2 2
billvon

Russiagate

Recommended Posts

It is a silly argument Trump supporters are using. It is akin to saying stealing isn't against the law. This, I guess, is technically true. However theft is clearly against the law.

Just like drinking and driving isn't against the law. Driving under the influence is.

The "collusion isn't a crime" argument follows the same line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***It’s really interesting watching you post. Generally speaking over the years I would have put you as a ring wing patriot. I’ve watched as you defend Trump and gradually your loyalty (in posts) has shifted from the USA to Trump.

It’s interesting to watch and as someone who grew up under a dictator, it is interesting to see how a person of strong influence can garner such a strong following.

I don’t know where the USA will end up as Trump has successfully neutered the main stream media and so I don’t think anyone really knows how many people will vote for or against Trump at the next elections.



All I see from you, is someone who believes all the info you get from Democrat supporting, big government beholding news sites.

The term sheepole fits you well


You can't even be bothered to get the spelling of an insult right.

Why don't you go post somewhere where you're not universally ridiculed? I'm sure WillfullyIgnorant.com has a forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this morning's interviews, Giuliani has moved on from "He didn't do it" to "He wasn't even there" and "It's not a crime anyway".

Hard to keep up with all the changes in their story.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***It’s really interesting watching you post. Generally speaking over the years I would have put you as a ring wing patriot. I’ve watched as you defend Trump and gradually your loyalty (in posts) has shifted from the USA to Trump.

It’s interesting to watch and as someone who grew up under a dictator, it is interesting to see how a person of strong influence can garner such a strong following.

I don’t know where the USA will end up as Trump has successfully neutered the main stream media and so I don’t think anyone really knows how many people will vote for or against Trump at the next elections.



All I see from you, is someone who believes all the info you get from Democrat supporting, big government beholding news sites.

The term sheepole fits you well

I believe the USA has double standards, over the years I’ve watched as they have meddled in other countries politics, both overtly and covertly. So personally I don’t believe they have he moral high ground to complain about Russia meddling in their elections.

Regardless of that my original comment was aimed at your posting history. Historically I believed you were a right wing patriot, someone who while I didn’t share their views I respected their passion. You now come across as a Trump fanboy, who worships at Trumps alter. From your posts I honestly don’t believe there is anything that Trump could do to change your beliefs.

As an outsider it is extremely interesting to observe how someone like Trump can get such a strong following.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I believe the USA has double standards, over the years I’ve watched as they have meddled in other countries politics, both overtly and covertly. So personally I don’t believe they have he moral high ground to complain about Russia meddling in their elections.



I think the way you frame this issue is part of a bigger problem. First of all, morals has absolutely nothing to do with it. Secondly, after elementary school "Johnny did it too" really shouldn't be part of a conversation anymore.

Lastly, just because you have done it to another country doesn't mean you would sit idly by while another country does it to you. Investigating what happened and shoring up defence would be a normal course of action.

The US has assassinated plenty of foreign politicians in their history, does that mean they shouldn't try and prevent foreign governments from assassinating US politicians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

I believe the USA has double standards, over the years I’ve watched as they have meddled in other countries politics, both overtly and covertly. So personally I don’t believe they have he moral high ground to complain about Russia meddling in their elections.



I think the way you frame this issue is part of a bigger problem. First of all, morals has absolutely nothing to do with it. Secondly, after elementary school "Johnny did it too" really shouldn't be part of a conversation anymore.

Lastly, just because you have done it to another country doesn't mean you would sit idly by while another country does it to you. Investigating what happened and shoring up defence would be a normal course of action.

The US has assassinated plenty of foreign politicians in their history, does that mean they shouldn't try and prevent foreign governments from assassinating US politicians?



I totally agree that investigation and defence are perfectly acceptable courses of action. With regards to your question, absolutely the US should prevent foreign governments from attempting to assassinate any of its politicians, likewise the US should not be attempting to do assassinate other politicians.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, that was some interview Giuliani gave yesterday. Some highlights:

He claims Mueller has a conflict of interest. What is it, the interviewer asks? "I can’t tell you. I’m not sure exactly what the conflict is." But someone must have some idea, the interviewer states. "It’s up to the President to describe it in further detail if he elects to do so. Or if Mueller would like to explain why it’s not a conflict, I invite Bob to do it."

