Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
The weird thing about having Mueller testify is how did the Democrats not know what a **** show that was going to be and how out of it Mueller is?
There has to be a bunch of neo-liberals in that party just helping them march towards their death because secretly they cant stand where they are at right now.
There has to be a bunch of neo-liberals in that party just helping them march towards their death because secretly they cant stand where they are at right now.
Red
Well-Known Member
This is exactly what I said Trump was doing, and exactly what I said would happen if Trump's choice for DNI simply tells Trump only what he wants to hear. Trump controls the Republican Party, the Department of Justice, and now the Intelligence community. Consolidating power, in a fashion that "can't happen here":
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-intelligence-pick-attempt-neutralise-163819425.html
What Trump is doing:
“Trump is consolidating his personal control over the intelligence community,” said Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former CIA intelligence officer. He said the current directors of the CIA and FBI have found their hands tied increasingly when it comes to accurate intelligence assessment, by risk of being fired for something at odds with Trump’s views.
“I fear that there is a slow takeover of the norms and procedures of governance by this president, amassing unprecedented executive power,” Mowatt-Larssen, now at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, added. “To do that he needs to neutralise or at least silence the intelligence community. He has been doing that for three years, but this takes it to the new level.”
And what will happen:
"If Ratcliffe is confirmed and sought to politicise intelligence work further, it could lead to a clash with the intelligence agency professionals, warned John Sipher, a veteran of the CIA’s national clandestine services.
“If he tries to spin intelligence in a different way that it is presented to him, his work force would rebel,” Sipher said, predicting there would be a spike in resignations and leaks. “He is going to get a lot of knives stuck in his back.”
How much do you think the Russians paid for 0 grams of uranium?
Red
Well-Known Member
Yeah, he gave away what he really believed, and of course regretted it. But so much evidence supporting all three conditions of an obstruction count would make Trump liable for prosecution if the government chose to go that way. But he would need to lose in 2020. With the expanding effort by Trump to consolidate control over the GOP, the Justice Dept., and now the Intelligence community, it would not surprise me if he did everything needed to make sure he does not lose in 2020. Hope I'm wrong, but I expect him to somehow find a way to make sure he does not lose in 2020.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
That's actually the point. He doesn't have prosecutorial authority over the president, hence why he had to walk the statement back.
Red
Well-Known Member
Mueller changed his answer out of the "fairness principle" he acted from, from day one of his investigation. So I can appreciate he wanted to change his answer. However, more then 1000 former federal prosecutors, after reading the 10 or 11 instances of possible obstructuon described by Mueller, signed a joint statement stating the evidence they saw in Mueller's report was sufficient, in their opinion, to bring obstruction of justice charges to any individual described as acting the way Mueller described in the obstruction evidence he included in part 2 of his report. Does not mean Trump would be found guilty. A person is innocent until proven guilty. But, 1000+ former federal prosecutors signing such a statement is enough for me to conclude such charges could be filed against Trump.
But, would that happen, if he loses in 2020? I don't know if it would be the best thing to do in the aftermath of what will likely be the wildest campaign season of our lifetime. Not sure if the country should go down that road or not.
But you're certainly not bursting any bubbles of mine, no idea why you even feel that way. Nor do I much care....
Last edited:
jazzrule
Well-Known Member
Where are all the comments on this video
Revealed: Mueller Didn’t Interview Russiagate Originator
How can Mueller and his team charge a former general with 33 years of service for getting one thing wrong in his interview, after telling him he did not need a lawyer. The 2 FBI agents that interviewed the general said in their report they thought he was being truthful.
But we don't charge the guy that started this mess and lied 3 times to the FBI? No comments from the liberal and never Trump gang on here! Pathetic just pathetic. And you accuse us conservative of putting out head in the sand.
Revealed: Mueller Didn’t Interview Russiagate Originator
How can Mueller and his team charge a former general with 33 years of service for getting one thing wrong in his interview, after telling him he did not need a lawyer. The 2 FBI agents that interviewed the general said in their report they thought he was being truthful.
But we don't charge the guy that started this mess and lied 3 times to the FBI? No comments from the liberal and never Trump gang on here! Pathetic just pathetic. And you accuse us conservative of putting out head in the sand.
