|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2018 20:07:00 GMT -5
Are you a friend of Mueller's? Or of someone on his staff? If your answer is no (which I expect), then how do you know there is no evidence of any collusion with Russia? Neither Mueller nor anyone on his staff has said anything one way or the other. The matter is still being investigated. I don't know how you can claim no evidence when no one knows if there's any evidence or not. 1) Comey has said as much. 2) Even Strzok has said he didn't think there is anything to it. dailycaller.com/2018/01/23/in-jaw-dropping-text-peter-strzok-expressed-concern-about-joining-mueller-team/Mueller has been investigating for a year. If he had anything at all, we'd know. Trump-Russia collusion is a FANTASY rooted in your unthinking partisanship. Trump says he is no longer taking payments from his company. Prove he is. Your innuendo isn't going to cut it. And if making money from foreign countries is an impeachable offense, why the eff did the Democrats put up Clinton? Their foundation was making huge piles of foreign money while she was Secretary of State. You had no problem at all with that due to your unthinking partisanship. Sure, you say that. Then you say other things that prove this is entirely your unthinking partisanship.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 25, 2018 21:30:15 GMT -5
Not every democrat is equal. In my opinion, some people pick R or D just so they have a voice in the primaries. The democratic platform has shifted significantly and I suspect it has abandoned many voters who have not bothered to switch or drop their affiliation. Why can't someone be pro-choice but anti illegals? Or how about anti-gun but pro private school choice? Why do voters have to be boxed into a predefined set of views? First, because they are much easier to control. When you have a hard core central group, in any direction, they can control large numbers just by making spurious accusations, like "racist", or "sexist", because someone speaks or thinks outside the box. Second, it's easier to point out "enemies" when everyone is supposed to think a certain way. Look at how many conservative blacks are castigated as "Uncle Toms" because they don't accept the slavery of the Party of the KKK. Another method of control. Third, it's easier to simply dismiss anyone that's not in the box, as 'insane', or evil.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 25, 2018 21:35:28 GMT -5
No, RJ, (as usual) you miss the mark. No one wants to impeach Trump for not being Obama. But maybe for carrying on an affair in the White House (as was recently published). Maybe for his continuing violation of the emouluments clause (which is still the law of the land, though you refuse to believe it). Maybe for obstruction of justice or for collusion -- but that depends of what Mueller finds out in his investigation, which is ongoing. Or maybe just for his continual and continued untruthfulness and his dragging America down, making us a laughing stock around the world. But the more Trump claims his innocence, the more convinced I am that there's something there that he's trying to hide. Again, we'll have to wait for Mr. Mueller to complete his investigation and see what, if anything, he finds out. No one with any ability to think believes he's having an affair in the WH. Besides, if he was, your masters threw that out the window with Waco Billy Boy. Along with perjury. Even your Communist masters say he's not violating the emolument's clause. What "obstruction of justice"? You mean having an illegal server, sending classified information to Russia, then wiping it with Bleach Bit? Oh, wait.......... Collusion is not a crime. That means there is in grounds for impeachment, not to mention the only collusion uncovered so far is from the Party of the KKK. Mueller's "investigation" is even more bogus than the FBI's of The Felon. Mueller will be extremely lucky if he's not indicted, for subversion, obstruction of justice, and lying to Congress. As for "laughing stock", who, exactly, is laughing? All those countries that are experiencing massive economic growth because of Trump? All those countries that thought they would be able to keep running their terrorists into our country, only to find out that Trump doesn't play that game like The Puppet did?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 25, 2018 21:40:51 GMT -5
