[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

.
Oh ok, 'its only wrong when it happens to my side' is your argument. Got it.

.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. If you can't handle what I'm saying, don't start arguing for your point.

It's not my side. I'm an observer, not an american. I observe disconnect from reality on the Democratic side.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I translated the words you were saying to be more honest. You just flat out cannot claim Hillary is guilty if you think Trump is proven innocent. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump supporters who still claim Hillary is guilty despite being formally cleared by the FBI. Trump is even less cleared since ya know, the actual report hasn't been released.

The FBI said Hillary is not guilty. Trump Supporter Willaim Barr said a report he wont release said Trump is not guilty. The FBI definitely was not on Hillary's side and still said she wasnt guilty.

You could just go 'I guess you're right, Hillary is innocent too', but you didnt. You double downed.

.
You translated what I said into what you think I said. I didn't claim hillary was guilty. She didn't get the same kind of legal treatment as Trump, yet he is vilified and she isn't. Regardless of the matter, I may be more ignorant of it than you, but it was you who even brought her up to begin with in your very childish response to my post. You also ignored, maybe by error, this gem of a paragraph I'd like to paste here.

When Trump said that if he'd lose then it was proof the elections were tampered with, and would not accept it, he was vilified for his opinions. Nowadays the same people who vilified him for that same comment, say that the elections were tampered with, because they lost. It's a fucking joke.

That paragraph is exactly the reason why I don't believe a lot of news outlets regarding this issue. It has come to herd mentality in the field and I'm tired of it. They did it with Iraq, they can do it with anything else.

She got the same treatment. She just wasn't guilty so it was over faster. Still took longer than needed. Also Trump's daughter and her husband did what Hillary did and did not get investigated for it, whats up with that?

Trump made excuses. The same kind you're making. If Trump is innocent, he should prove it. He hasn't. We don't know what the Mueller Report says. If it proves him not guilty, then they should just release it, but they haven't.

Trump and his supporters CONSTANTLY apply standards to others that they do not apply to themselves. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy, and I am sick and tired of it. Trump has no right to *****, because what he claims is being done to him is what he did all the time, to Hillary and to Obama. But unlike himself, they actually proved their innocence.


You refuse to believe the news outlets, but you take William Barr and Trump at their word? If you're going to claim to be skeptical of bias, then be skeptical of bias, that includes bias in favor of Trump.

.
I will wait for its release, and your subsequent rejection, of the investigation report.

I take what I hear with a gain of salt, as they say. I see the bias, talking points and pure lunacy and I can't take it seriously.

Again, when trump said that if he'd lose the elections were tampered with, he was attacked almost universally. However when he won, the losing side immediately said the same thing he had accused Trump of saying - that it was the tampering of the elections, not the people of the US, that had caused Trump to win the elections. It's a fucking joke. I can't get over this, and any subsequent arguments truly pale in comparison to this, in my opinion.

DNC was exposed with its crimes, causing many Democrats to not vote for the party. The leak was posted on wikileaks, anonymously as it is per custom there, and yet it doesn't stop the same Democrats who spat over American democracy to turn around and blame their lose in the general elections for Trump's collusion with the Russians. The sheer BALLS on them to do this with a straight face, Ahhhhhh. I'd credit them with that.

I worried the report would come out and actually say he was not guilty. Instead ardent Trump supporters Barr and McConnel are doing everything they can to hide the report. I knew whatever it said, it wouldn't stop Trump supporters from supporting him, but this response only assures me that whatever it says, it is bad for Trump.

I have found that thinking the better of Trump is never the truth. Everytime it seemed like Trump did something right or good, it always turned out to be not true, or even worse than we thought. Trump is never actually surprising. We joked Trump would do what he does with his casinos, flop and fail and blame others and steal money. He did literally that with the government. Trump has proven to be exactly what I thought he was, and I doubt the report will change that, if we ever actually see it.

I would not expect any real answers until Trump and Republicans are out of office all together and they remove his lackeys from power to interfere all together. You have to remove his people in charge of investigating within the FBI before you can actually expect them to find anything. They were doing everything within their power to make sure nothing was found, not trying to actually find it. Everyone hears about Comey, Mccabe, and Sessions, but what about who else was promoted, demoted, and dismissed during this time period in the FBI over this? Even in the congressional committee's we have his lap dog Nunes running to Trump in the middle of the night to give him information that was supposed to go to the committee instead. It would be ignorant to think this was not happening at all levels here, because that was why Trump wanted to replace Comey in the first place. It is easy for people to claim they didn't find anything when they didn't want to find it in the first place. Trump was all over trying to replace anyone who he didn't think liked him or was not on his side. Being neutral and working for the FBI was not an option to Trump.

EDIT: Think about it, Comey, an outspoken Republican who helped get Trump elected and Sessions who was one of Trumps die hard supporters who Trump appointed himself was not even "Pro Trump" enough according to Trump to work for the DOJ or FBI, so who would be? If they were not willing to do anything and everything to do Trump's bidding they were "out". How can the DOJ or FBI be able to do a legitimate investigation into Trump in that atmosphere?

 

[Agema]

No, you're asking for someone to prove that something doesn't exist -- guilt.

In the absence of proof of guilt, innocence is presumed.

Or, at least, should be presumed.

In terms of the law, innocence is presumed. Outside of the law, i.e. normal balance of evidence, it need not be.

In either case, it is obviously possible to prove someone cannot be guilty: a person at a football match caught on camera, witnesses, etc. cannot possibly be stabbing someone to death 500 miles away.

 

[tstorm823]

So no, I do not "only think this looks bad because you're judging it on the basis that Comey didn't deserve to fired and Trump was makiong up excuses to try and end the investigation". I think this looks bad because while you might dismiss any one piece of evidence as coincidental, at this point suggesting that all these points were incidental and coincidentally suggested the same conclusion strains credulity.

It shouldn't strain you to think that.

Imagine there was a husband and wife, and the husband starts acting different. He's coming home late from work, made some mysterious cash withdrawals, and is often seen smiling at his phone like an idiot. So the wife suspects he's having an affair. She hires a private investigator to follow her husband, and the PI reports back to her that the man and some colleagues had just started a fantasy baseball league, that the money was for the prize pool, and the late time getting home/smiling at phone were all about fantasy trades, and there's no reason to worry about an affair. So the wife gets mad at the husband anyway because even if he wasn't having an affair, he sure was acting like he was hiding one.

