View Poll Results: The Mueller report. The week after its released.
Trump is not charged with any crime, and Mueller's report is found to have some procedural issues. 2 2.50%
Trump is not charged with any crime, Mueller's report offers disclosure showing it was fairly conducted. 26 32.50%
Trump is charged with a crime, but the evidence presented is flimsy and circumstantial and will be quickly dismissed by his legal team. 1 1.25%
Mueller has hard evidence on collusion, including emails, and recordings. Trump gets a subpoena. 51 63.75%
Voters: 80. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-31-2019, 08:02 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
The Christopher Steele dossier is fishy.
And yet many things in it have been verified as true and nothing in it has been shown to be false. I suppose if you define "fishy" as "unfavorable to Trump" then yes, it's fishy. If you define it as containing suspect information, then no, it isn't.

Quote:
The unverified Trump-Russia collusion charges made their way into election news stories and Clinton talking points. Some say it was bought and paid from by the Clinton campaign.
"Some say". Some also say that quite a lot of the charges have been verified, and have found actual evidence of it.

Quote:
Whatever the report says, Trump's legal team who we have not heard from outside of the media talking points, can and will shoot it down the BS.
We hear quite a lot from Trump's legal team. Rudy Giuliani - who is on that team - can't seem to shut up, and keeps openly admitting that his client has been engaged in all sorts of questionable behavior.

Quote:
My educated guess is there is no collusion the the Mueller report will be a significant disappointment to the left. If there were, we would have heard of it long ago.
We did. That's what triggered the investigation in the first place. Were you unaware of this?

Quote:
Trump met with the Russians. So? Lots of successful people and politicians meet with the Russians too.
Do they then lie about having met with the Russians? Do they remove and hide or destroy all records of their meetings?

Quote:
In the end, a rat like Cohen goes to prison.
The word "rat" usually applies to someone who gives information to law enforcement on illegal activities by people they know well. Good to see you admitting that Trump is guilty of illegal behavior.

Quote:
Mueller seemed to shift his focus away from Trump to go after others who did not pay their taxes.
You keep claiming this is about non-payment of taxes. It really isn't, but I can see why you'd prefer to keep saying it is. Otherwise you'd have to acknowledge that most of the charges have to do with lying about interactions with Russia, or about actual Russians interfering with the elections. There are quite a lot of them who are under indictment at the moment.

Quote:
I suppose if there is a sizeable investigation on any political fund raising, you'll see the same regardless of political party.
I suppose you're as right about this as you've been about everything else in your post.
  #52  
Old 01-31-2019, 08:07 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

People saying that Trump is a Russian asset are not simply going off his business deals. They're going off his continued behavior.

Which specific behavior was that?

A) NATO expansion
B) NATO military buildup
C) Backing NATO ally Turkey
D) Continuing Sanctions
E) Bu bu but Maddow said...
  #53  
Old 01-31-2019, 08:16 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,182
The options were faulty, in my opinion. Mueller isn't going to indict him, he'll merely advise Congress as to its findings (if the AG allows it). I think better options would have been:

1- Mueller finds that DJT was the most innocent man in the history of civilization
2- Mueller finds out that the entire campaign and most of the administration was corrupted by Russia, but somehow through sheer ignorance DJT was not involved.
3- Mueller finds criminal activity that warrants impeachment, conviction, indictment, trial, conviction, and imprisonment
4- Mueller finds that DJT should immediately be placed before a firing squad.
  #54  
Old 01-31-2019, 08:22 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
No point. If Barr is AG by then, he'd have the authority (Whitaker does not) to suppress the report. But that immediately would start the howls of "What's Trump's guy hiding?", and the HJC would immediately subpoena the thing. That possibility is what's holding up Barr's confirmation, apparently.
  #55  
Old 01-31-2019, 08:24 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,584
I'd have to say a variant of #2 is the most likely. Mueller will not indict Trump - though he's guilty of something and the investigation is too thorough not to have found it* - because he'll defer as the Watergate investigation did. He may name Trump as the classic 'unidicted co-conspirator' but will leave that part to others.