Last edited:
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
If you notice they do that with all the facts. They ignore them like they dont exist. Refuse to discuss rationally or discuss even at all.
I mean why would they. It would destroy everything they have been arguing for.
They arent in this for truth. The TV and papers tell them what to think. If they deviate they arent part of the club anymore. Then they will be racist, in their view of themselves, because thats how there fouled up logic works. If the liberal news outlets refuse to speak in facts and fairly then they just follow the lead and assume that is an ok way to conduct themselves. Its actually quite frightening watching this all unfold. We literally cant agree on simple facts or things that are not even arguable. Quite literally we are dealing with Zombies.
I will give you the perfect example: They keep throwing around this idea that the president hasnt been exonerated. Even though it has been beat into the ground that it has no legal meaning. It means absolutely nothing. Yet they keep using it as the crux of there argument pretending that it hasnt been squashed as a stupid and baseless argument already. @Red just posted a commercial with it because he thinks it actually proves something. Its like dealing with children.
Papadopolous was charged.
1) Blame Trump, who first claim that the report exonerated him. The media would not need to point out this is a lie, if there were no lie to point out.
2) Mueller specifically said that if there were no reason to believe Trump obstructed justice, he would have said so.
3) Mueller also said that, based on the evidence in his report, Trump could be charged if he left the Presidency in 2021.
The media will stop talking about how Trump has not been exonerated when Trump and his supporters stop claiming he has been.
Red
Well-Known Member
I'm quite realistic about things, actually. Not for one second have I pinned any hope whatsoever in Trump being charged, should he lose in 2020. We should always put what's best for the country first, and I'm pretty sure doing that would not really help. I realize many would like nothing more, but we are going to have enough actual healing to get through.
So, in the immediate aftermath of a possible Trump loss in 2020, with his base having been ensnared by the Deep State Fantasy Narrative, I believe finding ways to defuse the civil war-like climate in this country should take first priority, and I don't think putting Trump on trial could possibly serve that purpose. Not that he would not deserve it, but I can't make that the standard.
The country has to come first. Trumpism is not ending when he leaves office. I do believe he and his media lackeys, state media, such as Fox, have helped create a climate of hate that we are going to have to find some way to defuse. Or we may continue to define our national character as the dark id Trump represents. History never guarantees "good" endings. We will be dealing with our most pressing problems long after Trump has left the stage.
Somebody's grandchildren are going to be asking their grandparents, some day, why did you not see what Trump represented? But that soul searching will be well down the line, I believe.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
I agree with needing the healing part. But it wont come if the left doesnt admit some blame. The media on the left has been very culpable in all this. Its not going to come by way of manipulation, lying , and shoving ideas down people's throats. Like the Sandman news or like this most recent news about Trump saying Baltimore is infested with rats. Where he quite literally meant real rats. Yet the media yet again lied and turned into a race issue. They are purposely trying to create all this drama in order to achieve their goal. Rather than being the bigger person and trying to get there the right way. People see right through it, and its only making things worse.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
It does NOT work like that. It doesnt work both ways.
Trump can claim innocence all he wants. He can claim he was exonerated. Because he in fact was by virtue of no charges.. Thats his right. The prosecutor has zero right to say he isnt exonerated but yet he isnt being charged. They can't hang a cloud of doubt over him if they couldn't find a crime to charge him with. Its political nonsense.
Furthermore. When you are being setup an framed by your political opponent who is in cahoots with the very people trying to take you down, its not called obstruction of justice. Its called fighting for real justice. From a moral stand point, it was not Trump's obligation to cooperate with that BS. You would feel the same way if it happened to you.
Focus
Focus
Focus.......
We know you guys are really really obsessed about HRC. The election has now been over for almost 3 years. You guys need to get over it and move on. Trump won. HRC lost. We are talking about Donnie boy,
Besides, essentially that "Trump is less corrupt than HRC" may not be your strongest argument. Like saying "well, he kills fewer people than Dahmer" or "steals less money than Jesse James"
I mean, this guy is your hero, why not compare him to Reagan? Or Eisenhower? Or Lincoln? You are saying he is not as bad as HRC. Really?