That's where we're at with the Mueller investigation, other than the possibility that the summary we got was a lie and the full report shows Trump is guilty. There were fears Trump was conspiring with Russia for the election and he was compromised by that, so they had Mueller investigate thoroughly, and the result was that Trump wasn't working with Russia to win the election. And now people still want to indict Trump, cause even if he wasn't colluding with Russia, he sure was acting like he was hiding collusion.

Trump said he had nothing to hide, and as far as I know, cooperated with Mueller's investigation, and was found to have had nothing to hide. It's absurd at this point to consider it a crime that Trump looked suspicious of a crime he didn't commit.

 

[Asita]

So no, I do not "only think this looks bad because you're judging it on the basis that Comey didn't deserve to fired and Trump was makiong up excuses to try and end the investigation". I think this looks bad because while you might dismiss any one piece of evidence as coincidental, at this point suggesting that all these points were incidental and coincidentally suggested the same conclusion strains credulity.

It shouldn't strain you to think that.

Imagine there was a husband and wife, and the husband starts acting different. He's coming home late from work, made some mysterious cash withdrawals, and is often seen smiling at his phone like an idiot. So the wife suspects he's having an affair. She hires a private investigator to follow her husband, and the PI reports back to her that the man and some colleagues had just started a fantasy baseball league, that the money was for the prize pool, and the late time getting home/smiling at phone were all about fantasy trades, and there's no reason to worry about an affair. So the wife gets mad at the husband anyway because even if he wasn't having an affair, he sure was acting like he was hiding one.

That's where we're at with the Mueller investigation, other than the possibility that the summary we got was a lie and the full report shows Trump is guilty. There were fears Trump was conspiring with Russia for the election and he was compromised by that, so they had Mueller investigate thoroughly, and the result was that Trump wasn't working with Russia to win the election. And now people still want to indict Trump, cause even if he wasn't colluding with Russia, he sure was acting like he was hiding collusion.

Trump said he had nothing to hide, and as far as I know, cooperated with Mueller's investigation, and was found to have had nothing to hide. It's absurd at this point to consider it a crime that Trump looked suspicious of a crime he didn't commit.

Ok, first of all, as someone who actually had to study physicality as part of my education (long story short, very involved in the theater through college), I am obliged to point out that the scenario you posit is ridiculous on physicality grounds. A fond enamored smile is very different from a "this is fun" smile. To borrow again from fiction, it's like the claim that "those idiots are convinced that Korra and Asami are gay in the finale just because they were holding hands", which completely ignores the nuance in physicality that distinguishes romantic and platonic hand holding.[footnote]A pair grabbing each other's hand as they walk forward? Interpretable any number of ways and decided by a lot of unspoken details. A pair smiling, holding hands, and staring into each other's eyes as they walk forward, before turning to fully face each other and grab the other hand? That's romantic blocking.[/footnote].

Second, you're being obtuse again. "It's absurd at this point to consider it a crime that Trump looked suspicious of a crime he didn't commit" is mischaracterization, pure and simple. In the last two responses to me alone you have done that several times, in fact. Remember, you were just suggesting that I only thought it "looked bad" because I'd already made up my mind on the subject, and in my last post I was explaining everything that actually made me think it looked bad. Cue you trying to characterize it as claiming that we were saying it should be criminal for him to act suspiciously, rather than defending why we have reason to suspect Barr's characterization.

And it's things like that that make me suspect that you are not as impartial as you believe yourself to be. You've gone past entertaining alternate explanations and chastising overzealousness and have instead been inflating contrary opinions into something easier to dismiss out of hand. You've suggested that we only disagree with you because we're closed minded. And that when we counter that claim we're instead arguing that the appearance of criminality was a crime in itself. Take a step back and look at what and how you're arguing. What you've been arguing is closer to "it's ridiculous to have ever suspected Trump at all" than it is "Trump's guilt was never proven".

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

So no, I do not "only think this looks bad because you're judging it on the basis that Comey didn't deserve to fired and Trump was makiong up excuses to try and end the investigation". I think this looks bad because while you might dismiss any one piece of evidence as coincidental, at this point suggesting that all these points were incidental and coincidentally suggested the same conclusion strains credulity.

It shouldn't strain you to think that.

Imagine there was a husband and wife, and the husband starts acting different. He's coming home late from work, made some mysterious cash withdrawals, and is often seen smiling at his phone like an idiot. So the wife suspects he's having an affair. She hires a private investigator to follow her husband, and the PI reports back to her that the man and some colleagues had just started a fantasy baseball league, that the money was for the prize pool, and the late time getting home/smiling at phone were all about fantasy trades, and there's no reason to worry about an affair. So the wife gets mad at the husband anyway because even if he wasn't having an affair, he sure was acting like he was hiding one.

That's where we're at with the Mueller investigation, other than the possibility that the summary we got was a lie and the full report shows Trump is guilty. There were fears Trump was conspiring with Russia for the election and he was compromised by that, so they had Mueller investigate thoroughly, and the result was that Trump wasn't working with Russia to win the election. And now people still want to indict Trump, cause even if he wasn't colluding with Russia, he sure was acting like he was hiding collusion.

Trump said he had nothing to hide, and as far as I know, cooperated with Mueller's investigation, and was found to have had nothing to hide. It's absurd at this point to consider it a crime that Trump looked suspicious of a crime he didn't commit.

So you are actually trying to state that Trump's campaign did not in any way " collude" with Russia when it has already been shown that they did, just it isn't illegal?

To clarify:
1) Do you believe that Donald Trump Jr. met with Russians to get "dirt on Hillary" as he has stated he has?
2) Do you believe that Cohen stated that Trump was aware of Trump tower meeting ahead of time?
3) Do you believe Donald Trump jr was in direct contact with Wikileaks?
4) Do you believe that the Ukraine has a ledger that shows that Manafort was on Russia's payroll to influence Ukrainian elections to favor the Pro Russia candidate?
5) Do you believe that Flynn has admitted he was a foreign agent when Trump appointed him as head of National Security?
6) Do you believe that Trump openly, publicly asked for a US official's hacked emails near near the time of the Trump Tower meeting?
7) Do you believe Roger Stone was in direct contact with Wikileaks?

I just want to fully understand what you believe and do not believe has actually happened here. These were things that were already established, so trying to pretend like these things were the equivalency between an affair and a fantasy baseball league are absurd. Collusion ha already been established, but it is not technically illegal. There is a difference between not happening at all and being bad but not technically illegal. I just want to be sure we have our facts straight here and exist in the same reality.