Are you a friend of Mueller's? Or of someone on his staff? If your answer is no (which I expect), then how do you know there is no evidence of any collusion with Russia? Neither Mueller nor anyone on his staff has said anything one way or the other. The matter is still being investigated. I don't know how you can claim no evidence when no one knows if there's any evidence or not. And no evidence of emoluments violations? While he's still making money from foreign countries? When foreign embassies have moved events from one venue to a Trump venue? But, I remember, you know nothing about legal matters or the law. I've said before that I don't want Trump gone because he's a Republican or because he's not a Democrat. I want him gone because he's bad for the country. I want him gone for what he's doing and will continue to do to our foreign relations. I want him gone because he constantly lies and distorts. Usually a President is someone we can look up to. We may not like his policies, but we can respect the man and the office (except for the Commie, who has no respect for almost everyone). But I can't respect Trump as a person. I will refer to him as Trump or as President Trump or the President out of respect for the office. But there's little about the man (whom you have called a clown) that deserves anyone's respect. Because, if there were, it would have been front page of the NYT weeks ago. Mueller is leakikng everything he can to damage Trump, yet can't point to a single thing that would tie Trump, or any of his campaign, to any crime of any sort. Even if he could, he can't prosecute, because anything he finds will be fruit of the poison tree. Since his investigation is illegal, and any information he has is based on an illegal warrant, and on illegal wiretapping, nothing he has can he use in court. It would all be thrown out. Show me any evidence at all that he's still making money from foreign countries. CNN? The Communist News Network? If they weren't lying, they wouldn't be saying anything at all. You thought The Puppet was "someone we could look up to?" Really? With Fast and Furious, the use of the IRS and EPA to stop political opponents, with illegally wiretapping an opposing campaign? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 8:15:22 GMT -5
Here's the other problem about what can be done: You really only get one shot at a President. Especially if you really screw up the shot you take, as Mueller, the media, and the Democrats appear to be doing. If Mueller doesn't come up with any evidence of collusion, and all of this bruhaha turns out to be a complete hoax fueled by Steele's dossier, the Democrats and media (but I repeat myself) will lack the credibility to go after ANYTHING that isn't an open-and-shut case of felony level criminality by the President.
Crying wolf, or Wolff as the case may be, for a year and a half is starting to become a disaster.
For the record, I did read about half of Wolff's book. Its intensely boring.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 26, 2018 12:43:06 GMT -5
Here's the other problem about what can be done: You really only get one shot at a President. Especially if you really screw up the shot you take, as Mueller, the media, and the Democrats appear to be doing. If Mueller doesn't come up with any evidence of collusion, and all of this bruhaha turns out to be a complete hoax fueled by Steele's dossier, the Democrats and media (but I repeat myself) will lack the credibility to go after ANYTHING that isn't an open-and-shut case of felony level criminality by the President. Crying wolf, or Wolff as the case may be, for a year and a half is starting to become a disaster. For the record, I did read about half of Wolff's book. Its intensely boring. The Party of the KKK didn't shoot themselves in the foot, they shot themselves in the head with the illegal "investigation". There is no legal authority for Mueller's investigation, because there was no crime identified for him to investigate. Collusion is not a crime. However, because of what's been uncovered, the illegal 'wiretapping' of a political campaign, the leaks of sensitive, even classified information, the fixing of The Felon's investigation, the corruption at very high levels of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all point to a real house cleaning. If Trump did fire Mueller, there is nothing the Dems could do about it, other than squall about it, because Mueller's writ is illegal on it's face. In addition, any "evidence" he does find is useless in court, because he obtained it illegally. The FISA warrant wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, because a false afidavit was presented to obtain it.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 13:02:21 GMT -5
Talk about unthinking partisanship, RJ. That's all you've been doing. Pot calls kettle black, is that it (or tries to call kettle black)?
Strzok wrote his text 2 days after Mueller was appointed. His gut was nothing there. Now it's 8 months later. Is there anything there? Has Mueller uncovered anything? I have no idea. I don't think you do either. We'll find out sooner or later. But I'm not going to engage in unthinking partisanship and conclude that he has found nothing.
