The US Presidency 2019

[brihard]

True.  But the Russian collusion thing should be put to rest.

Yup, that appears to be the case.

Just give it up.  Your TDS is showing.

I await your fact-based rebuttal to literally any of what I posted. If you want to dig back into past posts and bring out evidence of my supposed 'Trump Derangement Syndrome", knock yourself out. I have hardly been a cymbal-clanging monkey for the anti-Trump camp. I don't like him as a person or as the president of one of our allies- he has specifically attacked Canadian trade, and as a loyal and patriotic Canadian I quite reasonably take issue with economic attacks on my country's industries by a major trade partner. But you won't find shrill cries from me to impeach him, you won't find me spending the past two years posting sensationalist speculation on collusion... I just watch the facts as they roll out and occasionally comment on them. Everything I fust said is easily verifiable. There hve been convictions, and there are more trials pending.

Mueller's investigation resulted in 34 people charged, including 7 Americans, with five arguably significant individuals being convicted thus far:
- George Papadopolous, one of his foreign policy advisors, pled guilty to the criminal offense of making false statements to the FBI.
- Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, pled guilty to conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice. He was convicted at trial of multiple counts of tax fraud and bank fraud, and got 73 months in prison.
- Rick Gates, the campaign #2 under Manafort and later Bannon, pled guilty to conspiracy against the U.S., and false statements. He flipped and is awaiting sentencing, as well as getting a bevy of further charges withdrawn.
- LGen (ret'd) Mike Flynn was Trump's National Security Advisor. He pled guilty to lying to the FBI. He cooperated with further investigations and is pending sentencing.
- Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, pled guilty to false statements - lying to the FBI. He pled guilty to illegal campaign contributions in conjunction with buying the silence of a couple women that Trump slept with in order to avoid damaging stories during the election, at Trump's behest. He also pled guilty to tax offences. He also pled guilty to perjury in congressional testimony on the Moscow Trump Tower deal, again to cover for Trump. He later flipped and cooperated with the investigation.

Separately, Trump's foundation has been shut down and is under court supervised dissolution because he was essentially using it as a slush fund. Tax investigations are ongoing and there is a very real prospect of prosecution of Trump or members of his family under New York state law. I'm not going to speculate as to the likelihood of that, or of likely results. It's simply a realistic prospect based on the evidence that is now on the record.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. You may not like the facts. They may not be comfortable, convenient, or politically palatable to you, but the facts remain as they are. When I said that Trump still faces legal jeopardy out of this whole schmozzle, that is entirely accurate. Would I be happy to see him defeated in the next election? Yes. His presidency has proven bad for Canada due to his attacks on our trade and industry, and I do not think he shows the character or ethics one would want to see in a world leader. Am I going to kick and scream and refuse to 'accept' the results of the election if he wins? Absolutely not, I'll shrug and carry on knowing that we live in an imperfect world. Am I going to make crap up or spread propaganda out of some hyperpartisan zeal? Absolutely not. I'm just going to keep watching and see how it all shakes out.

That's the nice thing about objective, verifiable facts. They don't care about our opinion, and they create a nice baseline and a strong foundation for any discussion.

 

[TimneyTime]

Mm hm. The Mueller investigation still resulted in 34 individuals being charged. Several of Trump's close associates and hand-picked advisors are already now convicted criminals and are serving or facing jail time. More are on the docket. There is still considerable legal fallout hanging over him from campaign finance offences, likely tax fraud, and fraud around his now-dissolved foundation. He's hardly out of the woods yet, nor is he coming out of this clean.

Show me where any of the indictments were due to Russian Collusion, which is what the Mueller investigation was supposed to be about.

No Russian Collusion.  Case closed.  That's all the proof you need, my friend.  After 2 years... zilcho, nada, nothing.  Just a bunch of side cases that had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

 

[brihard]

Show me where any of the indictments were due to Russian Collusion, which is what the Mueller investigation was supposed to be about.

No Russian Collusion.  Case closed.  That's all the proof you need, my friend.  After 2 years... zilcho, nada, nothing.  Just a bunch of side cases that had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

The Mueller investigation was about a couple things. Its intent was not to go out and prove Russian collusion- they did not situate the estimate in that manner. It was to see if such collusion existed. It did not ultimately find sufficient evidence to lay charges against anyone for offences under that umbrella. The investigation was also to determine the extent, if any, of Russian interference in the election. It found considerable evidence of same, resulting in numerous indictments. These two aspects of the investigation were necessarily related, and each was worthy in its own right.

At no point will you find that I have claimed there is Russian collusion. I have not sat here lamenting that the investigation didn't find that- I wasn't sitting here hoping there would be. On the contrary I very much hoped their wouldn't be. My dislike of Trump doesn't extend to hoping he actively colluded with a foreign power. As I said, I simply watch and see what the facts are.