 

[TheIronRuler]

.

In your country though are they reporting this part here:

The issue is not if Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, it is that colluding with Russia is not technically illegal due to not being at war with Russia. We are currently existing in a time period where aggressive cyber attacks have not been classified as as acts of war even though Russia literally hacked US nuclear power plants, The US electrical grid, The Department of Defense, US hospitals, and numerous US officials. Donald Trump jr. Already admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt that was obtained illegally on Hillary. Trump himself openly asked publicly for Russia to send him hacked emails near the time of the Trump Tower meeting. Trumps Lawyer already said Trump knew about this meeting in advance. Flynn already admitted he was working as a foreign agent for another government while being head of national security for the US, Manafort was already shown to be on Russia's payroll by the ledger found in the Ukraine. That is not a media companies "opinion" that was what was already established to be true. The issue is that in the US, this has not yet made illegal, so there is nothing to prosecute there.

Because that is the big issue here that has to be addressed. Our reality is that if Trump were not president, he would not even be granted a security clearance. He would have been denied just as Kushner was. When we have a sitting US president that is considered a national security risk, we have a serious problem that should be addressed here. The US has a serious issue with corruption being legal here, that is what has to be addressed but cannot be as long as those that are corrupt are the ones who are responsible for passing laws against corruption.

As for other investigations, Trump has been in violation of the emoluments clause since day one, that has nothing to do with his money laundering, but the fact that he is exploiting the office of president for financial gain and selling presidential access to members of his golf club. That entire debacle is something you expect from dictatorships and kingdoms, not from democracies. Hell, his family is even profiting from His china and Saudi Arabia decisions. This should never be allowed to happen in the first place. It is just now we have a president willing to do anything and everything unscrupulous on full display exploiting it to the fullest, maybe that will actually motivate people to do something to actually address this corruption issue at some point. Either that or the US will go the opposite direction of becoming even far more corrupt to be able to "out do" Trump's corruption, which is going to b pretty hard to do considering the sheer level of it all.

Trump has actually "gotten away with" numerous crimes that other people would have been jailed for. He has lied under oath, he committed fraud on numerous occasions not only to investors, but to the general public with his fake scam school, he stole from businesses he had contracts with and from charity. I am not sure how anyone coming in will be able to top that.

.
Not much of that, no. The bit about Trump real-estate deals with the Saudis And Chinese investors, I have heard about. Much of what you said I can totally envision Trump doing, yet... he's still in office. In short - If there was something concrete to impeach him with, it would have happened. Yet it doesn't happen.

They impeached Bill Clinton over lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Trump has lied repeatedly about Stormy Daniels. That alone would be "grounds" according to historical context of impeachment. The difference of course is Trump's Republican congress didn't care about ANYTHING he does. There is tons of data for "grounds for impeachment" however, there is no rule that says they must act. I for one, don't want him impeached. Pence is worse than Trump and many see Pence as Trump's "insurance policy" against impeachment since no one wants Pence in charge of anything.. ever.

Pelosi doesn't want Trump impeached because she is viewing this strategically, not because he hasn't done anything to be impeached, it is she knows it is better for him not to be impeached for the upcoming elections and due to the amount of damage Pence would inflict. There is a difference between not having grounds and not wanting to do so. The current situation is it is better not to impeach than to impeach and they should only consider it if Trump tries to nuke someone or does something that will not be able to be undone later. It is not a matter of having nothing concrete, but instead it is better not to do so due to the circumstances.

.
I accept your reasoning, within your world-view and what you believe, it does sound very compelling. However when thinking of impeachment I'm more comfortable with looking at Nixon's and Watergate. I do believe the US authorities did a good job of checking the allegations over Trump. This is why the mainstream has moved away from this line of attack against the white-house, because the facts make them look silly.

The report will be released, only after it is checked for security issues and redacted accordingly. I think both parties support it wholeheartedly (on congress votes, I think).I do think its disengenious to claim you know better than the FBI that Trump did commit a crime...

A small clarification - Clinton was charged with lying under oath? No? I'm not certain.
.

DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

Oh fuck off. It was the fucking intelligence agencies that alerted the world to that you fucking idiot.

.
Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

 

[Kwak]

Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Outright lies are not a matter of polite disagreement. They disgust me and should be forcefully opposed at every opportunity.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

.

In your country though are they reporting this part here:

The issue is not if Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, it is that colluding with Russia is not technically illegal due to not being at war with Russia. We are currently existing in a time period where aggressive cyber attacks have not been classified as as acts of war even though Russia literally hacked US nuclear power plants, The US electrical grid, The Department of Defense, US hospitals, and numerous US officials. Donald Trump jr. Already admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt that was obtained illegally on Hillary. Trump himself openly asked publicly for Russia to send him hacked emails near the time of the Trump Tower meeting. Trumps Lawyer already said Trump knew about this meeting in advance. Flynn already admitted he was working as a foreign agent for another government while being head of national security for the US, Manafort was already shown to be on Russia's payroll by the ledger found in the Ukraine. That is not a media companies "opinion" that was what was already established to be true. The issue is that in the US, this has not yet made illegal, so there is nothing to prosecute there.

Because that is the big issue here that has to be addressed. Our reality is that if Trump were not president, he would not even be granted a security clearance. He would have been denied just as Kushner was. When we have a sitting US president that is considered a national security risk, we have a serious problem that should be addressed here. The US has a serious issue with corruption being legal here, that is what has to be addressed but cannot be as long as those that are corrupt are the ones who are responsible for passing laws against corruption.

As for other investigations, Trump has been in violation of the emoluments clause since day one, that has nothing to do with his money laundering, but the fact that he is exploiting the office of president for financial gain and selling presidential access to members of his golf club. That entire debacle is something you expect from dictatorships and kingdoms, not from democracies. Hell, his family is even profiting from His china and Saudi Arabia decisions. This should never be allowed to happen in the first place. It is just now we have a president willing to do anything and everything unscrupulous on full display exploiting it to the fullest, maybe that will actually motivate people to do something to actually address this corruption issue at some point. Either that or the US will go the opposite direction of becoming even far more corrupt to be able to "out do" Trump's corruption, which is going to b pretty hard to do considering the sheer level of it all.

