I continue to hope that Trump won't be impeached because, amongst other things, that would make him a martyr of the hard right and lessen or even reverse the electoral damage they are starting to accrue — andrewk

I think you have weigh that against the possible damage he could do as President. What if he decides for a more aggressive approach to North Korea, or a more lax approach to Russian interference in future elections?

Deleted overly cynical rant. — Erik

Pity. As cynical rants go, it was a good one. :up:

So... Sean Hannity, eh?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/business/media/sean-hannity-michael-cohen-client.html

Sadly, this is probably perfectly acceptable to Trump partisans.

He really threw Cohen under the bus with his denials. Now the prosecutors can claim that Cohen lied (so perjury?) and that his conversations with Hannity aren't privileged.

Pity. As cynical rants go, it was a good one. :up: — Baden

Thanks, Baden. It was definitely cathartic!

"People in this country need to stand up and go to the voting booth and vote their values." — andrewk

That would require a candidate who shares them. Unfortunately, American government has not been representing the overwhelming majority of it's citizens for a very long time. This is proven true by looking at legislation and other official activities where conflicts of interest between the overwhelming majority and the very few have been in play. The very few being a source of money and power for elected officials. The ability to become rich and powerful while in government requires that one turn their back on the common good. That is the case, because so many have and are currently doing so...

I think that if Mueller finds evidence of severe wrongdoing on Trump's part, they will offer him a way out, if they can keep it under wraps... and it seems Mueller is more than capable of doing that. If Trump's crimes are outrageous enough, and they make it into the public sphere, then the American government will have no choice but to make an example of Trump.

Many government officials financially benefitted in tremendous ways as a direct result of being an elected official, and currently do in lots of cases. This is no big secret. Trump knows that, and is exactly why he scoffs at the emolument clause. The problem is that Trump is in your face about it, whereas most everyone in past kept in quiet.

Conflict of interest?

What is that again? A lost principle that is imperative to the success of a democratic republic... unfortunately so. A preventative measure that is absolutely necessary.

think that if Mueller finds evidence of severe wrongdoing on Trump's part, they will offer him a way out, if they can keep it under wraps... — creativesoul

Keep it under wraps? Are you suggesting that Mueller would involve himself in a cover up?

Keep it under wraps? Are you suggesting that Mueller would involve himself in a cover up? — Metaphysician Undercover

Mueller is required to provide a report to Rosenstein. Rosenstein then has to decide what to do with it. He might make it public, he might send it to Congress, or he might do nothing with it.

Why Mueller’s findings in the Trump-Russia probe may never see the light of day.

So it wouldn't really be a cover-up as such (or at least not in a legal sense). What could be worrying is that, according to that article, Trump can order Rosenstein not to release it to the public or Congress.

DNC files suit alleging that Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and for Trump by hacking the computer networks of the Democratic Party and disseminating stolen material illegally gathered there. This is all based on information already available in the public domain. Part of the rationale for the suit is because Mueller's findings might never see light of day and also because of statute of limitations issues.

When it's all said and done, I think we'll know that Trump was approached by Russians who offered to help his campaign, and it was understood that Trump would behave benevolently toward Russia in exchange for that help. Trump can't be impeached because there won't be enough Democrats or neutral Republicans to do it. Besides, collusion is a vague term. It's not an official crime.

The winner in all of it is the press. The mystery provided lots of semi-interesting content. Would any of it have happened if Trump hadn't fired Comey? Probably not.

Besides, collusion is a vague term. It's not an official crime. — frank

It'd be 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States and/or 52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.

New York Times obtained questions that Mueller wants to ask Trump

In reality...there’s already overwhelming evidence of the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia. As details of Trump’s Russia connections have dribbled out over the last year and a half, each revelation has led to a familiar, numbing cycle of shock, impotent anger, and, finally, resignation.

Try to remember, if you can, how astonishing it was on Jan. 6, 2017, when America’s intelligence community made public its finding that Russia had intervened in our election to help Trump. Imagine if we’d known then just a fraction of what we know now: like the November 2015 email exchange between Felix Sater, a Trump associate and convicted felon with ties to Russian organized crime, and the Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, recently the subject of an F.B.I. raid. Sater boasted, “Buddy, our boy can become president of the U.S.A. and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putin’s team to buy in on this.” We still don’t know what Sater meant by this. Republicans have shown a staggering lack of interest in finding out.

Imagine if, as we were learning about Russian measures last January, we’d also found out about the Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s offer to deliver briefings to a Russian oligarch to whom he was deeply in debt. And if we’d known that one Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had been in frequent communication with someone who claimed to be from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and that the F.B.I. suspected another campaign adviser, Carter Page, of being a Russian agent.

...When intelligence agency veterans — including James Comey, the former director of national intelligence James Clapper and the former C.I.A. director John Brennan — speak out with alarm about Trump, the media debates their propriety, while Republicans frame their contempt for the president as evidence of a deep-state conspiracy. When a brave comedian, Michelle Wolf, jeered at the administration’s indecency at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, the Washington establishment had a fainting fit at the violation of its safe space.

Under Trump, the central battle in our culture is between truth and power. The truth hidden among the propaganda in the House Intelligence Committee’s majority report is that power is winning.

Source.

However, the same people who once claimed Trump campaign colluded with Putin to impact on the election have since stated no evidence of such has been found.