At that point we begin more yelling at each other here. Nothing gets resolved, both sides harden their positions and we lose our fucking minds heading into 2020.

* How do I know Trump is guilty of something? He's a fucking real estate developer from New Jersey and has been for 40 years. There'll be something to hang him on. That's just the way the world works.
  #56  
Old 01-31-2019, 08:43 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If Barr is AG by then, he'd have the authority (Whitaker does not) to suppress the report.
Also: Rosenstein is still there and would have the authority - but who thinks he'd use it on his way out the door?
  #57  
Old 01-31-2019, 08:51 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Many, many crimes are exposed with hard evidence. Many before he was President. Many while in office. The spineless Senate refuses to impeach and askes "What about Hillary?"
This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
... and I've learned a lot.
Not seeing that.
__________________
"It’s not who starts the game, but who finishes it." John Havlicek
  #58  
Old 01-31-2019, 09:16 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Which specific behavior was that?

A) NATO expansion
The decision to admit Montenegro into NATO was not made under Donald Trump. It was made under Barack Obama.

Quote:
NATO military buildup
In what way has the United States built up its military commitment to NATO recently?

Quote:
Backing NATO ally Turkey
But, you know, not NATO ally Montenegro.

Quote:
Continuing Sanctions
Well, that sure explains the dropping of sanctions. Trump, good buddies with Oleg Deripaska, has been anti-sanction from his first day in office, and you know it.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #59  
Old 01-31-2019, 09:26 AM
Tzigone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folly View Post
None of the above. Mueller follows the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. He gives report to Congress to decide whether or not to impeach.
I agree. And I don't think the Senate is going to convict on impeachment unless either there are "tapes" or their base wants it (there would have to be "tapes" for that to happen). Printed word just doesn't provoke reaction the same way (no matter how strong the actual evidence is), we have Fox News now, unlike the Nixon era, and unfortunately the American people seem to have very short memories.

Actual results of the probe - I expect Democrats to say they is sufficient evidence of collusion, Republicans to say there isn't. There will be (and already has been) plenty of evidence of illegality on the behalf of the campaign and by its participants, but I don't know there will be any "smoking gun" for collusion - partially because I don't know what everyone could agree qualifies for the title. And "collusion" is so not legally defined. Definitely Trump's guilty of obstruction and some financial crimes, but even though I think that should merit impeachment/conviction, it will not not happen if that's all that can be put on Trump personally (rather than others in his circle).
  #60  
Old 01-31-2019, 09:29 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
In what way has the United States built up its military commitment to NATO recently?
It hasn't. But it has been haranguing other NATO members about their military commitment publicly and in very undiplomatic language, with the outcome of pissing them all off. To Russia's benefit.
  #61  
Old 01-31-2019, 09:44 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzigone View Post
I expect Democrats to say they is sufficient evidence of collusion
It would be playing into the Reps' hands to use that word. They'll call it by its legal name instead - conspiracy. Obstruction of justice, too.

That was enough for Nixon, ftr.
  #62  
Old 01-31-2019, 09:46 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
It hasn't.
That isn't true. Obama started the European Reassurance Initiative, now called the European Deterrence Initiative, which sends troops in and out of the eastern flank of NATO and has been building up some infrastructure there. The effort has been pretty well received by everyone but Russia. ETA: And by implication, Will Farnaby.

Last edited by Ravenman; 01-31-2019 at 09:47 AM.
  #63  
Old 01-31-2019, 09:55 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,149
This YouTube mentions some of Trump's sweetheart gifts to Putin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Which specific behavior was that?
...
C) Backing NATO ally Turkey
...
The YGP has been called the most effective fighting force against ISIS in Syria. The U.S. has been supplying the YGP with weapons, while Turkey has been bombing and firing artillery against it. By "Backing Turkey" are you referring to U.S. abandoning the fight against ISIS and leaving YGP at the mercy of the Turks?
  #64  
Old 01-31-2019, 09:58 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Which specific behavior was that?