Trump has actually "gotten away with" numerous crimes that other people would have been jailed for. He has lied under oath, he committed fraud on numerous occasions not only to investors, but to the general public with his fake scam school, he stole from businesses he had contracts with and from charity. I am not sure how anyone coming in will be able to top that.

.
Not much of that, no. The bit about Trump real-estate deals with the Saudis And Chinese investors, I have heard about. Much of what you said I can totally envision Trump doing, yet... he's still in office. In short - If there was something concrete to impeach him with, it would have happened. Yet it doesn't happen.

They impeached Bill Clinton over lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Trump has lied repeatedly about Stormy Daniels. That alone would be "grounds" according to historical context of impeachment. The difference of course is Trump's Republican congress didn't care about ANYTHING he does. There is tons of data for "grounds for impeachment" however, there is no rule that says they must act. I for one, don't want him impeached. Pence is worse than Trump and many see Pence as Trump's "insurance policy" against impeachment since no one wants Pence in charge of anything.. ever.

Pelosi doesn't want Trump impeached because she is viewing this strategically, not because he hasn't done anything to be impeached, it is she knows it is better for him not to be impeached for the upcoming elections and due to the amount of damage Pence would inflict. There is a difference between not having grounds and not wanting to do so. The current situation is it is better not to impeach than to impeach and they should only consider it if Trump tries to nuke someone or does something that will not be able to be undone later. It is not a matter of having nothing concrete, but instead it is better not to do so due to the circumstances.

.
I accept your reasoning, within your world-view and what you believe, it does sound very compelling. However when thinking of impeachment I'm more comfortable with looking at Nixon's and Watergate. I do believe the US authorities did a good job of checking the allegations over Trump. This is why the mainstream has moved away from this line of attack against the white-house, because the facts make them look silly.

The report will be released, only after it is checked for security issues and redacted accordingly. I think both parties support it wholeheartedly (on congress votes, I think).I do think its disengenious to claim you know better than the FBI that Trump did commit a crime...

A small clarification - Clinton was charged with lying under oath? No? I'm not certain.
.

DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

Oh fuck off. It was the fucking intelligence agencies that alerted the world to that you fucking idiot.

.
Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Nixon wasn't impeached, Bill was. Nixon resigned before impeachment was possible. Nixon knew it was going to happen and left before it could. What media are you talking about, here in the US, the media is still saying there is much investigating to be done and stating he was not exonerated. Only Right wing media is suggesting anything different.

I am not sure what you have been reading/ watching here but the facts are what I stated above, in that it has already been proven, and admitted to that Trump's campaign was colluding with Russia for dirt on Clinton, That Trump jr and Roger Stone were in direct contact with Wikileaks, that Manafort was on Russia's payroll, that Michael Flynn was a foreign agent. None of that is even being debated at this point. What is being debated is whether or not they can charge him or his campaign with crimes for doing so. Trump got rid of Sessions, Comey, and McCabe for not doing his bidding on the investigation. Due to Trump's continuous interference with the Department of Justice and the FBI, I do not think they will be able to do a thorough investigation until he is out of office and no longer able to influence it.

Keep in mind they very well may bring charges once he is out of office regardless.


ALSO: According to Trumps own attorney, Trump has already lied under oath. According to others throughout Trumps past, he has lied under oath.
For example:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-lies-under-oath-20170612-story.html
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/video-emerges-of-trump-lying-under-oath
https://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/michael-cohen-alleges-donald-trump-lied-under-oath-in-2013-deposition-about-failed-trump-fort-lauderdale-project-11098852

 

[TheIronRuler]

Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Outright lies are not a matter of polite disagreement. They disgust me and should be forcefully opposed at every opportunity.

.
I think you're lying and I'm not being rude and disrespectful to you. I know this wasn't leaked by the world's intelligence agencies. The information was copied from the DNC servers and dumped onto wikileaks. Following cover-ups tried to pin this on the nebulous "russians" to try and point attention away from the DNC's corruption scandal.
.

.

In your country though are they reporting this part here:

The issue is not if Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, it is that colluding with Russia is not technically illegal due to not being at war with Russia. We are currently existing in a time period where aggressive cyber attacks have not been classified as as acts of war even though Russia literally hacked US nuclear power plants, The US electrical grid, The Department of Defense, US hospitals, and numerous US officials. Donald Trump jr. Already admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt that was obtained illegally on Hillary. Trump himself openly asked publicly for Russia to send him hacked emails near the time of the Trump Tower meeting. Trumps Lawyer already said Trump knew about this meeting in advance. Flynn already admitted he was working as a foreign agent for another government while being head of national security for the US, Manafort was already shown to be on Russia's payroll by the ledger found in the Ukraine. That is not a media companies "opinion" that was what was already established to be true. The issue is that in the US, this has not yet made illegal, so there is nothing to prosecute there.

Because that is the big issue here that has to be addressed. Our reality is that if Trump were not president, he would not even be granted a security clearance. He would have been denied just as Kushner was. When we have a sitting US president that is considered a national security risk, we have a serious problem that should be addressed here. The US has a serious issue with corruption being legal here, that is what has to be addressed but cannot be as long as those that are corrupt are the ones who are responsible for passing laws against corruption.

As for other investigations, Trump has been in violation of the emoluments clause since day one, that has nothing to do with his money laundering, but the fact that he is exploiting the office of president for financial gain and selling presidential access to members of his golf club. That entire debacle is something you expect from dictatorships and kingdoms, not from democracies. Hell, his family is even profiting from His china and Saudi Arabia decisions. This should never be allowed to happen in the first place. It is just now we have a president willing to do anything and everything unscrupulous on full display exploiting it to the fullest, maybe that will actually motivate people to do something to actually address this corruption issue at some point. Either that or the US will go the opposite direction of becoming even far more corrupt to be able to "out do" Trump's corruption, which is going to b pretty hard to do considering the sheer level of it all.

Trump has actually "gotten away with" numerous crimes that other people would have been jailed for. He has lied under oath, he committed fraud on numerous occasions not only to investors, but to the general public with his fake scam school, he stole from businesses he had contracts with and from charity. I am not sure how anyone coming in will be able to top that.

.
Not much of that, no. The bit about Trump real-estate deals with the Saudis And Chinese investors, I have heard about. Much of what you said I can totally envision Trump doing, yet... he's still in office. In short - If there was something concrete to impeach him with, it would have happened. Yet it doesn't happen.