So there's a conflict. But no one really knows what it is. Maybe Trump knows, so give him a little time to think it up. And Giuliani is asking Mueller to explain why this imaginary conflict doesn't exist.

“We have 183 unique tape recordings.” More than Nixon.

“I mean that just — four months, they are not going to be colluding about Russians which I’m not — I don’t even know if that’s a crime, colluding about Russians.” This is very significant; it marks the beginning of the transition from "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime."

“I’m not denigrating Michael Cohen’s character.” Next sentence - “I’ve practiced law for a long time, if you tape record your client and lie to your client about, you have no character. You forfeited your character.” I'll just let those two sentences stand on their own.

And finally the most profound statements of the night - “Nobody can be sure of anything. . . . what I think and what I know may be two different things.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"collusion is not a crime."



Stealing isn't a crime either.
Drinking and driving isn't a crime either.
Shooting someone isn't a crime either.
Hitting somebody isn't a crime either.

Of course all those acts can be criminal, they just are called something else.

That concept appears to be too difficult for the retards that follow Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

So there's a conflict. But no one really knows what it is. Maybe Trump knows, so give him a little time to think it up. And Giuliani is asking Mueller to explain why this imaginary conflict doesn't exist.



Now you probably know this, but to add to the above, here's one report:

Quote

The Times reported that Trump listed three conflicts he believed should disqualify Mueller: A dispute over fees at Trump’s National Golf Club in Virginia; his interview for FBI director before being named special counsel; and Mueller’s previous employment at a law firm that represents Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

[From TheHill.com]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By Jennifer Rubin (Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog offering reported opinion from a center-right perspective. )
July 31 at 9:00 AM

For months, I have been suggesting that cable news networks stop giving air time to Rudolph W. Giuliani, who often makes patently false statements, doesn’t appear to be doing any real lawyering for President Trump and intentionally misstates the law (unless he’s forgotten everything he learned as a prosecutor, in which case he is unfit to represent the president). Now, Trump and his real lawyers might agree that Giuliani should go away.

For more than a year, Trump has insisted the Russia investigation is a “witch hunt” because there was “no collusion”; now Giuliani seems to be saying Trump may have colluded, but that collusion is no big deal. (Query whether Giuliani thereby confessed his client has been obstructing a legitimate investigation.) Putting aside the legalities, Giuliani is hinting that Trump is a liar who perhaps betrayed his country and let a foreign country help determine the outcome of a presidential election.

Moreover, whatever you call it — collusion, conspiracy, coordination — it is illegal to seek something of value from a foreign national during a federal campaign; it is illegal to make use of stolen materials (emails) you know were ill-gotten; and it is illegal to cover up that scheme (by, among other things, drafting a phony story to explain a meeting of conspirators). If Trump did any of those things, he is in deep legal trouble.

Giuliani also gave contradictory accounts of a separate meeting before the June 9 meeting, saying the earlier meeting wasn’t a problem since Trump didn’t attend. The former New York City mayor later claimed there really wasn’t such a meeting. Goodness knows what parts, if any, of his conflicting accounts are true.

If there was some plan here to make Trump look innocent, it didn’t work. It did, however, raise doubts that the “no collusion” defense can withstand scrutiny.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>A dispute over fees at Trump’s National Golf Club in Virginia

This is the funniest one, I think. Mueller quit the club and the club wouldn't refund his membership fee. So it was a dispute _manufactured_ by Trump. Akin to something like:

"That prosecutor can't prosecute me! I called his wife a slut a while back and now he's mad at me. Total CONFLICT!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"For months, I have been suggesting that cable news networks stop giving air time to Rudolph W. Giuliani, who often makes patently false statements, doesn’t appear to be doing any real lawyering for President Trump and intentionally misstates the law (unless he’s forgotten everything he learned as a prosecutor, in which case he is unfit to represent the president). Now, Trump and his real lawyers might agree that Giuliani should go away. "

Ms Rubin says she suggests they quit giving them air time but then lists all the reasons that they never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From New York Review reporter Murray Waas:

================
I have learned that a confidential White House memorandum, which is in the special counsel’s possession, explicitly states that when Trump pressured Comey he had just been told by two of his top aides—his then chief of staff Reince Priebus and his White House counsel Don McGahn—that Flynn was under criminal investigation.