A) NATO expansion
B) NATO military buildup
C) Backing NATO ally Turkey
D) Continuing Sanctions
E) Bu bu but Maddow said...
Could you quit saying that Trump expanded NATO? Thanks.
  #65  
Old 01-31-2019, 10:56 AM
Tzigone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It would be playing into the Reps' hands to use that word. They'll call it by its legal name instead - conspiracy. Obstruction of justice, too.

That was enough for Nixon, ftr.
I mean on message boards, not elected representatives. They'll say "collusion" as they have been all along.

And there were tapes with Nixon that outraged the public. And no Fox News (indeed, reading about Ailes memo and Nixon was interesting). Our public doesn't care about his tweets or televised comments so far, so "tapes" (digital recordings?) would have to go further than those.

And Nixon still got pardoned. If another president ever goes down the same way, I expect there will be another pre-emptive pardon.

Hopefully, I'm just too pessimistic.

Last edited by Tzigone; 01-31-2019 at 10:59 AM.
  #66  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:03 AM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
There will be evidence of illegal financial actions by the president but no effort to indict him. There will be strong circumstantial evidence that he had motives for acting on behalf of Putin and took action in that direction, also members of his campaign will have been shown to have collaborated with the Russians. But there won't be a smoking gun showing direct involvement of Quid-pro-quo. So anybody who is unbiased and has half a brain will see that he colluded with the Russians, but there will be enough of a fig leaf that Republicans will claim that he is a pure as driven snow.
This, pretty much. I strongly suspect it will be some variant of #2 - lots of circumstantial evidence obliquely pointing at Trump, but no smoking gun.
  #67  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:06 AM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Could you quit saying that Trump expanded NATO? Thanks.
The Rachel Maddow obsession is a tad creepy, as well.
  #68  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:07 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I vote -
  1. No matter what the report says, Republicans will claim it exonerates Trump
  2. No matter what the report says, Democrats will claim it proves criminal collusion beyond any shadow of a doubt, and
  3. Democrats will open another investigation.
Regards,
Shodan
yes I agree this will be the result
  #69  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:14 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I vote -
  1. No matter what the report says, Republicans will claim it exonerates Trump
  2. No matter what the report says, Democrats will claim it proves criminal collusion beyond any shadow of a doubt, and
  3. Democrats will open another investigation.
Regards,
Shodan
So I'd put that first option as "pretty likely". The republican party is very much wedded to Trump at this point. The House Intelligence Committee investigation was a total whitewash, and no republican seems willing, let alone interested in, saying very much about how many people in Trump's immediate circle have been indicted. It'd take absolutely astounding evidence to convince them otherwise.

The second option, though? I'd be curious why you believe that. So far, democratic politicians have been fairly measured in their actions. There hasn't been anything like what's going on on the republican side. So why do you imagine that they would claim it proves "collusion" beyond the shadow of a doubt even if the report didn't actually claim anything of the sort?
  #70  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:22 AM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post


Guys... It's been two years since this scandal was completely debunked. It's a big fat stupid hoax that never made any sense. I don't think it makes any sense to repeatedly go over this nonsense over and over again. Clinton was not "one of nine people". She wasn't even involved. Someone working beneath her in the state department was someone from one of the nine federal agencies (not people, agencies) who signed off on the deal, along with the US nuclear regulatory commission and the nuclear regulator of the state of Utah.



Are you aware that Donald Trump Jr. met with Russian intelligence to discuss dirt on Hillary Clinton?

Are you aware that Giuliani has moved from "no collusion" to "collusion isn't a crime"? (Ancient Erudite clearly isn't.)

Are you aware that Trump has been acting really weird towards Russia since his campaign, and that we know full well that Russia was responsible for hacking Clinton's email servers, and that they started doing so around the same time as he asked them to? Are you aware that Trump has repeatedly denied the claims of his own intelligence agencies that Russia was behind that hack, and instead opted to take Putin's word for it?