They impeached Bill Clinton over lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Trump has lied repeatedly about Stormy Daniels. That alone would be "grounds" according to historical context of impeachment. The difference of course is Trump's Republican congress didn't care about ANYTHING he does. There is tons of data for "grounds for impeachment" however, there is no rule that says they must act. I for one, don't want him impeached. Pence is worse than Trump and many see Pence as Trump's "insurance policy" against impeachment since no one wants Pence in charge of anything.. ever.

Pelosi doesn't want Trump impeached because she is viewing this strategically, not because he hasn't done anything to be impeached, it is she knows it is better for him not to be impeached for the upcoming elections and due to the amount of damage Pence would inflict. There is a difference between not having grounds and not wanting to do so. The current situation is it is better not to impeach than to impeach and they should only consider it if Trump tries to nuke someone or does something that will not be able to be undone later. It is not a matter of having nothing concrete, but instead it is better not to do so due to the circumstances.

.
I accept your reasoning, within your world-view and what you believe, it does sound very compelling. However when thinking of impeachment I'm more comfortable with looking at Nixon's and Watergate. I do believe the US authorities did a good job of checking the allegations over Trump. This is why the mainstream has moved away from this line of attack against the white-house, because the facts make them look silly.

The report will be released, only after it is checked for security issues and redacted accordingly. I think both parties support it wholeheartedly (on congress votes, I think).I do think its disengenious to claim you know better than the FBI that Trump did commit a crime...

A small clarification - Clinton was charged with lying under oath? No? I'm not certain.
.

DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

Oh fuck off. It was the fucking intelligence agencies that alerted the world to that you fucking idiot.

.
Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Nixon wasn't impeached, Bill was. Nixon resigned before impeachment was possible.
What media are you talking about, here in the US, the media is still saying there is much investigating to be done and stating he was not exonerated. Only Right wing media is suggesting anything different.

I am not sure what you have been reading/ watching here but the facts are what I stated above, in that it has already been proven, and admitted to that Trump's campaign was colluding with Russia for dirt on Clinton, That Trump jr and Roger Stone were in direct contact with Wikileaks, that Manafort was on Russia's payroll, that Michael Flynn was a foreign agent. None of that is even being debated at this point. What is being debated is whether or not they can charge him or his campaign with crimes for doing so. Trump got rid of Sessions, Comey, and McCabe for not doing his bidding on the investigation. Due to Trump's continuous interference with the Department of Justice and the FBI, I do not think they will be able to do a thorough investigation until he is out of office and no longer able to influence it.

Keep in mind they very well may bring charges once he is out of office regardless.

.
I don't think the reason why Trump isn't being charged with crimes and impeached is because he is still in office. I think they don't have anything substantial against him at this point, and they may never will have anything.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Outright lies are not a matter of polite disagreement. They disgust me and should be forcefully opposed at every opportunity.

.
I think you're lying and I'm not being rude and disrespectful to you. I know this wasn't leaked by the world's intelligence agencies. The information was copied from the DNC servers and dumped onto wikileaks. Following cover-ups tried to pin this on the nebulous "russians" to try and point attention away from the DNC's corruption scandal.
.

.

In your country though are they reporting this part here:

The issue is not if Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, it is that colluding with Russia is not technically illegal due to not being at war with Russia. We are currently existing in a time period where aggressive cyber attacks have not been classified as as acts of war even though Russia literally hacked US nuclear power plants, The US electrical grid, The Department of Defense, US hospitals, and numerous US officials. Donald Trump jr. Already admitted to colluding with Russia to get dirt that was obtained illegally on Hillary. Trump himself openly asked publicly for Russia to send him hacked emails near the time of the Trump Tower meeting. Trumps Lawyer already said Trump knew about this meeting in advance. Flynn already admitted he was working as a foreign agent for another government while being head of national security for the US, Manafort was already shown to be on Russia's payroll by the ledger found in the Ukraine. That is not a media companies "opinion" that was what was already established to be true. The issue is that in the US, this has not yet made illegal, so there is nothing to prosecute there.

Because that is the big issue here that has to be addressed. Our reality is that if Trump were not president, he would not even be granted a security clearance. He would have been denied just as Kushner was. When we have a sitting US president that is considered a national security risk, we have a serious problem that should be addressed here. The US has a serious issue with corruption being legal here, that is what has to be addressed but cannot be as long as those that are corrupt are the ones who are responsible for passing laws against corruption.

As for other investigations, Trump has been in violation of the emoluments clause since day one, that has nothing to do with his money laundering, but the fact that he is exploiting the office of president for financial gain and selling presidential access to members of his golf club. That entire debacle is something you expect from dictatorships and kingdoms, not from democracies. Hell, his family is even profiting from His china and Saudi Arabia decisions. This should never be allowed to happen in the first place. It is just now we have a president willing to do anything and everything unscrupulous on full display exploiting it to the fullest, maybe that will actually motivate people to do something to actually address this corruption issue at some point. Either that or the US will go the opposite direction of becoming even far more corrupt to be able to "out do" Trump's corruption, which is going to b pretty hard to do considering the sheer level of it all.

Trump has actually "gotten away with" numerous crimes that other people would have been jailed for. He has lied under oath, he committed fraud on numerous occasions not only to investors, but to the general public with his fake scam school, he stole from businesses he had contracts with and from charity. I am not sure how anyone coming in will be able to top that.

.
Not much of that, no. The bit about Trump real-estate deals with the Saudis And Chinese investors, I have heard about. Much of what you said I can totally envision Trump doing, yet... he's still in office. In short - If there was something concrete to impeach him with, it would have happened. Yet it doesn't happen.

They impeached Bill Clinton over lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Trump has lied repeatedly about Stormy Daniels. That alone would be "grounds" according to historical context of impeachment. The difference of course is Trump's Republican congress didn't care about ANYTHING he does. There is tons of data for "grounds for impeachment" however, there is no rule that says they must act. I for one, don't want him impeached. Pence is worse than Trump and many see Pence as Trump's "insurance policy" against impeachment since no one wants Pence in charge of anything.. ever.

Pelosi doesn't want Trump impeached because she is viewing this strategically, not because he hasn't done anything to be impeached, it is she knows it is better for him not to be impeached for the upcoming elections and due to the amount of damage Pence would inflict. There is a difference between not having grounds and not wanting to do so. The current situation is it is better not to impeach than to impeach and they should only consider it if Trump tries to nuke someone or does something that will not be able to be undone later. It is not a matter of having nothing concrete, but instead it is better not to do so due to the circumstances.

