notobtuse wrote: » I was referring to the people involved with the Trump campaign.
notobtuse wrote: » Please tell me how many of the indictments Mueller has handed out so far involve the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
notobtuse wrote: » I was referring to the people involved with the Trump campaign. There is no doubt Russian tried influencing the election... But not like people think. IMO, it was not to elect Trump, but rather to weaken the likely winner... Clinton, going into office, whom Putin despised. Russia, like everyone else, believed Hillary would win the election. And I believe that 13 Russians deal by Mueller was only symbolic. How many think any of them will ever be prosecuted? Does Mueller even think any of them will ever be prosecuted?
Leroy42 wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » I was referring to the people involved with the Trump campaign. There is no doubt Russian tried influencing the election... But not like people think. IMO, it was not to elect Trump, but rather to weaken the likely winner... Clinton, going into office, whom Putin despised. Russia, like everyone else, believed Hillary would win the election. And I believe that 13 Russians deal by Mueller was only symbolic. How many think any of them will ever be prosecuted? Does Mueller even think any of them will ever be prosecuted? Fine, by we already know that Trump Jr tried to obtain information through the Russian government. From this you then must accept that the man that everyone knows runs everything himself completely lost control of his own campaign. We know that days after that meeting Trump suddenly started talking about HC missing 33k e-mails. It could be mere coincidence I guess, but We know that Roger Stone was in contact with Wikileaks and Guccifer. We know that Flynn, was in illegal contact with Russia immediately after the election. It has yet to be seen whether he simply turned into a Russiafile upon Trumps election. We know that Sessions had meetings with Russians, and lied under oath to congress about those meetings. We know Trump lied to try to cover up Trump Jr meeting with the Russians. Is that a slam dunk or prove that Trump was directly involved. No. Does it raise some serious questions that must be answered? Yes. People calling it a witch hunt despite all of the above (and their is much, much more) are doing democracy a disservice.
notobtuse wrote: » Campaigns always are looking for dirt on their opposition. Don Jr did nothing wrong taking that short meeting. Now if you want to talk about REAL Russian collusion, lets look at Hillary Clinton paying for a false Russian propaganda dossier used to illegally spy on the Trump administration in a scheme to derail Trump’s bid for the White House and later cripple his presidency, IMO. That may not fall under the term of treason, but it sure sounds like sedition to me. Where’s Mueller’s indictment of Clinton?
notobtuse wrote: » Campaigns always are looking for dirt on their opposition. Don Jr did nothing wrong taking that short meeting.
everlast75 wrote: » Trolling - level 10 unlocked (from the New Yorker magazine)WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Calling it a “regrettable accident,” Amazon apologized on Thursday for shipping ten thousand advance copies of James Comey’s book, “A Higher Loyalty,” to the White House. Cartons of the book arrived early Thursday morning and kept coming throughout the day, until stacks of the book clogged virtually every hallway and office in the building. Reportedly, Donald J. Trump was so incensed by the book situation that he screamed at Mike Pence while the Vice-President was in the middle of praising him, one source said. The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, called any speculation that Trump had ordered Comey’s book “absurd,” adding, “The President does not order reading material.”
Professor Moriarty wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » Campaigns always are looking for dirt on their opposition. Don Jr did nothing wrong taking that short meeting. Now if you want to talk about REAL Russian collusion, lets look at Hillary Clinton paying for a false Russian propaganda dossier used to illegally spy on the Trump administration in a scheme to derail Trump’s bid for the White House and later cripple his presidency, IMO. That may not fall under the term of treason, but it sure sounds like sedition to me. Where’s Mueller’s indictment of Clinton? I'm sure he'll get to the bottom of things. Your 'But Hillary' nonsense is getting tiresome.