The emoluments issue is being looked at in a Federal court right now. We'll see what happens there. But it's not decided one way or the other quite yet. Again, I'm not someone to use unthinking partisanship and jump to conclusions without any evidence. But you feel free to continue to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 13:11:36 GMT -5
Talk about unthinking partisanship, RJ. That's all you've been doing. Pot calls kettle black, is that it (or tries to call kettle black)? Strzok wrote his text 2 days after Mueller was appointed. His gut was nothing there. Now it's 8 months later. Is there anything there? Has Mueller uncovered anything? I have no idea. I don't think you do either. We'll find out sooner or later. But I'm not going to engage in unthinking partisanship and conclude that he has found nothing. The emoluments issue is being looked at in a Federal court right now. We'll see what happens there. But it's not decided one way or the other quite yet. Again, I'm not someone to use unthinking partisanship and jump to conclusions without any evidence. But you feel free to continue to do so. Again, over a year has gone by. There is no "there" there. Wake the eff up. Going through life with a Democrat mind-control helmet on is pathetic. Even if there is an emoluments issue, it no longer matters if the Mueller investigation implodes. Trump will say it's just another partisan witch-hunt, and nothing will happen because it's too complicated to condense into a bumper sticker, and there will be no further appetite for wild goose chases beyond the hyper-partisan tools of the Democrat party. You guys set out to take Trump down. You might have made him invincible with your hackery instead.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 14:41:40 GMT -5
So a year has gone by. Does that mean there's nothing there? How long did the Watergate investigation take? Couple of years from botched burglary to Presidential resignation? You want Mueller's investigation to be over. You keep saying, using your unthinking partisan mindset, that there's nothing there, when we have no idea of what he has found. Again, let him do his work and wel'll see what he finds.
And, by the way, what's the difference between what you claim Dems are ding to get rid of Trump, and the "Impeach Him" [Clinton] tee shirts that people were wearing a few days after his inauguration in '93?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 15:12:08 GMT -5
So a year has gone by. Does that mean there's nothing there? How long did the Watergate investigation take? Couple of years from botched burglary to Presidential resignation? You want Mueller's investigation to be over. You keep saying, using your unthinking partisan mindset, that there's nothing there, when we have no idea of what he has found. Again, let him do his work and wel'll see what he finds. And, by the way, what's the difference between what you claim Dems are ding to get rid of Trump, and the "Impeach Him" [Clinton] tee shirts that people were wearing a few days after his inauguration in '93? The first watergate prosecutor, Cox, was appointed 5/18/73 and the Articles of Impeachment were passed out of committee 14 months later. They had detailed evidence of actual crimes before Cox was hired. NONE of that is even close to happening now. That you think it is is only wishful thing based in your partisanship. It isn't reality.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 15:30:41 GMT -5
Again, your unthinking partisanship. As I've been saying, we'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 26, 2018 16:49:27 GMT -5
Talk about unthinking partisanship, RJ. That's all you've been doing. Pot calls kettle black, is that it (or tries to call kettle black)? Strzok wrote his text 2 days after Mueller was appointed. His gut was nothing there. Now it's 8 months later. Is there anything there? Has Mueller uncovered anything? I have no idea. I don't think you do either. We'll find out sooner or later. But I'm not going to engage in unthinking partisanship and conclude that he has found nothing. The emoluments issue is being looked at in a Federal court right now. We'll see what happens there. But it's not decided one way or the other quite yet. Again, I'm not someone to use unthinking partisanship and jump to conclusions without any evidence. But you feel free to continue to do so. Of course he hasn't 'uncovered' anything, or the leaks would be front page news for weeks. Mueller has more leaks than the Titanic, and has no intention of stopping any of them, unless they exonerate Trump. The Federal courts have already said there is nothing there. A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit from a liberal watchdog organization arguing President Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by paying foreign governments. thehill.com/homenews/administration/366091-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-trump-over-emoluments-clause
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 26, 2018 16:51:24 GMT -5
So a year has gone by. Does that mean there's nothing there? How long did the Watergate investigation take? Couple of years from botched burglary to Presidential resignation? You want Mueller's investigation to be over. You keep saying, using your unthinking partisan mindset, that there's nothing there, when we have no idea of what he has found. Again, let him do his work and wel'll see what he finds. And, by the way, what's the difference between what you claim Dems are ding to get rid of Trump, and the "Impeach Him" [Clinton] tee shirts that people were wearing a few days after his inauguration in '93? In Watergate, there was an actual crime to investigate. Mueller has no crime, no evidence, and no more time. He's shot his wad, and will retire to obscurity, if he's not prosecuted for all the conflicts of interest, sedition, and rigging of the investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 17:08:23 GMT -5
