Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

notobtuse

Midlife wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

Are you talking about the Mueller investigation?  If so it should never have started as it was begun based on a salacious and unverified FISA application, IMO (which I described earlier and provided what should be considered ample "evidence").  And it has been -- what… two years now and nothing to connect Trump with any Russian collusion.  If it continues then we can only demise, IMO, it is nothing more than a continued witch hunt.

You seem to not understand the purpose of the special council. I suggest you look it up.

In the two years, the special council has achieved a lot with regards to the tasks it was charged with.

I think I understand it pretty well.  And I think some could successfully argue Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional under Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion in Morrison versus Olson, as welll. And if so it would render everything he has done since being put in charge unconstitutional as well. And if justice remains blind, IMO, it would at least serve as a basis for Trump giving a mass pardon to everyone involved in the witch hunt.  But I digress... Even the judge in the Manafort case is questioning the scope of Muellers reach as it pertains to his original mandate. “It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unfettered power to do whatever he wants”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/u-s-judge-questions-special-counsels-powers-in-manafort-case-idUSKBN1I51WE

Leroy42

So your theory is that the GOP controlled congress and senate, and the AG who was appointed by Trump, and the Assist AG appointed by the AG, have set up an unconstitutional special investigation.

And that no one picked up on that at the time.
And no one has sought to bring it to a halt on that basis since.

Of course if this is known, it must be if you are aware of it, the one must suspect that the GOP have taken the view that it is better politics to let Mueller continue on with the investigation, dragging more and more people into it, just so they can shut him down at the end, after nearly everything has come to light, rather than shut it down now in line with the constitution?

That's your position?

And you think Trump is playing along with this because?

jooksavage

Laying into the Kochs probably isn't the best idea for Trump. The Koch Network was reported to be intending to spend up to $400M on R nominees in the mid-terms. If it doesn't pan out (and the polls aren't looking too healthy), Trump will see out his term being harried day and night by a Dem majority in congress. If the Koch's investment does pay off, there will be dozens of R congressmen in the Koch pocket and they might be less than fulsome in their support for Trump compared to the more pliant vice-president. Trump would be best advised to fight one front at a time.

notobtuse

Leroy42 wrote: »

So your theory is that the GOP controlled congress and senate, and the AG who was appointed by Trump, and the Assist AG appointed by the AG, have set up an unconstitutional special investigation.

And that no one picked up on that at the time.
And no one has sought to bring it to a halt on that basis since.

Of course if this is known, it must be if you are aware of it, the one must suspect that the GOP have taken the view that it is better politics to let Mueller continue on with the investigation, dragging more and more people into it, just so they can shut him down at the end, after nearly everything has come to light, rather than shut it down now in line with the constitution?

That's your position?

And you think Trump is playing along with this because?

I think Trump is playing along with it because his advisors are telling him to as the political optics would be bad if he fired the lot of them.  But I also think Manafort is going to use the unconstitutionality angle as part of his defense.  

An opinion on the matter by a co-author of “The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush” and the Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law:

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/388886-the-mess-rod-rosenstein-made

everlast75

notobtuse wrote: »

I think I understand it pretty well.  And I think some could successfully argue Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional under Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion in Morrison versus Olson, as welll. And if so it would render everything he has done since being put in charge unconstitutional as well. And if justice remains blind, IMO, it would at least serve as a basis for Trump giving a mass pardon to everyone involved in the witch hunt.  But I digress... Even the judge in the Manafort case is questioning the scope of Muellers reach as it pertains to his original mandate. “It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unfettered power to do whatever he wants”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/u-s-judge-questions-special-counsels-powers-in-manafort-case-idUSKBN1I51WE

Ah okay.

Great.

So that Judge said those words. And you agree with them I take it? Trump certainly did, as he mentioned that Judge at the rally on the day that statement was made by the Judge? In fact, he called him a "great Judge", a very wise Judge.

Got it.