The investigation was also appropriately empowered to prosecute other matters that they discovered, among which were several conspiracies against the United States for which criminal convictions have already resulted.

Don't attempt to put claims in my mouth that I haven't made. I'm an evidence and facts based guy. You will find that I generally say precisely what I mean and mean precisely what I say. If I haven't claimed or alleged something, you don't get to assume or infer that I have. Other things emerged incidental to the primary objectives of the Mueller investigation, and thsoe things are in their own right interesting, concerning, and worth watching. So yes, the Mueller investigation is now complete, and it appears no more federal indictments will results from same. Several federal and state legal proceedings continue, and it remains evident that the president is potentially personally exposed to legal jeopardy on campaign finance and tax issues. Again, objective, verifiable facts whether one likes them or not.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I just want to know if Hillary will come out of her hotel room and make a consession speech now.

 

[brihard]

I just want to know if Hillary will come out of her hotel room and make a consession speech now.

Like a repeat of the one she made on 9 November, 2016?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSPBjOnHTaM

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Oh yea....next day.  You know you can lighten up also Francis.  Taking things a little too serious...

 

[FJAG]

Show me where any of the indictments were due to Russian Collusion, which is what the Mueller investigation was supposed to be about.

No Russian Collusion.  Case closed.  That's all the proof you need, my friend.  After 2 years... zilcho, nada, nothing.  Just a bunch of side cases that had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

The case is far from closed and the absence of proof does not negate the fact that the entire situation with Trump stinks to high heaven. As far as indictments go, twelve Russians were indicted in July 2018 on charges related to a conspiracy to hack Democratic computers with the goal of influencing the 2016 election and another thirteen Russian nationals and three entities, including the Internet Research Agency, were indicted in February 2018 with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. for interfering with the election. The US intelligence community is unanimous in its opinion that Russia ran a campaign to influence the US electorate away from Clinton and towards Trump.

Trump's infatuation with Putin is clearly evident as are his attempted business efforts in Russia. The man has clearly put his own interests well above that of his country and even of his own party. He's been a fraud artist and liar his entire life and continues to be one.

Personally I have never thought that there was "clear collusion" (in so far as Putin and Trump sitting down and saying "here's what we'll do" and essentially that, or something close to it, is what you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the crime of collusion) but there was at least encouragement by his campaign staff of Russian interference on behalf of their candidate and Trump's own public announcements that he hoped the Russians would find Clinton's email. And what about Flynn's discussions with the Russians pre-inauguration that the sanctions would be lifted now that his boy had won; doesn't that give even you concern that there was a quid pro quo in play?-- Not conclusive proof of collusion but encouragement of Putin's already running plan of interference. Could you have seen McCain or his staff acting like Trump and his gang did? I don't think so.

I'll wait to see until the final report comes out. There's a long gap between balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt and as usual, the devil's in the details.

:worms:

 

[mariomike]

Like a repeat of the one she made on 9 November, 2016?

Her speech seems to have inspired many women to run for office as Democrats in 2018,

NBC
Nov. 20, 2018
Midterms 2018: It was the Year of the Woman — for Democrats, not Republicans
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/it-was-year-woman-not-republican-side-n938341
Democrats have elected 35 new women to the House, compared with just one for Republicans.
Of the 103 women so far slated to serve in the House next year, 90 are Democrats.

 

[QV]

The TDS is strong in this thread.  I get the impression those wedded to Trump being some sort of Russian spy won’t accept any alternative. 

This was a distraction.  Now that the Mueller investigation is over, hopefully we’re about to see what really happened.  There should be a special counsel appointed to finish this.  Starting with investigating the FISA abuses, which should open up into everything else going on. 

 

[brihard]

The TDS is strong in this thread.  I get the impression those wedded to Trump being some sort of Russian spy won’t accept any alternative. 

This was a distraction.  Now that the Mueller investigation is over, hopefully we’re about to see what really happened.  There should be a special counsel appointed to finish this.  Starting with investigating the FISA abuses, which should open up into everything else going on.

The corollary to that is that there are thsoe - surprisingly, even here in Canada, a country against which Trump has aligned himself in his economic and trade policy- who believe that disfavouring or opposing Trump can only be explained by 'derangement', that is, insanity or madness.

It's not "I disagree with the facts upon which you base your claims. Here's what I believe to actually be true and here's the evidence for same."
It's not "I disagree with your reasoning or analysis or interpretation about a commonly agreed on set of facts, and here's why."
It's not "I disagree witht he political or ethical principles that shape how you see this, and here's why."

Instead it's "You don't like the guy I like. Therefore, despite the arguments you'e presented and the facts that I am unable to dispute, I'm going to dismiss you as insane."