Again, your unthinking partisanship. As I've been saying, we'll see what happens. LMAO. You'll be "watching" for another 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 17:13:19 GMT -5
Talk about unthinking partisanship, RJ. That's all you've been doing. Pot calls kettle black, is that it (or tries to call kettle black)? Strzok wrote his text 2 days after Mueller was appointed. His gut was nothing there. Now it's 8 months later. Is there anything there? Has Mueller uncovered anything? I have no idea. I don't think you do either. We'll find out sooner or later. But I'm not going to engage in unthinking partisanship and conclude that he has found nothing. The emoluments issue is being looked at in a Federal court right now. We'll see what happens there. But it's not decided one way or the other quite yet. Again, I'm not someone to use unthinking partisanship and jump to conclusions without any evidence. But you feel free to continue to do so. Of course he hasn't 'uncovered' anything, or the leaks would be front page news for weeks. Mueller has more leaks than the Titanic, and has no intention of stopping any of them, unless they exonerate Trump. The Federal courts have already said there is nothing there. A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit from a liberal watchdog organization arguing President Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by paying foreign governments. thehill.com/homenews/administration/366091-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-trump-over-emoluments-clauseI realize that the Communist schools you attended weren't that good, and that you have severe problems reading English. However, I suggest you reread the article to which you linked to see what it really says. Then you can edit for post to be truthful.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 17:14:46 GMT -5
Again, your unthinking partisanship. As I've been saying, we'll see what happens. LMAO. You'll be "watching" for another 50 years. While I understand that you don't really want to find out what Mr. Mueller may have uncovered, I don't think it will take us another 50 years to find out. More unthinking partisanship.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 17:24:33 GMT -5
LMAO. You'll be "watching" for another 50 years. While I understand that you don't really want to find out what Mr. Mueller may have uncovered, I don't think it will take us another 50 years to find out. More unthinking partisanship. You don't even know what crime Mueller is investigating.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 18:29:50 GMT -5
Nor do you. But I'll wait until he makes some sort of announcement before jumping to possibly erroneous conclusions. I try not to engage in unthinking partisanship. I leave that to the boys on the right.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 18:55:38 GMT -5
Nor do you. But I'll wait until he makes some sort of announcement before jumping to possibly erroneous conclusions. I try not to engage in unthinking partisanship. I leave that to the boys on the right. It was a trick question. Mueller isn't investigating a crime at all. His mandate is a counter-intelligence investigation to determine what sort of influence the Russian government had on the last election and the Trump campaign. "Collusion" isn't a crime. But again, you'd know this if you understood the law, what the purpose of the special counsel is supposed to be, and paid any attention to what Muller hasn't found. You'd have to read beyond the partisan news to do this. And you haven't. Enjoy your echo chamber. The potential crimes that are within the scope of Muller's investigation would be: 1) Hacking the DNC - this charge has been made against some Russians that Mueller has no jurisdiction over because they aren't in the US. 2) Potential campaign finance law violations if the Trump campaign directly took any money or in-kind donations from the Putin regime. This hasn't even been alleged. That's basically it. I know some kooks have thrown out the Logan Act, but this is nonsense. That law is probably unconstitutional, and no one has even been indicted under it for over a century. Other kooks have suggested obstruction of justice because he fired Comey, but this is also patently nonsense. Trump has the legal authority to fire an FBI director, and expressing an opinion that an investigation should or shouldn't be wrapped up isn't any form of undue influence. The other side of this story is the Clinton campaign, through some intermediaries (their lawyers, Fusion GPS, and Christopher Steele) paid some Russians for phony dirt on Trump, and the Obama administration's FBI took that phony dirt and corruptly used it as a justification to obtain a FISA warrant to wiretap the Trump campaign. The accusations against Clinton, Obama, and the Obama FBI are FAR more serious, and there is MUCH more evidence of actual criminality there than there is against Trump. But again, you don't know this because you limit your news sources to ONLY the highly partisan news sources that make up the mainstream media. The really sad/hilarious thing about all of this, is when it all blows up, Trump will be beyond the reach of the FBI and any future special counsel. The Democrats, media and deep state have had their shot at him. Rather than taking it seriously, and waiting until there was actual evidence of a crime, they engaged in an out of control witch-hunt, ending their credibility.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 26, 2018 19:31:42 GMT -5