So having established how wise that Judge was, do you still think that Judge is great when weeks later he dismissed Manafort's motion and directed that the case proceed? Because I didn't hear a peep out of oul Donny the day he made that ruling.

notobtuse

everlast75 wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I think I understand it pretty well.  And I think some could successfully argue Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional under Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion in Morrison versus Olson, as welll. And if so it would render everything he has done since being put in charge unconstitutional as well. And if justice remains blind, IMO, it would at least serve as a basis for Trump giving a mass pardon to everyone involved in the witch hunt.  But I digress... Even the judge in the Manafort case is questioning the scope of Muellers reach as it pertains to his original mandate. “It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unfettered power to do whatever he wants”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/u-s-judge-questions-special-counsels-powers-in-manafort-case-idUSKBN1I51WE

Ah okay.

Great.

So that Judge said those words. And you agree with them I take it? Trump certainly did, as he mentioned that Judge at the rally on the day that statement was made by the Judge? In fact, he called him a "great Judge", a very wise Judge.

Got it.

So having established how wise that Judge was, do you still think that Judge is great when weeks later he dismissed Manafort's motion and directed that the case proceed? Because I didn't hear a peep out of oul Donny the day he made that ruling.

I think the judge believes the constitutionality of  Muller's appointment or the scope of his charge should have been brought about in court before the Manafort hearing.  I find it interesting that judge Ellis issued a series of guidelines for topics that would be off limits during the Manafort trial.  It included an order that the prosecution not use the term "collusion" or mention "Russians" during the trial.  Prosecutors are even telling witnesses not to use the word “Trump.”  Odd... isn’t this what the whole thing was originally supposed to be about?

everlast75

notobtuse wrote: »

I think the judge believes the constitutionality of  Muller's appointment or the scope of his charge should have been brought about in court before the Manafort hearing.  I find it interesting that judge Ellis issued a series of guidelines for topics that would be off limits during the Manafort trial.  It included an order that the prosecution not use the term "collusion" or mention "Russians" during the trial.  Prosecutors are even telling witnesses not to use the word “Trump.”  Odd... isn’t this what the whole thing was originally supposed to be about?

then what's your problem?

Manafort was investigated and by the looks of it, it is an open and shut case. He is being prosecuted for Tax Fraud and Donny isn't being mentioned.

What is it then to you or Donny that Manafort is being tried? Do you think he shouldn't be tried for Tax Fraud?

Cheerful Spring

Quin_Dub wrote: »

You mean like the deal that was already there that Trump unilaterally tore up just because it was associated with Obama??




It was Bush that cancelled the efforts with Korea to return remains in 2005 - In the previous 15 years they had recovered over 600 bodies. Although NK were taking the pi$$ at times by including dog bones among the remains..

While I agree it was stupid to pull out of the Iranian deal, it doesn't allow access to military sites that might have clandestine programs. Iran could be working on nuclear weapons in secret, but speculation is not evidence. Inspecting the secret sites would make sense if you trying to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Bush and NK relationship soured after 9/11 when he named them as an Axis of Evil country. What the US media fails to talk about is the US did not follow through with its pledges to North Korea and eventually they pulled out of the agreement.

Christy42

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Quin_Dub wrote: »

You mean like the deal that was already there that Trump unilaterally tore up just because it was associated with Obama??




It was Bush that cancelled the efforts with Korea to return remains in 2005 - In the previous 15 years they had recovered over 600 bodies. Although NK were taking the pi$ at times by including dog bones among the remains..

While I agree it was stupid to pull out of the Iranian deal, it doesn't allow access to military sites that might have clandestine programs. Iran could be working on nuclear weapons in secret, but speculation is not evidence. Inspecting the secret sites would make sense if you trying to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Bush and NK relationship soured after 9/11 when he named them as an Axis of Evil country. What the US media fails to talk about is the US did not follow through with its pledges to North Korea and eventually they pulled out of the agreement.

So should we send inspectors into North Korea?

I mean you seem to hold that Iran could have been working on nuclear weapons in secret (based on nothing) but North Korea couldn't be?

Cheerful Spring

Christy42 wrote: »

So should we send inspectors into North Korea?

I mean you seem to hold that Iran could have been working on nuclear weapons in secret (based on nothing) but North Korea couldn't be?