'Deranged' is kidnapping and hacking up the kid down the street because the voices from your TV told you to; or walking around wearing tin foil on your head all day because the government is trying to read your thoughts via satellite. 'Deranged' is not simply having a rationally based position on political, economic, or foreign relations matters that leads to a differing political view from your own. If you're stuck resorting to calling those politically opposed to you 'deranged', your own position is probably pretty shaky.

 

[Scott]

Let's just leave references to TDS out of things from now on. It adds nothing whatsoever.

Scott
Staff

 

[TimneyTime]

The case is far from closed and the absence of proof does not negate the fact that the entire situation with Trump stinks to high heaven. As far as indictments go, twelve Russians were indicted in July 2018 on charges related to a conspiracy to hack Democratic computers with the goal of influencing the 2016 election and another thirteen Russian nationals and three entities, including the Internet Research Agency, were indicted in February 2018 with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. for interfering with the election. The US intelligence community is unanimous in its opinion that Russia ran a campaign to influence the US electorate away from Clinton and towards Trump.

Trump's infatuation with Putin is clearly evident as are his attempted business efforts in Russia. The man has clearly put his own interests well above that of his country and even of his own party. He's been a fraud artist and liar his entire life and continues to be one.

Personally I have never thought that there was "clear collusion" (in so far as Putin and Trump sitting down and saying "here's what we'll do" and essentially that, or something close to it, is what you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the crime of collusion) but there was at least encouragement by his campaign staff of Russian interference on behalf of their candidate and Trump's own public announcements that he hoped the Russians would find Clinton's email. And what about Flynn's discussions with the Russians pre-inauguration that the sanctions would be lifted now that his boy had won; doesn't that give even you concern that there was a quid pro quo in play?-- Not conclusive proof of collusion but encouragement of Putin's already running plan of interference. Could you have seen McCain or his staff acting like Trump and his gang did? I don't think so.

I'll wait to see until the final report comes out. There's a long gap between balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt and as usual, the devil's in the details.

:worms:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-robert-mueller-delivers-report-20190322-story.html

Special counsel Robert Mueller closed his long and contentious Russia investigation with no new charges Friday, ending the probe that has cast a dark shadow over Donald Trump's presidency but launching a fresh wave of political battles over the still-confidential findings.

The case is closed.

 

[brihard]

Let's just leave references to TDS out of things from now on. It adds nothing whatsoever.

Scott
Staff

Thank you, much appreciated.

 

[QV]

Brihard, you of all people should take offence to corruption in high office and abuse of law enforcement and judicial processes.  If Trump did any of these things, he needs to go.  I’m happy to read the leader of Canada’s closest ally did not collude with our adversaries.  And related, I’m very disappointed to read the Canadian Prime Minister possibly obstructed justice (this originating from within his innermost circle when his AG went public is much different from Trumps opponents going after him). 

I can be a Canadian patriot and have both of those opinions, but nice try. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Hill, who has not been a fan of Trump or Republicans

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/435552-apologies-to-president-trump

Apologies to President Trump

With the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe now known to a significant degree, it seems apologies are in order.

However, judging by the recent past, apologies are not likely forthcoming from the responsible parties.

In this context, it matters not whether one is a supporter or a critic of President Trump.

Whatever his supposed flaws, the rampant accusations and speculation that shrouded Trump’s presidency, even before it began, ultimately have proven unfounded. Just as Trump said all along.

Yet, each time Trump said so, some of us in the media lampooned him. We treated any words he spoke in his own defense as if they were automatically to be disbelieved because he had uttered them. Some even declared his words to be “lies,” although they had no evidence to back up their claims.

We in the media allowed unproven charges and false accusations to dominate the news landscape for more than two years, in a way that was wildly unbalanced and disproportionate to the evidence.

We did a poor job of tracking down leaks of false information. We failed to reasonably weigh the motives of anonymous sources and those claiming to have secret, special evidence of Trump’s “treason.”

As such, we reported a tremendous amount of false information, always to Trump’s detriment.

And when we corrected our mistakes, we often doubled down more than we apologized. We may have been technically wrong on that tiny point, we would acknowledge. But, in the same breath, we would insist that Trump was so obviously guilty of being Russian President Vladimir Putin’s puppet that the technical details hardly mattered.

So, a round of apologies seem in order.

Apologies to Trump on behalf of those in the U.S. intelligence community, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, which allowed the weaponization of sensitive, intrusive intelligence tools against innocent citizens such as Carter Page, an adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Apologies also to Page himself, to Jerome Corsi, Donald Trump Jr., and other citizens whose rights were violated or who were unfairly caught up in surveillance or the heated pursuit of charges based on little more than false, unproven opposition research paid for by Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Apologies for the stress on their jobs and to their families, the damage to their reputations, the money they had to spend to hire legal representation and defend themselves from charges for crimes they did not commit.

Apologies on behalf of those in the intelligence community who leaked true information out of context to make Trump look guilty, and who sometimes leaked false information to try to implicate or frame him.