Bit of a waste of time you posting that, then, really. The same people you thought were telling you the truth have had to retract.

Will you only believe what they used to say and choose to not believe what those same ones are saying now?

How inconvenient, eh!

Which people are those exactly?

Chuck Todd, NBC News; "Does intelligence exist that can definitely answer the following question, whether or not there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?"

James Clapper, Former Director of National Intelligence; "We did not include any evidence in our report, and when I say our, that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report."

Todd; "I understand that but does it exist?"

Clapper; "Not to my knowledge."

Equivocation around “collusion” played a large part in fueling the public’s imagination that a crime had been committed.

Still, if Chelsea Clinton got busted for having a meeting with Russians, after her mother claimed there was no contact with Russians, would be harped upon endlessly by the likes of Hannity, Levin, and Wilkow as a smoking gun.

Clapper is retired, and thus is not privy to what Mueller does have.

That's a misrepresentation of Clapper's statement. The report did not contain any evidence of collusion, which didn't mean no such evidence was with the FBI at the time. Clapper would not be aware of all FBI investigations especially if they did not meet a certain evidentiary level.

As a European it never ceases to amaze me how the brains of Democrats and Republicans switch off any time it concerns one of their "team".

it’s all just a bit inconvenient really, eh. You guys are grasping at hope your bogey man falls.

Poor lot.

what? I couldn't care less about it. It's like watching a soap opera and a decent amount of Schadenfreude to me.

You're an excellent example of what I mean. You come into this thread with a baseless assertion and then try to make fun of people with a different opinion. Newsflash: reasonable people can reasonably disagree but requires everybody involved to respect each other instead of thinking ridicule and sarcasm are appropriate.

yeah right. The testimony, which the then Director of National Intelligence, Clapper, also gave under oath, is a baseless assertion.

Keep it up.

No, you claiming that statement entails there is no such evidence is baseless assertion. Clapper has later clarified he does not know if such evidence exists, merely that the report did not contain it.

I see. So it exists in the ether?

Maybe they will put it before an ethereal judge in an ethereal court supported by ethereal witnesses.

Maybe Trump will be put in an ethereal jail.

Ok, let's look at what Clapper said:

Clapper: "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report." - emphasis mine

Todd: "I understand that. But does it exist?"

Clapper: "Not to my knowledge."

So evidence could exist outside of Clapper's knowledge as he also explains in the below video, which from a later date than Clapper's statements you're basing yourself off but are interpreting totally incorrectly.

Clapper explains that he would not necessarilybe aware of FBI evidence. About the collusion probe:

"So it’s not surprising or abnormal that I would not have known about the investigation, or even more importantly, the content of that investigation."

"So I don’t know if there was collusion or no,"

Clapper is also asked if he agrees with Trump that the Russian investigation is a "witch hunt," to which he replies, "I don’t believe it is."

https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/clapper-on-fbi-probe-i-don-t-know-if-there-was-collusion-942514243871

So, yes, you're just peddling partisan bullshit and seem to insist on a reading of Clapper's words he himself cleary didn't mean.

He is fumbling all about the place because he knows he is caught. The whole investigation is falling apart and has been for some time.

Ii has been a case of investigating a person rather than investigating a crime.

No crime has been identified.

Crime is what is supposed to be investigated which goes for every individual.

This whole farce, remember, is an "insurance policy" in case Hillary lost the election.

He is fumbling all about the place because he knows he is caught. The whole investigation is falling apart and has been for some time. — Dalai Dahmer

No, he's not fumbling. You just refuse to take his initial statement at face value as only pertaining to the report. And then when he tells you "that's not what I said nor meant" you come out claiming you know better than Clapper himself what he meant, whereas for a casual reader like myself it's pretty clear what he means.

Ii has been a case of investigating a person rather than investigating a crime. — Dalai Dahmer

The remit of the Müller investigation is quite clear and broader than an investigation in a specific crime. appointment of special counsel

No crime has been identified.

Crime is what is supposed to be investigated which goes for every individual. — Dalai Dahmer

Right. So suspicious behaviour should be ignored because we cannot link a specific crime with it? I really hope you never get into law enforcement with that idea of what investigations are supposed to accomplish.

This whole farce, remember, is an "insurance policy" in case Hillary lost the election. — Dalai Dahmer

Müller's investigation has so far resulted in 22 plea deals and indictments. Hardly a farce.

As I said, you continue to be a prime example of an American whose brain shuts off when somebody on his team gets attacked. You're confusing loyalty with stupidity.

Müller's investigation has so far resulted in 22 plea deals and indictments. Hardly a farce. — Benkei

That is how thuggery works. Family members are threatened and incomes are threatened.

It is the old mafia tricks.

Right. So suspicious behaviour should be ignored because we cannot link a specific crime with it? I really hope you never get into law enforcement with that idea of what investigations are supposed to accomplish. — Benkei

Yes I am right. That is how it is supposed to work.



Keep watching. You'll see.

Keep watching. You'll see. — Dalai Dahmer

Ah, so you admit that what you claim hasn't yet been borne out by the facts. I guess that's something.

Facts have not been produced. If Herr Muller had facts that fitted their collusion narrative he wouldn't have lost interest in it and gone instead looking into alleged consensual sex with a hooker.