North Korea already tested nuclear weapons we know they have them so it's not a secret.

notobtuse

everlast75 wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I think the judge believes the constitutionality of  Muller's appointment or the scope of his charge should have been brought about in court before the Manafort hearing.  I find it interesting that judge Ellis issued a series of guidelines for topics that would be off limits during the Manafort trial.  It included an order that the prosecution not use the term "collusion" or mention "Russians" during the trial.  Prosecutors are even telling witnesses not to use the word “Trump.”  Odd... isn’t this what the whole thing was originally supposed to be about?

then what's your problem?

Manafort was investigated and by the looks of it, it is an open and shut case. He is being prosecuted for Tax Fraud and Donny isn't being mentioned.

What is it then to you or Donny that Manafort is being tried? Do you think he shouldn't be tried for Tax Fraud?

Should we be investigating every possible crime the Clinton's have ever committed?  Wouldn't that also fall under Mueller's mandate as people contend?  They had many dealings with Russians, including an odd $500,000 payment for a speech.  Let's start there and go.... wherever?  If Mueller went after anything the Clinton's ever did would then prove this was not a witch hunt against Trump, IMO.  But I don't think it will happen because it sure does seem to be a witch hunt against anyone associated with Trump and a way to get Trump impeached.  What I hate about the whole thing is this witch hunt IMO seems to be telling people that if they are associated with Trump they will be investigated for everything they ever did.  That is wrong, IMO.  

I heard this morning on a news talk show that Manafort was already investigated for tax fraud years ago and cleared, and he might actually call Rod Rosenstein as his first witness (as he was involved)... but I can't confirm this in any printed news article, yet.  But if he did call Rosenstein to the witness stand things would sure get interesting.

Christy42

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

So should we send inspectors into North Korea?

I mean you seem to hold that Iran could have been working on nuclear weapons in secret (based on nothing) but North Korea couldn't be?

North Korea already tested nuclear weapons we know they have them so it's not a secret.

... To check if those sites are absolutely demolished and what they are doing right now given I saw someone claim they might be taking it apart. So they can check that.

Ridiculous to assume Iran might not be following an agreement but assume North Korea is (when the second does not even have a proper agreement surrounding it).

Cheerful Spring

amandstu wrote: »

What is the diff between "intelligence services" and "deep state intelligence services"?

Of course intelligence data is subject to interpretation...

Should interpretations be self censored in case they make the dear leader look bad ?

Since people don't really understand what that means. They are people who still influence policy long after the left their own job and presidents have gone and replaced. They still have influence in the inner circle and someone like Trump would upset these people, not all, but people like Clapper and Brennan are these kinds of people. They could also be business people who influence politicians.

According to whistleblower Edward Snowden, "the deep state is not just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don't leave when presidents do, who watch presidents come and go...they influence policy, they influence presidents."[15]

mcmoustache

The Clintons have been investigated more than any other political family in modern history. If Jeff Sessions wants to appoint a special counsel to investigate her, that's up to him. Perhaps Trump should ask him nicely.

Meanwhile, on Planet Reality, Mueller was appointed after Trump fired the FBI director for the Russia thing.

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as
follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel.

Guess who's campaign Paul Manafort worked on?

amandstu

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Since people don't really understand what that means. They are people who still influence policy long after the left their own job and presidents have gone and replaced. They still have influence in the inner circle and someone like Trump would upset these people, not all, but people like Clapper and Brennan are these kinds of people. They could also be business people who influence politicians.

According to whistleblower Edward Snowden, "the deep state is not just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don't leave when presidents do, who watch presidents come and go...they influence policy, they influence presidents."[15]

I see .That is a bad thing is it?

On this occasion you are saying that people outside the serving Intelligence Services are presenting their interpretation of information concerning N Korean activity in a way that goes against that of the serving intelligence community?


Or that they are being used to leak their interpretation?

If it is the former ,wouldn't they be taken down a peg or two by "working agents"?

From the BBC article the source was "unnamed US officials". Clapper et al are not "officials" are they?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45015343

Midlife

notobtuse wrote: »

I think I understand it pretty well.

Not going by your earlier comment.

notobtuse wrote: »

And it has been -- what… two years now and nothing to connect Trump with any Russian collusion. If it continues then we can only demise, IMO, it is nothing more than a continued witch hunt.