.
I accept your reasoning, within your world-view and what you believe, it does sound very compelling. However when thinking of impeachment I'm more comfortable with looking at Nixon's and Watergate. I do believe the US authorities did a good job of checking the allegations over Trump. This is why the mainstream has moved away from this line of attack against the white-house, because the facts make them look silly.

The report will be released, only after it is checked for security issues and redacted accordingly. I think both parties support it wholeheartedly (on congress votes, I think).I do think its disengenious to claim you know better than the FBI that Trump did commit a crime...

A small clarification - Clinton was charged with lying under oath? No? I'm not certain.
.

DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

Oh fuck off. It was the fucking intelligence agencies that alerted the world to that you fucking idiot.

.
Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Nixon wasn't impeached, Bill was. Nixon resigned before impeachment was possible.
What media are you talking about, here in the US, the media is still saying there is much investigating to be done and stating he was not exonerated. Only Right wing media is suggesting anything different.

I am not sure what you have been reading/ watching here but the facts are what I stated above, in that it has already been proven, and admitted to that Trump's campaign was colluding with Russia for dirt on Clinton, That Trump jr and Roger Stone were in direct contact with Wikileaks, that Manafort was on Russia's payroll, that Michael Flynn was a foreign agent. None of that is even being debated at this point. What is being debated is whether or not they can charge him or his campaign with crimes for doing so. Trump got rid of Sessions, Comey, and McCabe for not doing his bidding on the investigation. Due to Trump's continuous interference with the Department of Justice and the FBI, I do not think they will be able to do a thorough investigation until he is out of office and no longer able to influence it.

Keep in mind they very well may bring charges once he is out of office regardless.

.
I don't think the reason why Trump isn't being charged with crimes and impeached is because he is still in office. I think they don't have anything substantial against him at this point, and they may never will have anything.

I think they have plenty substantial. The reason he isn't being impeached is because it isn't in Democrats or Republicans best interests to do so. Charging him now would be pointless, he would never go to jail.

I added links above about the numerous times Trump lied under oath btw.

 

[TheIronRuler]

I think they have plenty substantial. The reason he isn't being impeached is because it isn't in Democrats or Republicans best interests to do so. Charging him now would be pointless, he would never go to jail.

I added links above about the numerous times Trump lied under oath btw.

.
I like you, and you took the time to explain this to me, so I'll take the time to read through your links. Your reasoning for Trump staying in office also works with your world-view, and I understand it. I guess I'll retire here since there is an angry person about to yell at me soon and I don't want to get into a shouting match with them. Plus, I've got some complex number matrices I need to solve.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I think they have plenty substantial. The reason he isn't being impeached is because it isn't in Democrats or Republicans best interests to do so. Charging him now would be pointless, he would never go to jail.

I added links above about the numerous times Trump lied under oath btw.

.
I like you, and you took the time to explain this to me, so I'll take the time to read through your links. Your reasoning for Trump staying in office also works with your world-view, and I understand it. I guess I'll retire here since there is an angry person about to yell at me soon and I don't want to get into a shouting match with them. Plus, I've got some complex number matrices I need to solve.

Don't get yelled at! Have a good day, I believe it is morning there.

Not only do Democrats not have enough votes to impeach Trump, even if he stood in the middle of the street and murdered someone, they do not even control both houses to follow through so any move for impeachment would be DOA regardless of a crime committed. Even worse, they do not have enough votes on their own side until they can guarantee they can take out Pence in the process. AS long as it goes to Pence when Trump is removed the entire move would be pointless. Besides, Trump being as awful as he is give Democrats a better shot at 2020. Having a " not insane person", such as John Kasich as a contender would be much more difficult to go up against than leaving Trump where he is to crowd out the somewhat "normal" people.

 

[twistedmic]

Not much of that, no. The bit about Trump real-estate deals with the Saudis And Chinese investors, I have heard about. Much of what you said I can totally envision Trump doing, yet... he's still in office. In short - If there was something concrete to impeach him with, it would have happened. Yet it doesn't happen.

Republicans control the Senate. As long as they do Trump will not be impeached, regardless of what he has done. The Republicans do not care that he is an evil and vile man, they want to keep their power. They have shown time and again that they will follow Trump and protect him as long as it means denying Democrats power.

 

[Kwak]

DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

....

.
Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Liar. Stop telling lies. It's established fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

At the Aspen security conference in summer 2016, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Vladimir Putin wanted to retaliate against perceived U.S. intervention in Russian affairs with the 2011?13 Russian protests and the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in the 2014 Ukraine crisis.[178] In July 2016, consensus grew within the CIA that Russia had hacked the DNC.[179] In a joint statement on October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence expressed confidence that Russia had interfered in the presidential election by stealing emails from politicians and U.S. groups and publicizing the information.[180]
...
On January 6, 2017, after briefing the president, the president-elect, and members of the Senate and House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a de-classified version of the report on Russian activities.[18] The report, produced by the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and the ODNI, asserted that Russia had carried out a massive cyber operation ordered by Russian President Putin with the goal to sabotage the 2016 U.S. elections.[202]
...
At least 17 distinct investigations were started to examine aspects of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[214]
U.S. Senate

Members of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee traveled to Ukraine and Poland in 2016 and learned about Russian operations to influence their elections.[215] e Senator McCain called for a special select committee of the U.S. Senate to investigate Russian meddling in the election,[216][217] and called election meddling an "act of war".[218]

The Senate Intelligence Committee began work on its bipartisan inquiry in January 2017.[219] In May, the committee voted unanimously to give both Chairmen solo subpoena power.[220][221] Soon after, the committee issued a subpoena to the Trump campaign for all Russia-related documents, emails, and telephone records.[222] In December, it was also looking at the presidential campaign of Green Party's Jill Stein for potential "collusion with the Russians".[223]

In May 2018, the Senate Intelligence Committee released the interim findings of their bipartisan investigation, finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Trump gain the presidency, stating: "Our staff concluded that the [intelligence community's] conclusions were accurate and on point. The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton."[224]

http://time.com/5340060/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-summit-russia-meddling/
When President Donald Trump appeared to accept Russian President Vladimir Putin?s denials of Russian meddling in the 2016 election Monday, he wasn?t just breaking with Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

He was also disagreeing with U.S. intelligence agencies; two congressional committees that investigated the issue; his own Defense secretary, director of national intelligence and national security adviser; and private cybersecurity experts.