During my reporting, I was allowed to read the memo in its entirety, as well as other, underlying White House records quoted in the memo, such as notes and memos written by McGahn and other senior administration officials . . . .

In arguing in their January 29 letter that Trump did not obstruct justice, the president’s attorneys Dowd and Sekulow quoted selectively from this same memo, relying only on a few small portions of it. They also asserted that even if Trump knew there had been an FBI investigation of Flynn, Trump believed that Flynn had been cleared. Full review of the memo flatly contradicts this story.
================

This is clear obstruction - attempting to use presidential power to get the Justice Department to back off a criminal investigation of one of his guys. Their use of the memo proves they were not unaware of it, and the later firing of Comey demonstrates that Trump's threats were not idle.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/07/31/what-trump-knew-and-when-he-knew-it/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why hasn't Robert Mueller subpoenaed Trump? Three theories about the Russia investigation

" Mueller may have gathered so much evidence that he can reach informed conclusions about how to proceed without securing the president’s testimony....

evidentiary developments in the investigation may have moved the president from being a “subject” of the investigation to being a “target.” If this is the case, then Department of Justice policies would strongly argue against using a grand jury subpoena to compel the president to testify....

a guiding principle of grand jury practice is that prosecutors generally do not subpoena targets. This is because it would be futile to subpoena a target only to have that witness refuse to testify by invoking the Fifth Amendment. This principle is a corollary to the bedrock trial principle that a defendant has an absolute right not to testify at his own trial. Prosecutors generally avoid trying to force defendants to incriminate themselves via a grand jury....

Several of the individuals indicted were not subpoenaed prior to being charged. For example, Paul Manafort (obviously a target) was not subpoenaed to the grand jury; he was indicted. Rick Gates was not subpoenaed to the grand jury; he was indicted. Alex van der Zwaan was not subpoenaed to the grand jury; he was indicted."
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/why-hasn-t-robert-mueller-subpoenaed-trump-three-theories-about-ncna892591

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trump this morning:

"This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further."

So looks like he's trying to obstruct justice again by telling Sessions to intervene and stop Mueller from completing his work.

Quick! Cue the Trump reinterpreters!

Sarah: "The president is stating his opinion. It's not an order, but I think he's been crystal clear about this investigation from the beginning." She then went to use the word "opinion" five times.

What does Rudy have to say for himself?

Rudy: "A lot of his tweets have been very helpful. The reason he may not have to testify is that he’s laid out his defense very clearly."

So his tweets lay out his defense, including stopping Mueller via Sessions.

Oops, Rudy said that _before_ Trump's latest tweet! Let's see if he has, uh, reinterpreted his stance:

Rudy: "I think it’s very well-established the president uses tweets to express his opinion. He very carefully used the word ‘should.’ "

Ah, so it's just his opinion! After all, if your boss says "you should really get that contract signed, like yesterday, unless you want to be the cause of this company losing even more money" he is just expressing his opinion. It's not like he's telling you what to do; you don't have to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Rudy: "I think it’s very well-established the president uses tweets to express his opinion.



Funny that, I seem to remember the White House established something very different. ""The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States," Spicer said, when asked during his daily briefing how they should be characterized."
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There’s absolutely no reason to deal with the premise of your assertions or questions! One of the things you state is you think Trump is a dictator. Tell me, how do you support that?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States," Spicer said, when asked during his daily briefing how they should be characterized.


That's only when he says something that is NOT incriminating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

Trump this morning:

"This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further."

So looks like he's trying to obstruct justice again by telling Sessions to intervene and stop Mueller from completing his work.

Quick! Cue the Trump reinterpreters!

Sarah: "The president is stating his opinion. It's not an order, but I think he's been crystal clear about this investigation from the beginning." She then went to use the word "opinion" five times.