People saying that Trump is a Russian asset are not simply going off his business deals. They're going off his continued behavior.

You're coming into this discussion without really understanding the basics or the background. While there's nothing wrong with that, maybe it would be better to ask questions, rather than act like you already understand everything about it.
Thats fair to say. I gotta read up before I shoot off some of this stuff.
My only real point was there's a whole lot of far left here.

On the discussing dirt thing, how is that different than the Steele dossier?

One of nine thing I was just going off the Snopes article, which "debunks" it by saying she was one of the council of nine and she didn't know what happened.

And that no actual uranium changed hands , which to me is kind of a null point if you sell the whole company.


Sorry to use you as an example, but you are someone here i would describe as solidly left.
We rarely agree, but you don't come off as a fanatic even though your views seem to run well with democratic lines and usually make some kind of sense without assuming anything not well behind the party line must automatically be the total opposite.
  #71  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:23 AM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
yes I agree this will be the result
X2
  #72  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:27 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,046
I predict that Mueller will say he needs more time. After all, it worked with the Blair investigation.
  #73  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:27 AM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So I'd put that first option as "pretty likely". The republican party is very much wedded to Trump at this point. The House Intelligence Committee investigation was a total whitewash, and no republican seems willing, let alone interested in, saying very much about how many people in Trump's immediate circle have been indicted. It'd take absolutely astounding evidence to convince them otherwise.

The second option, though? I'd be curious why you believe that. So far, democratic politicians have been fairly measured in their actions. There hasn't been anything like what's going on on the republican side. So why do you imagine that they would claim it proves "collusion" beyond the shadow of a doubt even if the report didn't actually claim anything of the sort?
The poll results of this thread heavily support the second option
  #74  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:32 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Thats fair to say. I gotta read up before I shoot off some of this stuff.
My only real point was there's a whole lot of far left here.
There is. But there is also a whole lot of far right here. And a lot of in-between too.

Quote:
On the discussing dirt thing, how is that different than the Steele dossier?
One is a foreign power committing an illegal act and then offering the proceeds of that act to a political campaign with the purpose of influencing the election with the enthusiastic participation of the campaign itself. The other is an independent consultant hired by a company hired first by a right-wing publication and subsequently by a political campaign to do opposition research, the product of which was handed to law enforcement in the US and UK due to some of its findings. There are similarities but the differences are the important bit.

Quote:
One of nine thing I was just going off the Snopes article, which "debunks" it by saying she was one of the council of nine and she didn't know what happened.
Her department was one of nine. There were representatives from each department involved in the decision but she wasn't the State Department one. Obviously she held oversight power of her department's decision as Secretary but there's zero evidence to suggest she even attempted to influence the decision of her own department, let alone the others or the president.

Quote:
And that no actual uranium changed hands , which to me is kind of a null point if you sell the whole company.
Not if you prevent the uranium from leaving the country, as the deal did, contrary to the claim made by some that its was sold to be shipped off to Russia.
  #75  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:38 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
The poll results of this thread heavily support the second option


The poll results of this thread are about what we predict the outcome will be. It has very little to say about what happens if those predictions wrong and the report comes out with nothing.
  #76  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:38 AM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I vote -
  1. No matter what the report says, Republicans will claim it exonerates Trump
  2. No matter what the report says, Democrats will claim it proves criminal collusion beyond any shadow of a doubt, and
  3. Democrats will open another investigation.
Regards,
Shodan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
yes I agree this will be the result
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
X2
So if the report does clearly indicate criminal collusion, Democrats acknowledge this fact and Republicans deny it, this will merely prove the claim of bothsidesism? Neat trick.
  #77  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:42 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nato-...bership-582454

Trump backed the expansion of NATO. It happened under his regime.