 

[twistedmic]

Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'colluding with the Russians' and people still can't stomach it.

From what I hear, I haven't read it myself at this point, is that Barr used very specific language in his summary. And he stated that no one in the Trump organization/campaign coordinated (he even added a legal definition of coordinating in a footnote) with the Russian Government. That doesn't mean that Trump people did not coordinate/collude/scheme/etc. with Russian entities that then handed stuff off to the Russian Government. I firmly believe that Putin is smart enough to use middle-men, fronts and shell companies to hide the shady and dirty shit he gets up to.

 

[tstorm823]

What you've been arguing is closer to "it's ridiculous to have ever suspected Trump at all" than it is "Trump's guilt was never proven".

But I'm arguing exactly the opposite of that. It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump, not was it ridiculous to suspect his actions were intended to to cover up his crimes. But the reason it wasn't ridiculous to think he was trying to obstruct justice was because it wasn't ridiculous to think he was guilty in the first place.

Go to the metaphor I made, and humor me enough to concede there may be one married person somewhere in the world who hasn't gone through same physicality studies you have and might not recognize the specific variations of smiles. Just take the example as its meant to be, the women in the example was not being unreasonable to suspect something was up (I can just decide this because I'm the person making it up, don't argue the point, just accept it). The example I intended was to illustrate a series of events where a person was justified to suspect wrongdoing and thus equally justified in suspecting they were hiding the wrongdoing. But once you find out the actual wrongdoing wasn't going on, it's unreasonable to still suspect the person of hiding things.

It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump of colluding with Russia, nor was it ridiculous to suspect he was trying to ruin the investigation. But now that the investigation finished un-ruined and concluded he didn't collude with Russia, it is ridiculous to to still accuse him of attempted obstruction.

So you are actually trying to state that Trump's campaign did not in any way " collude" with Russia when it has already been shown that they did, just it isn't illegal?

To clarify:
1) Do you believe that Donald Trump Jr. met with Russians to get "dirt on Hillary" as he has stated he has?
2) Do you believe that Cohen stated that Trump was aware of Trump tower meeting ahead of time?
3) Do you believe Donald Trump jr was in direct contact with Wikileaks?
4) Do you believe that the Ukraine has a ledger that shows that Manafort was on Russia's payroll to influence Ukrainian elections to favor the Pro Russia candidate?
5) Do you believe that Flynn has admitted he was a foreign agent when Trump appointed him as head of National Security?
6) Do you believe that Trump openly, publicly asked for a US official's hacked emails near near the time of the Trump Tower meeting?
7) Do you believe Roger Stone was in direct contact with Wikileaks?

To clarify, none of those things are what the investigation was really about. The question wasn't "were there connections between Trump and Russia." Frankly, the people charged for lying about this were largely lying because they made this mistake. The question was not "did they talk to Russia" or "have they worked with Russia", the question is specifically "did Trump or his campaign coordinate with the Russian government to fraudulently impact the results of the 2016 election."

Talking to foreign agents not only isn't illegal, it's not even immoral. The Russia investigation itself was instigated in part by the DNC paying a foreign operative for opposition research on Trump. Trump's campaign being interested in Clinton's faults is right. If the opposition is obligated to ignore dirt on someone, who's supposed to care? Now if the Trump campaign was giving Russia Clinton's emails to give to wikileaks to impact the election, that would be coordinated fraud. And that's the sort of thing it takes an investigation to find out about.

Like, sure, there's known events where Trump or people connected to him worked with Russia or Russians, but the question of collusion is whether they worked together to deceive or defraud the American people. Do any of the things you listed suggest to you that Trump coordinated with Russia to deceive the public or change the election's results?

 

[Asita]

What you've been arguing is closer to "it's ridiculous to have ever suspected Trump at all" than it is "Trump's guilt was never proven".

But I'm arguing exactly the opposite of that. It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump, not was it ridiculous to suspect his actions were intended to to cover up his crimes. But the reason it wasn't ridiculous to think he was trying to obstruct justice was because it wasn't ridiculous to think he was guilty in the first place.

Go to the metaphor I made, and humor me enough to concede there may be one married person somewhere in the world who hasn't gone through same physicality studies you have and might not recognize the specific variations of smiles. Just take the example as its meant to be, the women in the example was not being unreasonable to suspect something was up (I can just decide this because I'm the person making it up, don't argue the point, just accept it). The example I intended was to illustrate a series of events where a person was justified to suspect wrongdoing and thus equally justified in suspecting they were hiding the wrongdoing. But once you find out the actual wrongdoing wasn't going on, it's unreasonable to still suspect the person of hiding things.

It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump of colluding with Russia, nor was it ridiculous to suspect he was trying to ruin the investigation. But now that the investigation finished un-ruined and concluded he didn't collude with Russia, it is ridiculous to to still accuse him of attempted obstruction.

Except that here's the thing: We haven't found out that the actual wrongdoing wasn't going on. What we have is the characterization of Mueller's report by someone who had by all appearances decided by June of last year that the investigation was "fatally misconceived" and felt strongly enough about it to submit a unsolicited, publicly available 20 page memo on the matter. One wherein he made a lot of assumptions about the investigation. As perhaps best put by Marty Lederman, "from all that appears, Barr was simply conjuring from whole cloth a preposterously long set of assumptions about how Special Counsel Mueller was adopting extreme and unprecedented-within-DOJ views about every pertinent question and investigatory decision - and that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein was allowing him to do so".

Consequentially, there have been concerns about his impartiality since Trump's nomination of him in December[footnote]Note the dates. This is not a new concern that only just popped up, despite what Trump et al and conservative pundits supporting him are trying to claim now.[/footnote]. Even less charitably, since that nomination speculation has been that it was that exact memo that made Trump want Barr.

Incidentally, this neatly demonstrates why recusal is a thing. Recusal is not about guilt or innocence, it's about being able to trust the judicial process itself. That Barr had seemed to have reached his conclusions about the investigation, its validity, and its premises (or rather, his assumptions about its premises) long before he actually saw the results begs the question of his ability to fairly evaluate the investigation's results, as he had displayed a strong inclination to be dismissive of them before they were even submitted.