What does Rudy have to say for himself?

Rudy: "A lot of his tweets have been very helpful. The reason he may not have to testify is that he’s laid out his defense very clearly."

So his tweets lay out his defense, including stopping Mueller via Sessions.

Oops, Rudy said that _before_ Trump's latest tweet! Let's see if he has, uh, reinterpreted his stance:

Rudy: "I think it’s very well-established the president uses tweets to express his opinion. He very carefully used the word ‘should.’ "

Ah, so it's just his opinion! After all, if your boss says "you should really get that contract signed, like yesterday, unless you want to be the cause of this company losing even more money" he is just expressing his opinion. It's not like he's telling you what to do; you don't have to do it.



The smell of fear must pervade the White House.

And still the spineless congressional GOP does SFA.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RushMC, The president can be subpoenaed. Thank Bill for that.



Quote

U.S. Code.
"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Notes:

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 88, 294 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 37, 35 Stat. 1096; Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 178a, as added Sept. 27, 1944, ch. 425, 58 Stat. 752).

This section consolidates said sections 88 and 294 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

To reflect the construction placed upon said section 88 by the courts the words “or any agency thereof” were inserted. (See Haas v. Henkel, 1909, 30 S. Ct. 249, 216 U. S. 462, 54 L. Ed. 569, 17 Ann. Cas. 1112, where court said: “The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of government.” Also, see United States v. Walter, 1923, 44 S. Ct. 10, 263 U. S. 15, 68 L. Ed. 137, and definitions of department and agency in section 6 of this title.)

The punishment provision is completely rewritten to increase the penalty from 2 years to 5 years except where the object of the conspiracy is a misdemeanor. If the object is a misdemeanor, the maximum imprisonment for a conspiracy to commit that offense, under the revised section, cannot exceed 1 year.

The injustice of permitting a felony punishment on conviction for conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is described by the late Hon. Grover M. Moscowitz, United States district judge for the eastern district of New York, in an address delivered March 14, 1944, before the section on Federal Practice of the New York Bar Association, reported in 3 Federal Rules Decisions, pages 380–392.

Hon. John Paul, United States district judge for the western district of Virginia, in a letter addressed to Congressman Eugene J. Keogh dated January 27, 1944, stresses the inadequacy of the 2-year sentence prescribed by existing law in cases where the object of the conspiracy is the commission of a very serious offense.

The punishment provision of said section 294 of title 18 was considered for inclusion in this revised section. It provided the same penalties for conspiracy to violate the provisions of certain counterfeiting laws, as are applicable in the case of conviction for the specific violations. Such a punishment would seem as desirable for all conspiracies as for such offenses as counterfeiting and transporting stolen property in interstate commerce.

A multiplicity of unnecessary enactments inevitably leads to confusion and disregard of law. (See reviser’s note under section 493 of this title.)

Since consolidation was highly desirable and because of the strong objections of prosecutors to the general application of the punishment provision of said section 294, the revised section represents the best compromise that could be devised between sharply conflicting views.

A number of special conspiracy provisions, relating to specific offenses, which were contained in various sections incorporated in this title, were omitted because adequately covered by this section. A few exceptions were made, (1) where the conspiracy would constitute the only offense, or (2) where the punishment provided in this section would not be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. Special conspiracy provisions were retained in sections 241, 286, 372, 757, 794, 956, 1201, 2271, 2384 and 2388 of this title. Special conspiracy provisions were added to sections 2153 and 2154 of this title.
Amendments
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The smell of fear must pervade the White House.

Yep. Trump isn't great on planning, and was likely hoping that the whole collusion-with-Russia thing would just blow over somehow. Maybe Mueller would get bad ratings and get cancelled before anything really happened.

Then Manafort got sent to jail for colluding with Russians, trying to tamper with the witnesses in his trial. And now that trial is starting. And suddenly it's starting to seem very real to Trump; if Manafort can't avoid justice, what about the rest of his administration? How will he protect the guilty? Witness the angry and irrational posts he is making attacking Mueller.

See attached.

M1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2