Russina interference - check

Collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia - check

I mean what is it you think it was set up to do?

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

The Clintons have been investigated more than any other political family in modern history. If Jeff Sessions wants to appoint a special counsel to investigate her, that's up to him. Perhaps Trump should ask him nicely.

Meanwhile, on Planet Reality, Mueller was appointed after Trump fired the FBI director for the Russia thing.

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as
follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel.

Guess who's campaign Paul Manafort worked on?

I believe every investigation into the Clinton’s after Bill left office, and they were dead broke, where sham investigations, with the thinking by government officials that the Clinton’s wouldn’t be prosecuted unless they were caught telling a bold face lie (which Hillary actually did in the email investigation, but which was ignored by investigators, IMO).  Regardless, wouldn’t you agree those lines you bolded would allow Mueller to go after the Clintons if he were really interesting in Russian interference in the election?  Regardless, I think those lines you bolded will be challenged as Rosenstein giving Mueller the additional authority to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from" that investigation exceeds the scope of Rosenstein's authority to appoint special counsel as well as specific restrictions on the scope of such appointments.  And why would we need another special council or investigation?  Wouldn’t what you bolded give, and indicate that Mueller has the authority and duty to go after the Clinton's in his investigation?

Cheerful Spring

amandstu wrote: »

I see .That is a bad thing is it?

On this occasion you are saying that people outside the serving Intelligence Services are presenting their interpretation of information concerning N Korean activity in a way that goes against that of the serving intelligence community?

Yes, I believe that I think they are trying to undermine Trump and everything he does now. You even see with the latest leak from the Washington Post. More anonymous officials reporting to them NK making new missiles. Trump wins another term this probably dies down a bit because he gets another 4 years to carry out his policy. The Democrats are all in to win the next election if they lose they will retreat back to their box.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Regardless, wouldn’t you agree those lines you bolded would allow Mueller to go after the Clintons if he were really interesting in Russian interference in the election? And why would we need another special council or investigation?  Wouldn’t what you bolded give, and indicate that Mueller has the authority and duty to go after the Clinton's in his investigation?

If it turns out that the Russians were conspiring with Hillary Clinton to interfere in the 2016 election in order to support Trump, then sure, go after her and Lock Her Up or whatever. However, such a possibility is beyond stupid.

amandstu

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, I believe that I think they are trying to undermine Trump and everything he does now. You even see with the latest leak from the Washington Post. More anonymous officials reporting to them NK making new missiles. Trump wins another term this probably dies down a bit because he gets another 4 years to carry out his policy. The Democrats are all in to win the next election if they lose they will retreat back to their box.

It is a bad thing to undermine Trump or a bad thing to have a broad community of present and past intelligence officers?

The credibility of these reports is lessened by the fact that they show the dear President in a bad light?

Perhaps the intelligence community could get in a table around the President and say what a great leader he is and there could be a coalition of loyalty to Trump so that all would be well in the boardroom.

B0jangles

notobtuse wrote: »

I believe every investigation into the Clinton’s after Bill left office, and they were dead broke, where sham investigations, with the thinking by government officials that the Clinton’s wouldn’t be prosecuted unless they were caught telling a bold face lie (which Hillary actually did in the email investigation, but which was ignored by investigators, IMO). Regardless, wouldn’t you agree those lines you bolded would allow Mueller to go after the Clintons if he were really interesting in Russian interference in the election? Regardless, I think those lines you bolded will be challenged as Rosenstein giving Mueller the additional authority to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from" that investigation exceeds the scope of Rosenstein's authority to appoint special counsel as well as specific restrictions on the scope of such appointments. And why would we need another special council or investigation? Wouldn’t what you bolded give, and indicate that Mueller has the authority and duty to go after the Clinton's in his investigation?

Again, if the Clintons are so all-powerful and untouchable HOW DID TRUMP WIN?


Your 'logic' requires them to be powerful enough to literally order a republican-controlled government to fake investigations into them, but not powerful enough to beat a reality tv show host in a presidential election. Your logic is frankly, bananas.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

Regardless, wouldn’t you agree those lines you bolded would allow Mueller to go after the Clintons if he were really interesting in Russian interference in the election? And why would we need another special council or investigation?  Wouldn’t what you bolded give, and indicate that Mueller has the authority and duty to go after the Clinton's in his investigation?