To build on the analogy you're insisting upon[footnote]Setting aside, for a moment that you don't need physicality studies to know the difference. Recognizing the difference between a wistful smile and an entertained smile is not difficult. The difficulty is in learning how to fake it, not recognize it.[/footnote], here's where it falls flat. The wife doesn't hear it from the PI. The PI told her mother-in-law, who never made a secret of the fact that she disapproved of their marriage and actually favored other lady suitors for her son. And it's her mother-in-law who is telling her that the PI found nothing. So the question becomes "should the wife trust what the mother-in-law said the PI found".

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

What you've been arguing is closer to "it's ridiculous to have ever suspected Trump at all" than it is "Trump's guilt was never proven".

But I'm arguing exactly the opposite of that. It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump, not was it ridiculous to suspect his actions were intended to to cover up his crimes. But the reason it wasn't ridiculous to think he was trying to obstruct justice was because it wasn't ridiculous to think he was guilty in the first place.

Go to the metaphor I made, and humor me enough to concede there may be one married person somewhere in the world who hasn't gone through same physicality studies you have and might not recognize the specific variations of smiles. Just take the example as its meant to be, the women in the example was not being unreasonable to suspect something was up (I can just decide this because I'm the person making it up, don't argue the point, just accept it). The example I intended was to illustrate a series of events where a person was justified to suspect wrongdoing and thus equally justified in suspecting they were hiding the wrongdoing. But once you find out the actual wrongdoing wasn't going on, it's unreasonable to still suspect the person of hiding things.

It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump of colluding with Russia, nor was it ridiculous to suspect he was trying to ruin the investigation. But now that the investigation finished un-ruined and concluded he didn't collude with Russia, it is ridiculous to to still accuse him of attempted obstruction.

So you are actually trying to state that Trump's campaign did not in any way " collude" with Russia when it has already been shown that they did, just it isn't illegal?

To clarify:
1) Do you believe that Donald Trump Jr. met with Russians to get "dirt on Hillary" as he has stated he has?
2) Do you believe that Cohen stated that Trump was aware of Trump tower meeting ahead of time?
3) Do you believe Donald Trump jr was in direct contact with Wikileaks?
4) Do you believe that the Ukraine has a ledger that shows that Manafort was on Russia's payroll to influence Ukrainian elections to favor the Pro Russia candidate?
5) Do you believe that Flynn has admitted he was a foreign agent when Trump appointed him as head of National Security?
6) Do you believe that Trump openly, publicly asked for a US official's hacked emails near near the time of the Trump Tower meeting?
7) Do you believe Roger Stone was in direct contact with Wikileaks?

To clarify, none of those things are what the investigation was really about. The question wasn't "were there connections between Trump and Russia." Frankly, the people charged for lying about this were largely lying because they made this mistake. The question was not "did they talk to Russia" or "have they worked with Russia", the question is specifically "did Trump or his campaign coordinate with the Russian government to fraudulently impact the results of the 2016 election."

Talking to foreign agents not only isn't illegal, it's not even immoral. The Russia investigation itself was instigated in part by the DNC paying a foreign operative for opposition research on Trump. Trump's campaign being interested in Clinton's faults is right. If the opposition is obligated to ignore dirt on someone, who's supposed to care? Now if the Trump campaign was giving Russia Clinton's emails to give to wikileaks to impact the election, that would be coordinated fraud. And that's the sort of thing it takes an investigation to find out about.

Like, sure, there's known events where Trump or people connected to him worked with Russia or Russians, but the question of collusion is whether they worked together to deceive or defraud the American people. Do any of the things you listed suggest to you that Trump coordinated with Russia to deceive the public or change the election's results?

That isn't how Russia works, When Russia had forces in the Ukraine, they claimed they were not Russian forces. When They had Russian forces in Syria, they claimed they were not Russian forces. When Russian Hackers hacked the US Department of defense, Russia claimed they did not. That is the reality here.

Trump's campaign was not just talking to foreign agents, Trump appointed a foreign agent to head up US national security at the highest possible level. Michael Flynn already stated he was a foreign agent. Why would anyone possibly think it is okay to have an admitted foreign agent in charge of US national security?!

Clinton was not just anyone however, She is former First Lady of the United States, Former senator and former secretary of state who is protected for life by US secret service. She is a protected US official, not just his " opponent" and hacking her is hacking a protected US official. It is an attack on the US government to do so, not just attacking a US citizen. Even hacking US citizens is illegal, but it is also considered hacking the US government to hack Clinton. It should be considered no different than receiving stolen property, and in Clinton's case, that would be stolen property belonging to the US government. Receiving stolen email should be considered no different under the law, as they were illegally obtained. That is far worse than anything Clinton has done.

Yes, they were working with Russia if Donald Trump Jr and Roger Stone were working with Wikileaks to time releases. Yes, they were defrauding people by spreading falsehoods about Clinton, Which both the GOP and Russia did in fact do. What else do you call spreading and promoting fraudulent stories in mass as they did? Spreading falsehoods about Sandy Hook is what Alex Jones is in court for. Why would it somehow be okay to spread the made nonsense the GOP and Russia did about Clinton? Their entire purpose was to deceive.

 

[Agema]

Republicans control the Senate. As long as they do Trump will not be impeached, regardless of what he has done.

To be fair, I don't think Republican Senators would swallow Trump being deemed guilty of serious breaches of the law.

Like, sure, there's known events where Trump or people connected to him worked with Russia or Russians, but the question of collusion is whether they worked together to deceive or defraud the American people. Do any of the things you listed suggest to you that Trump coordinated with Russia to deceive the public or change the election's results?

I agree.

But even so, Trump accepting or agreeing to accept dirt on his opponents from Russians - with a high likelihood they may be working the Kremlin's business - suggests a disturbing lack of sound judgement. To add to the countless other instances of poor judgement he's displayed.

Imagine you saw a drunk driver occasionally losing control of his car narrowly missing pedestrians and other cars. You can have the conclusion "everything's okay, he didn't hit them", but I would suggest a better one is "call the police and have that guy pulled over". Trump should be removed in 2019 under the same rationale: even if the worst hasn't yet happened, he's a liability. Replace him with a better Republican candidate, for heaven's sakes.

 

[Saelune]

Trump has a record of not showing his records. I wont even believe he was actually born in New York until I see his birth certificate, and I bet if asked he wouldn't show it.

Havent seen his taxes, haven't seen his school records, and now this. Trump is guilty, his whole life is literally built on a lie. Anyone who is willing to believe Trump is innocent because of a report we haven't seen, it is you who are showing your hand as willing to believe whatever garbage Trump throws at you.