This thread is for the continuing discussion of Donald Trumps's presidency in the US and any related matters.
circadian wrote: » Is this another way of saying The President does not read?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » It's a joke from the New Yorker, not a news item.
notobtuse wrote: » When it comes to Donald Trump’s presidency, especially things associated with the 2016 election, I’d say discussion of Hillary Clinton’s actions during the campaign are VERY 'related matters.'
notobtuse wrote: » According to a Marist Poll this week, Americans have an increasingly unfavorable view of Robert Mueller. The unfavorable opinion of the special counsel is at 30% of Americans, up from 20% in late March (and 38% of residents say they have either never heard of Mueller or are unsure how to rate him, which is shocking to me since the media have dedicated so much time to covering Mueller’s investigation, in between character assassinations of Trump, IMO). Mueller’s primary focus of the investigation was supposed to be Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. IMO, it has become evident to many that his focus is anything but Russian interference and has taken to running a witch hunt. I say give Mueller a deadline of a couple months to come up with his conclusions as to his original mandate, which was Russian interference, or shut the special council down.
In this capacity, Mueller oversees the investigation into "any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."
Water John wrote: » Yeah and the Steele dossier was all well and good when it was being funded by GOP sources.
Mumha wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » According to a Marist Poll this week, Americans have an increasingly unfavorable view of Robert Mueller. The unfavorable opinion of the special counsel is at 30% of Americans, up from 20% in late March (and 38% of residents say they have either never heard of Mueller or are unsure how to rate him, which is shocking to me since the media have dedicated so much time to covering Mueller’s investigation, in between character assassinations of Trump, IMO). Mueller’s primary focus of the investigation was supposed to be Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. IMO, it has become evident to many that his focus is anything but Russian interference and has taken to running a witch hunt. I say give Mueller a deadline of a couple months to come up with his conclusions as to his original mandate, which was Russian interference, or shut the special council down. You do understand that Mueller is investigating this as he would a mob family i.e. from the outside in ? That said he has already indicted Trump's National Security Advisor, his Campaign Chairman, his Deputy Campaign Chairman, and one of his Foreign Policy advisors In this capacity, Mueller oversees the investigation into "any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." Better this be done right and fully, otherwise Trump will be seen as illegitimate, and it will cause a constitutional crisis. One other thing to remember, Ken Starr was the Special Counsel investigating blowjobs from August 5, 1994 – September 11, 1998, that's four years. Mueller hasn't even warmed up yet.
notobtuse wrote: » I’d say that comment is a bit misleading. It was a media outlet The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, that originally hired Fusion GPS to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research in May 2016. It was not until after the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC started paying Fusion GPS’s bills that they brought in Steele and the Russian oberatives to produce what became a specious dossier that was used by government agencies during Obama's reign to illegally spy on the Trump administration in a scheme to derail Trump’s bid for the White House and later to cripple his presidency. IMO.
Mumha wrote: » You do understand that Mueller is investigating this as he would a mob family i.e. from the outside in ? That said he has already indicted Trump's National Security Advisor, his Campaign Chairman, his Deputy Campaign Chairman, and one of his Foreign Policy advisors
notobtuse wrote: » Okay... Would you agree then that Mueller should also open the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State involving the sale of so much control of US Uranium to the Russians; the destruction of her blackberry and personal server after a subpoena was issued; the pay to play accusations of the Clinton Foundation - in particular with donations and payments made by Russians; Hillary, her staff, the DNC and President Obama’s roll in the false Steele dossier which was used as the basis to illegally spy on the Trump administration in a scheme to derail Trump’s bid for the White House and later to cripple his presidency, and a few other Democratic operatives like the UN Ambassador, heads of the CIA, DOJ and FBI and their rolls in suspect actions during the election and ongoing investigations?
DrumSteve wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » When it comes to Donald Trump’s presidency, especially things associated with the 2016 election, I’d say discussion of Hillary Clinton’s actions during the campaign are VERY 'related matters.' Fair play to you for sticking with it for this long. I genuinely don't understand why people swear such blind loyalty to Trump even after all the crap he's come out with but, yeah, fair play. You do need to eventually let Hillary go though. Just because she is shady, don't mean Donald is absolved of anything. The whataboutery eventually just ruins any possibly decent points you might make.
notobtuse wrote: » Is that so wrong?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eaabbaf8a16773590ee22dd6c15f1d68.svg)
