not sure why you are so sanguine. There may not have been collusion or coordination, but you seem to be glossing over the fact that there was interference. If the DNC/Podesta emails weren't considered a significant game-changer, why was Trump crowing about them from the podium at rallies? I can't say definitively that there was any one thing that made the difference, but if Russian interference changed any minds in a few key places that swung the election, or if the internecine lefty war that they stoked disillusioned enough people...who knows? I'm not definitively prepared to say that it did, but I don't think you can really say with full confidence that it didn't.
What if the shoe were on the other foot somehow? If Flynn's foreign entanglements had come to light and Manafort had been indicted, or DJTJ's Wikileaks contacts had been known, or, hell, if some foreign actor had hacked and disseminated some inside info and Trump had won the popular vote but lost the EC...would we be having a different version of this conversation?
I don't have a lot of sympathy for HRC and her bitter-enders because I think that a less-encumbered candidate and a better campaign would have made the question moot. But I do wonder if the roles had been reversed if we'd be reading a lot about how the Deep State conspired with X to steal an election.
sturg33
I
Wait didn't you at one time post a meme explaining the "Fact" that the only reason Trump is President is bc Putin wanted him to be?
And y'all wonder where the term "fake news" comes from
What is the nature of the lie? What did it accomplish? Many of us feel the fbi has been less than neutral lately.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Flynn has already pleaded (note that a lawyer is taught to use pleaded not pled) guilty that he lied when he said sanctions were not discussed with Kislyak. Now let's venture into a hypothetical scenario. And please note, it is hypothetical. In this scenario, Flynn testifies that he lied to the FBI about this on Trump's instructions. Secondly, one or more other members of the transition and White House teams testify that this is in fact what happened. Would this be obstruction of an FBI investigation? Would it be grounds for impeachment?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Btw I agree with Alan Dershowitz who has been somewhat a defender of Trump on obstruction issues. He makes an important distinction.
“You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate,” Dershowitz said on Monday’s Fox & Friends. “That’s what Thomas Jefferson did, that’s what Lincoln did, that’s what Roosevelt did. We have precedents that clearly establish that.”
However he also makes this point:
"Let me be clear: a president can be charged with obstruction if he commits criminal acts beyond his constitutionally authorized acts. Nixon told aides to lie to FBI, pay hush money and destroy evidence."
“You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate,” Dershowitz said on Monday’s Fox & Friends. “That’s what Thomas Jefferson did, that’s what Lincoln did, that’s what Roosevelt did. We have precedents that clearly establish that.”
However he also makes this point:
"Let me be clear: a president can be charged with obstruction if he commits criminal acts beyond his constitutionally authorized acts. Nixon told aides to lie to FBI, pay hush money and destroy evidence."
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I'm confused. Is the politico article an example of fake news?
Btw what is your response to the hypothetical I sketched out in post #1508?
No, the initial report that Flynn sent that text message was fake news. This article debunks that 'fact'.
In regards to your question I answered. I'd need to know the nature of the lie and why the lie was told. I question the motives of the fbi and former Obama DOJ
Call me a crazy trumpy but recent events have given me good reason to be skeptical.
In regards to your question I answered. I'd need to know the nature of the lie and why the lie was told. I question the motives of the fbi and former Obama DOJ
Call me a crazy trumpy but recent events have given me good reason to be skeptical.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I still don't get what is fake news here.
Congressman Cummings released a letter detailing some charges by a whistle blower. I don't think reporting the contents of Congressman Cummings letter could be called fake or inaccurate or misleading news.
According to the Politico article, the letter from the business associate that provides contrary evidence to the whistle blower's claim was released today. And it is being reported on today.
Am I missing something here. What is the fake news?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
If I did it would make your day.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Let me add specificity to see if I can tease a straight answer out of you. Again this is hypothetical. Flynn testifies Trump directed him to lie to the FBI regarding whether he discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Two additional Trump staffers--lets say Miller and McGahn--also testify under oath that Trump did this. Would that constitute obstruction? Would it be an impeachable offense in your eyes?
By definition it's obstruction I agree with that. Warranting impeachment in my eyes is a more complicated matter.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Yeah. Impeachment is definitely a more complicated and weighty step. I suspect public opinion would carry a fair amount of weight.
http://amp.dailycaller.com/2017/12/11/former-cia-director-regrets-how-intel-agencies-treated-trump/
“So, let’s put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes. So, what does he see? Right? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden, who I have the greatest respect for, criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he could rightfully have said, ‘Huh, what’s going on with these intelligence guys?’ Right?”
And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent,” Morell continued. “And then he gets his first intelligence briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security advisor, Mike Flynn.”
“And so, this stuff starts to build, right? And he must have said to himself, ‘What is it with these intelligence guys? Are they political?’ The current director at the time, John Brennan, during the campaign occasionally would push back on things that Donald Trump had said,” Morell told Politico.
“So, let’s put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes. So, what does he see? Right? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden, who I have the greatest respect for, criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he could rightfully have said, ‘Huh, what’s going on with these intelligence guys?’ Right?”
And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent,” Morell continued. “And then he gets his first intelligence briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security advisor, Mike Flynn.”
“And so, this stuff starts to build, right? And he must have said to himself, ‘What is it with these intelligence guys? Are they political?’ The current director at the time, John Brennan, during the campaign occasionally would push back on things that Donald Trump had said,” Morell told Politico.
“Then he becomes president, and he’s supposed to be getting a daily brief from the moment he becomes the president-elect. Right? And he doesn’t. And within a few days, there’s leaks about how he’s not taking his briefing. So, he must have thought—right?—that, ‘Who are these guys? Are these guys out to get me? Is this a political organization? Can I think about them as a political organization when I become president?'”
Lol
Lol