|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 7, 2018 10:55:39 GMT -5
I think it's time for a reality check for the Democrats. To this point, the case against Trump is as follows: The Democrats primary claim is that Trump illegally conspired with the Russians to hack the DNC, and leak damaging information about Hillary and the DNC to the media through WikiLeaks. The basis for the hacking claim is that the Democrats say so. The servers have never been turned over to an independent third party for evaluation. Hacking is, of course, a crime. But to this point, there is no independently verified evidence that it even took place, let alone any evidence that Trump or the Russians were involved. The information that was released showed extensive coordination between Hillary Clinton and the DNC to prevent Bernie Sanders from getting the Democrat Party Nomination for President. And by some accounts, the transfer times of the file copying show the information was downloaded onto a thumb drive locally, rather than obtained remotely. Additional examples of collusion include: 1) Michael Flynn, as a member of Trump's transition team, reaching out to the Russian Ambassador with the hope of stopping sanctions against the US because of Obama administration actions. The Democrats want this charged under the Logan Act at the same time John Kerry is out advocating for the Iran Deal: Washington Post2) A meeting at Trump Tower between Don Jr. and a Russian Lawyer which, according to everyone's account, amounted to some routine lobbying in opposition to the Magnitsky Act. 3) Random and inconsequential contacts between the Russian Ambassador and Jeff Sessions when he was a US Senator. The newer claim is that Trump violated campaign finance laws by paying hush money to Stormy Daniels right before the election. There is no law against paying hush money that doesn't also implicate Daniels for extortion. While the $130,000 payment is arguably an in-kind donation to the Trump campaign, is is also arguably in support of Trump's marriage and business interests. Either way, unreported and improper campaign donations are routine in presidential elections (Obama had several million dollars worth in both of his previous campaigns) they are generally closed out with an administrative fine paid to the FEC rather than a criminal prosecution. The Democrats want this pursued while Hillary is being sued for as much as $84 million in illegal campaign donations. Washington Post |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on May 7, 2018 13:07:10 GMT -5
I think there's a little more to any case against the President that you say, RJ. It looks like there's a pretty good case for obstruction of justice too. Why didn't you mention that? Maybe you on the regressive side need to have a reality check too.
And, BTW, I don't think Trump colluded with anyone. I think some other people did, like his son and son-in-law and Manafort. But not Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 7, 2018 15:58:15 GMT -5
I think there's a little more to any case against the President that you say, RJ. It looks like there's a pretty good case for obstruction of justice too. Why didn't you mention that? Maybe you on the regressive side need to have a reality check too. Oh yeah. I had forgotten that the Democrats are claiming that Trump firing an employee that he has the authority to fire at his discretion is, somehow, obstruction of justice. Good luck with that. How? |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on May 7, 2018 17:32:58 GMT -5
Not surprised too much by your response, RJ. It's about what I expected.
Don Jr. and Kushner met with a Russian agent to get dirt on Hillary. That's the collusion. As I said, I don't think the President was involved at all. If he had been, he'd have bragged about it by now.
Obstruction? While he can fire an employee, he admitted that he fired Comey to get ride of that Russian thing. Remember Nixon and his attempts to fire? He would have been inpeaced if he didn't resign. Same thing here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 7, 2018 17:48:02 GMT -5
Not surprised too much by your response, RJ. It's about what I expected. Don Jr. and Kushner met with a Russian agent to get dirt on Hillary. That's the collusion. As I said, I don't think the President was involved at all. If he had been, he'd have bragged about it by now. Ok. It's collusion. Sort of. Yes, the Trump campaign went looking. They didn't get what they wanted. The meeting appears to have been fruitless on the dirt end, and getting dirt on opponents during an election is standard procedure. Collusion, by itself isn't a crime. Finally, how is this different from Clinton hiring Perkins Coie to hire Fusion GPS, to hire Christopher Steele to get dirt on Trump from the Russians? You know, other than the Trump camp didn't get the dirt, or take it to Obama to get the FBI to create a fake investigation? Clearly a failed attempt at collusion isn't nearly as serious as actual, successful collusion. Or is collusion with the Russians only a problem if it's done by Republicans? That's what he told the Russians. Obviously he didn't think it would end the investigation. Though he probably thought he'd get someone more professional than Comey or Mueller that could see they have no case. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on May 7, 2018 18:21:29 GMT -5
It's also what he told Lester Holt on national TV. Remember that little interview?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 7, 2018 19:52:12 GMT -5
It's also what he told Lester Holt on national TV. Remember that little interview? What? You mean a presidential campaign tried to get dirt on an opponent? Oh yeah. That's what they do. All of them. All the way back to John Adams. What I don't understand is why this troubles you. It doesn't bother you that Hillary actually got dirt from the. Russians. It's only when Trump does it. |
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on May 7, 2018 20:30:57 GMT -5
Give it up, RJ. You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
|
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on May 7, 2018 20:42:54 GMT -5
Don't know what you're talking about, RJ. Trump told Holt that You can't choose both.he fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation. Trump has said that several times.