Of course he hasn't 'uncovered' anything, or the leaks would be front page news for weeks. Mueller has more leaks than the Titanic, and has no intention of stopping any of them, unless they exonerate Trump. The Federal courts have already said there is nothing there. A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit from a liberal watchdog organization arguing President Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by paying foreign governments. thehill.com/homenews/administration/366091-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-trump-over-emoluments-clauseI realize that the Communist schools you attended weren't that good, and that you have severe problems reading English. However, I suggest you reread the article to which you linked to see what it really says. Then you can edit for post to be truthful. Speaking of incomprehension, the first paragraph says that it was dismissed. DISMISSED. As in, not adjudicated. The plaintiffs had no standing, no evidence, and no case.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 26, 2018 19:33:52 GMT -5
Of course he hasn't 'uncovered' anything, or the leaks would be front page news for weeks. Mueller has more leaks than the Titanic, and has no intention of stopping any of them, unless they exonerate Trump. The Federal courts have already said there is nothing there. A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit from a liberal watchdog organization arguing President Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by paying foreign governments. thehill.com/homenews/administration/366091-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-trump-over-emoluments-clauseI realize that the Communist schools you attended weren't that good, and that you have severe problems reading English. However, I suggest you reread the article to which you linked to see what it really says. Then you can edit for post to be truthful. Perhaps your keeper couldn't read past the first paragraph, but here is the second. Judge George Daniels dismissed the case on “lack of standing,” agreeing with Trump’s lawyers’ argument that the claims do not fall within the interests of the Emoluments Clause, and should be resolved through the “political process," according to the ruling.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 26, 2018 19:35:05 GMT -5
Nor do you. But I'll wait until he makes some sort of announcement before jumping to possibly erroneous conclusions. I try not to engage in unthinking partisanship. I leave that to the boys on the right. And therein lies the illegality. Since he has no actual crime to investigate, he has no authority to investigate anything. He has no legal authority, period. He was illegally appointed.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 23:03:05 GMT -5
I realize that the Communist schools you attended weren't that good, and that you have severe problems reading English. However, I suggest you reread the article to which you linked to see what it really says. Then you can edit for post to be truthful. Speaking of incomprehension, the first paragraph says that it was dismissed. DISMISSED. As in, not adjudicated. The plaintiffs had no standing, no evidence, and no case. And that's the point, fool. It was dismissed. Not adjudicated. Not overturned. There was no decision made. Which is not what your said originally. The Courts did not say there is nothing there. They said nothing. But your continual inaccuracy and unthinking partisanship are what we expect from someone with no intellect.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 23:11:36 GMT -5
Come on, RJ. His mandate was Russian interference and anything else he might uncover in the course of the investigation. . Another term for collusion is conspiracy. But, since you know so little about matters legal, I doubt that you know that. Conspiring to do something illegal is a crime.
Love how you keep saying that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. That's never been determined. And, as I said, a case in that regard is being argued right now. We'll see what happens (and it's not the case the Commie mentiona).
And firing the Director of the FBI TO HINDER AN INVESTIGATION can be obstruction of justice. I understand that you don't believe that -- unthinking partisanship on your part, as usual -- but that's the truth of the matter.
Again, why not wait to see what Mueller reports. What are you afraid of? Or is this just more of your unthinking partisanship?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2018 8:57:34 GMT -5
Come on, RJ. His mandate was Russian interference and anything else he might uncover in the course of the investigation. Yes, but that's still not a crime. The "anything else" has to be related to the interference, otherwise the investigation becomes just what Trump says it is, a witch hunt. . Where on earth did you hear that pile of gibberish? Conspiracy has to have an underlying crime. Said crime does not exist. It's been on the books for 200 years and never been successfully prosecuted in spite of probably thousands of Americans doing business with foreign governments every day. I've waited for over a year. There isn't even a whif of a case against Trump coming out of his office. Why not hold your breath until Mueeller releases his report? At this rate, it will be sometime after the end if Trump's second term.
|
|