Apologies from those in the chain of command at the FBI and the Department of Justice who were supposed to make sure all information presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is verified but did not do so.

Apologies from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court judges who are supposed to serve as one of the few checks and balances to prevent the FBI from wiretapping innocent Americans. Whether because of blind trust in the FBI or out of ignorance or even malfeasance, they failed at this important job.

Apologies to the American people who did not receive the full attention of their government while political points were being scored; who were not told about some important world events because they were crowded out of the news by the persistent insistence that Trump was working for Russia.

Apologies all the way around.

And now, with those apologies handled — are more than apologies due?

Should we try to learn more about those supposed Russian sources who provided false “intel” contained in the “dossier” against Trump, Page and others? Should we learn how these sources came to the attention of ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who built the dossier and claimed that some of the sources were close to Putin?

When and where did Steele meet with these high-level Russian sources who provided the apparently false information? 

Are these the people who actually took proven, concrete steps to interfere in the 2016 election and sabotage Trump’s presidency, beginning in its earliest days?

Just who conspired to put the “dossier” into the hands of the FBI? Who, within our intel community, dropped the ball on verifying the information and, instead, leaked it to the press and presented it to the FISC as if legitimate?

“Sorry” hardly seems to be enough.

Will anyone be held accountable?

Perhaps people are finally awaking from their biased and bemoaning bleating. I am waiting for Sen Lindsay Graham to start Senate Judicial hearing into the other side of things. Time to move the fire to where it will actually burn those responsible.

 

[kkwd]

Looks like the Mueller report destroyed an entire industry. Can we blame this one on Trump?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/mueller-investigation-ends-along-its-industry/585634/

The Mueller-Industrial Complex Collapses
Newsmakers, pundits, and hustlers banked their future on the investigation taking down the president. The jig is up.

The investigation’s actual result now also casts a dour shadow over the Mueller-industrial complex’s wares and messages. The work came at a great cost: It cannibalized the future for the benefit of the present. Like taking out a loan on news to come in the hopes that its benefit will pay out enough to cover its costs, the Mueller disciples traded their own anticipatory media on margin, assuming that their winnings would more than pay off their debts. That bet turned out to be a bad one, and now the payment has come due.

 

[brihard]

Brihard, you of all people should take offence to corruption in high office and abuse of law enforcement and judicial processes.  If Trump did any of these things, he needs to go.  I’m happy to read the leader of Canada’s closest ally did not collude with our adversaries.  And related, I’m very disappointed to read the Canadian Prime Minister possibly obstructed justice (this originating from within his innermost circle when his AG went public is much different from Trumps opponents going after him). 

I can be a Canadian patriot and have both of those opinions, but nice try.

I take issue with any and all criminality, wheresoever it may be found. I don't care who the facts come out against so long as they're truthful.

You're attempting to bring another red herring into this with the reference to our own ongoing political tribulations. I have not referenced those here, nor have I suggested views on the one must necessarily dictate views on the other. In fact I agree with you saying thsoe two viewpoints are not contradictory, but then I have never claimed otherwise because I've never related those two subjects here, and in fact I very specifically steer pretty well clear of the latter of the two for reasons that are probably obvious. By trying to imply that I have, you're being disingenuous. What I said was, and I quote:

"he has specifically attacked Canadian trade, and as a loyal and patriotic Canadian I quite reasonably take issue with economic attacks on my country's industries by a major trade partner."

"His presidency has proven bad for Canada due to his attacks on our trade and industry, and I do not think he shows the character or ethics one would want to see in a world leader."

"there are thsoe - surprisingly, even here in Canada, a country against which Trump has aligned himself in his economic and trade policy- who believe that disfavouring or opposing Trump can only be explained by 'derangement', that is, insanity or madness"

I don't insist on anyone else sharing my views. I do insist on people being truthful about what I have said or suggested. You are not doing that. You're merely trying to change the subject and move the goalposts when I called you out on your prior post.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't insist on anyone else sharing my views. I do insist on people being truthful about what I have said or suggested. You are not doing that. You're merely trying to change the subject and move the goalposts when I called you out on your prior post.

Appears to happen quite often here.You are not unique in that aspect. YMMV.

 

[brihard]

Appears to happen quite often here.You are not unique in that aspect. YMMV.

You are not a victim.

You are now totally immaterial to anything I wish to discuss. Back to ignore so you can go bang the drums or something.

I guess nine days wasn’t bad, and a whole two weeks would have been wishful thinking on my part. Well done you.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You are not a victim.

I guess nine days wasn’t bad, and a whole two weeks would have been wishful thinking on my part. Well done you.

I said nothing about being a victim.

I simply stated a truism.

As for ignore, it's my decision, I can apply and rescind as I see fit.

Now, what was that you were saying about putting words in people's mouths?