And, if Hillary got dirt, why do you continue to insist that it's bogus? If it's bogus, it's not dirt. Which way do you want to have it? You can't have both.
|
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on May 7, 2018 20:45:13 GMT -5
Give it up, RJ. You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Precisely why I generally don't respond to your comments, BB -- I can't get into a battle of wits with someone who has none. But keep trying. Maybe some day you'll post something that's actually constructive and makes some sense. But I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 7, 2018 22:18:49 GMT -5
I think there's a little more to any case against the President that you say, RJ. It looks like there's a pretty good case for obstruction of justice too. Why didn't you mention that? Maybe you on the regressive side need to have a reality check too. And, BTW, I don't think Trump colluded with anyone. I think some other people did, like his son and son-in-law and Manafort. But not Trump. What "obstruction of justice"? The Constitution gives the President full control of the entire Executive Branch. That means he can fire anyone in the EB, anytime, for any reason. He can't obstruct justice if he's filling his Constitutional role. Not to mention the fact that Comey had committed perjury, leaked classified information, and was a partner in turning the FBI into a weapon to be used against American citizens. He also probably used fake information to get a warrant to spy on American citizens. That's also a crime. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 7, 2018 22:22:50 GMT -5
Not surprised too much by your response, RJ. It's about what I expected. Don Jr. and Kushner met with a Russian agent to get dirt on Hillary. That's the collusion. As I said, I don't think the President was involved at all. If he had been, he'd have bragged about it by now. Obstruction? While he can fire an employee, he admitted that he fired Comey to get ride of that Russian thing. Remember Nixon and his attempts to fire? He would have been inpeaced if he didn't resign. Same thing here. The Felon paid Russian operatives to fake a document to use against Trump. She also sold classified information to Putin while SecState. And you think them meeting with some Russian lawyer is "collusion"? And, by the way, "collusion" is not a crime. Lying to the FBI, as The Felon did, multiple times, is. So is selling influence, and selling classified information. So, when do you think they will start the prosecution of The Felon. Nixon was involved in a cover up of an actual crime. There has been NO CRIME even alleged against Trump. Just the Party of the KKK crying and screaming because their Russian puppet didn't win. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 7, 2018 22:25:08 GMT -5
It's also what he told Lester Holt on national TV. Remember that little interview? What? You mean a presidential campaign tried to get dirt on an opponent? Oh yeah. That's what they do. All of them. All the way back to John Adams. What I don't understand is why this troubles you. It doesn't bother you that Hillary actually got dirt from the. Russians. It's only when Trump does it. No, she didn't. She paid to have Steele get the Russians to make up something she could use. And Comey used that fake "dossier", that he KNEW was fake, to get warrants to spy on American citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 7, 2018 22:26:59 GMT -5
Don't know what you're talking about, RJ. Trump told Holt that You can't choose both.he fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation. Trump has said that several times. And, if Hillary got dirt, why do you continue to insist that it's bogus? If it's bogus, it's not dirt. Which way do you want to have it? You can't have both. Why shouldn't he? He knew, as did Comey, as did Clapper, as did Rosenstein, that there was no crime committed. Why shouldn't he try to stop a witch hunt, started by his enemies just to overturn the results of an election, using a fake "dossier" paid for, and made up by, the Party of the KKK? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 8, 2018 6:14:53 GMT -5
Don't know what you're talking about, RJ. Trump told Holt that You can't choose both.he fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation. Trump has said that several times. And, if Hillary got dirt, why do you continue to insist that it's bogus? If it's bogus, it's not dirt. Which way do you want to have it? You can't have both. Trump has given multiple reasons for firing Comey. The mail one appears to be that Comey would not say publicly, what he repeatedly told Trump privately: that Trump was not under investigation. None of what he said though matters in terms of an obstruction charge. No reasonable person could possibly believe the investigation would end simply by firing Comey. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on May 8, 2018 17:36:51 GMT -5
I agree, RJ, and thank you for pointing out that Trump is anything but reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 8, 2018 22:19:20 GMT -5
Don't know what you're talking about, RJ. Trump told Holt that You can't choose both.he fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation. Trump has said that several times. And, if Hillary got dirt, why do you continue to insist that it's bogus? If it's bogus, it's not dirt. Which way do you want to have it? You can't have both. Trump has given multiple reasons for firing Comey. The mail one appears to be that Comey would not say publicly, what he repeatedly told Trump privately: that Trump was not under investigation. None of what he said though matters in terms of an obstruction charge. No reasonable person could possibly believe the investigation would end simply by firing Comey. Not to mention that carrying out Constitutionally mandated authority cannot, ever, result in "obstruction of justice". Everyone in the DOJ, including Mueller, works for the President. He can fire anyone he wants, for any reason he wants. Period. |
|