If it turns out that the Russians were conspiring with Hillary Clinton to interfere in the 2016 election in order to support Trump, then sure, go after her and Lock Her Up or whatever. However, such a possibility is beyond stupid.

The salacious and unverified anti-Trump dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump. And remember, it has been reported that much of the information in the report came from Russian operatives.  Russians paid Bill Clitnon $500,000 for a speech and funneled millions into the Clinton Foundation before the election.  Then there’s the Uranium One deal when Hillary was SOS and working behind the scenes to run for POTUS.

Not so beyond stupid, IMO, but rather... legitimate concerns that should be investigated

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/13/the-media-is-ignoring-ties-between-the-clinton-campaign-and-russians/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a544310146a

ancapailldorcha

B0jangles wrote: »

Again, if the Clintons are so all-powerful and untouchable HOW DID TRUMP WIN?


Your 'logic' requires them to be powerful enough to literally order a republican-controlled government to fake investigations into them, but not powerful enough to beat a reality tv show host in a presidential election. Your logic is frankly, bananas.

In the US, it is preferable to be popular amongst spread out, rural voters than clustered, urban voters. The electoral college system affords more importance to voters in sparsely populated states than to those with higher populations. The result is that while Trump lost the popular vote, he won enough votes in states with fewer people that he more than made up for this in the electoral college.

notobtuse

B0jangles wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I believe every investigation into the Clinton’s after Bill left office, and they were dead broke, where sham investigations, with the thinking by government officials that the Clinton’s wouldn’t be prosecuted unless they were caught telling a bold face lie (which Hillary actually did in the email investigation, but which was ignored by investigators, IMO).  Regardless, wouldn’t you agree those lines you bolded would allow Mueller to go after the Clintons if he were really interesting in Russian interference in the election?  Regardless, I think those lines you bolded will be challenged as Rosenstein giving Mueller the additional authority to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from" that investigation exceeds the scope of Rosenstein's authority to appoint special counsel as well as specific restrictions on the scope of such appointments.  And why would we need another special council or investigation?  Wouldn’t what you bolded give, and indicate that Mueller has the authority and duty to go after the Clinton's in his investigation?

Again, if the Clintons are so all-powerful and untouchable HOW DID TRUMP WIN?


Your 'logic' requires them to be powerful enough to literally order a republican-controlled government to fake investigations into them, but not powerful enough to beat a reality tv show host in a presidential election. Your logic is frankly, bananas.

How did Trump win?  I think that question will be debated by historians for hundreds of years.  And I think the count is up to 43 for the number of reasons Hillary claims why she lost the election.

notobtuse

I keep hearing Trumo ‘lost’ the popular vote.  This is incorrect, IMO, as Trump and Clinton did not campaign after the popular vote because it is not the method used to get one elected.  If the presidency was determined by popular vote who knows what would have happened as the candidates would have campaigned differently.  Trump merely did not get as many total votes as Clinton… and it means absolutely nothing, IMO.

B0jangles

notobtuse wrote: »

How did Trump win? I think that question will be debated by historians for hundreds of years. And I think the count is up to 43 for the number of reasons Hillary claims why she lost the election.

I'm not looking for Hilary's explanation, I want to hear how you reconcile your belief that the Clintons wield incredible, unprecedented power in the US, with the fact that they could not engineer winning the presidency.

The two things cannot both be true - if they are as powerful as you believe, Trump couldn't have won.

If the Clintons are powerful enough to force a republican congress and senate to set up fake investigations, they are surely powerful enough to rig an election.

edit: aaand we're back to the popular vote vs. the electoral college, which is presuming a largely honest vote. If the Clintons are as powerful as you believe why didn't they rig the vote to have Hillary win?

notobtuse

B0jangles wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

How did Trump win?  I think that question will be debated by historians for hundreds of years.  And I think the count is up to 43 for the number of reasons Hillary claims why she lost the election.

I'm not looking for Hilary's explanation, I want to hear how you reconcile your belief that the Clintons wield incredible, unprecedented power in the US, with the fact that they could not engineer winning the presidency.


The two things cannot both be true - if they are as powerful as you believe, Trump couldn't have won.



If the Clintons are powerful enough to force a republican congress and senate to set up fake investigations, they are surely powerful enough to rig an election.

IMO Hillary lost the election because she miscalculated that several states were in her corner -- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.  She didn't campaign and spend much money in those states which caused them to go into Trumps column.  Had she campaigned harder in them we would be saying Madam President, IMO.  I'm from Pennsylvania and other than Philadelphia and Pittsburgh you feel the energy from people for Trump right before the election.  There were never so many people voting in my district as I saw for the 2016 election... and there was a lot of Trump energy from people at the voting booths.

Midlife

notobtuse wrote: »

The salacious and unverified anti-Trump dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump. And remember, it has been reported that much of the information in the report came from Russian operatives.  Russians paid Bill Clitnon $500,000 for a speech and funneled millions into the Clinton Foundation before the election.  Then there’s the Uranium One deal when Hillary was SOS and working behind the scenes to run for POTUS.

Not so beyond stupid, IMO, but rather... legitimate concerns that should be investigated

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/13/the-media-is-ignoring-ties-between-the-clinton-campaign-and-russians/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a544310146a

If there's any actual evidence, they should.

Unfortunately, your links lead to standard nonsense peddled by highly partisan voices.

I found out from one that Steele, had someone contact someone else. The first someone knows a Russian. Isn't that interesting, ho hum.

It's just more of the suspicious questions you need to float in order to pretend that there's something else going on apart from the blindingly obvious. Same as with the birther nonsense which I'm assuming you believe.

Your only evidence for it starts with 'why didn't...?' Unfortunately that's not evidence, just speculation.

Things like digital footprints and e-mail chains saying 'I love it' to Russian conspirators offering dirt on the opponent. That's evidence. That's what's being found by the special council and during all the investigations into Clinton, nothing was found, except things that weren't there.

You can't produce anything. And even if they are all as corrupt as the other, then shouldn't the democrats be in power on the basis of being less stupid?

B0jangles

notobtuse wrote: »

IMO Hillary lost the election because she miscalculated that several states were in her corner -- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. She didn't campaign and spend much money in those states which caused them to go into Trumps column. Had she campaigned harder in them we would be saying Madam President, IMO. I'm from Pennsylvania and other than Philadelphia and Pittsburgh you feel the energy from people for Trump right before the election. There were never so many people voting in my district as I saw for the 2016 election... and there was a lot of Trump energy from people at the voting booths.

But I thought the Clinton's were so powerful they could force a republican goverment to set up fake investigations into them?

Why would they bother running normal electoral campaigns if they could just rig the vote?

Either she ran a normal, but unsuccessful campaign because she's a normal politician, which means the failure of the investigations into her to convict her of any crimes is because she's not guilty.

Or

She's a supervillain who can dictate the terms of investigations into her many crimes but who for some reason chose not to use her powers to rig the election in her favour.

You can't have it both ways.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

The salacious and unverified anti-Trump dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump. And remember, it has been reported that much of the information in the report came from Russian operatives.  Russians paid Bill Clitnon $500,000 for a speech and funneled millions into the Clinton Foundation before the election.  Then there’s the Uranium One deal when Hillary was SOS and working behind the scenes to run for POTUS.

Not so beyond stupid, IMO, but rather... legitimate concerns that should be investigated

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/13/the-media-is-ignoring-ties-between-the-clinton-campaign-and-russians/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a544310146a

I can't read the blog you posted because I've exceeded my quota. Anyway, we need another thread for the Hillary stuff, it's getting a bit ridiculous at this stage. We also have a more suitable forum for the Uranium One stuff too. At this rate you'll be posting QAnon and Great Awakening nonsense by the end of the week.



Back to Donald Trump, the topic of this thread, I wonder why Giuliani has been so quiet today.

Yesterday he was telling us that collusion isn't a crime and this was repeated by Trump as well. I get that collusion isn't a crime in the same sense that killing humans for fun isn't a crime so I wonder if he'll continue with this line of defence. Whatever he decides, I do hope he continues to represent Trump in the media.