To think that such facts are unknown to people with a vociferous opinion in favor of Russian escalation is troubling. Thankfully the serious policy people understand that Trump is the son of Obama in this issue. Indeed, Obama also asked NATO to increase military buildup. But if Trump does it, bizarre ideology twists the request into a Putin directive. Some good stuff being smoked by lefties these days.

There are things about the post wwii American presidency that are sacrosanct. Trump has not changed it.
  #78  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:42 AM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post


The poll results of this thread are about what we predict the outcome will be. It has very little to say about what happens if those predictions wrong and the report comes out with nothing.
True but given that we're pretty sure 75 percent of the board is democratic....not According to me.
Seems the poll and the comments suggest most Democrats are already convinced and the report isn't even out yet.
  #79  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:53 AM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
So if the report does clearly indicate criminal collusion, Democrats acknowledge this fact and Republicans deny it, this will merely prove the claim of bothsidesism? Neat trick.
Same result if it clearly indicates no collusion.
Republicans will acknowledge the fact and Democrats deny it.

Clearly shodan said, no matter what the report says.
  #80  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:56 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
True but given that we're pretty sure 75 percent of the board is democratic....not According to me.
Seems the poll and the comments suggest most Democrats are already convinced and the report isn't even out yet.
I can't speak for anyone else, but on my end, I think the evidence at this point is so far that it'd be really bizarre if Trump was not involved. 6 people from his inner circle and campaign have already been convicted, with more implicated. Trump's behavior with regards to Russia and Putin has been quite utterly bizarre, to the point where it's nearly impossible to ignore or write off, and in the meanwhile he's been committing quite a bit of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. The administration's talking points on the subject has been a constantly-shifting morass of lies. There's not enough evidence to construct a criminal case, but in terms of what's most likely? This is "stupid watergate". Trump is almost certainly implicated in or guilty of something.

Now, if the report comes out and completely clears him? Maybe I'm wrong. But if we're talking about our predictions about the report, the assumption that he's on the hook for something probably isn't that far off.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 01-31-2019 at 11:57 AM.
  #81  
Old 01-31-2019, 12:01 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,534
Wow! A whole week?
I'm guessing that the implication here is that, if nothing is going to happen within the extremely short period of a week, this whole effort is a complete wast of time and it should be dropped.

Nice try, Ancient Erudite.
  #82  
Old 01-31-2019, 12:05 PM
DirtyHippy's Avatar
DirtyHippy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Quacker Lane
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
But really , staight up dirty hippies, the lot of ya
Why, thank you.
  #83  
Old 01-31-2019, 12:06 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 36,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
The poll results of this thread heavily support the second option
Even more heavily the fourth option.
  #84  
Old 01-31-2019, 12:09 PM
enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Well, you got that right, it sure isn't an Administration.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #85  
Old 01-31-2019, 12:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nato-...bership-582454

Trump backed the expansion of NATO. It happened under his regime.

To think that such facts are unknown to people with a vociferous opinion in favor of Russian escalation is troubling. Thankfully the serious policy people understand that Trump is the son of Obama in this issue.
At most, you can say Trump failed to block expansion - in the face of a 97-2 Senate vote. Everything besides Senate recognition was done before Trump's regime. I know the facts, thank you very much, and it is quite untrue to say Trump expanded NATO.

Last edited by CarnalK; 01-31-2019 at 12:23 PM.
  #86  
Old 01-31-2019, 01:21 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Trump backed NATO expansion. Of course it was not unilateral. That’s a bit silly to say, which is one reason why I didn’t say it, the other being it didn’t happen.

Trump followed Obama’s policies on NATO. Obama followed Bush policies. Bush followed Clinton policies. Nothing new. Trump fits into American presidential history hand-in-glove. Which I say to condemn him btw. This is not a defense of NATO expansionist policy. NATO is obsolete.
  #87  
Old 01-31-2019, 01:24 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Oh? Russia isn't a threat anymore?
  #88  
Old 01-31-2019, 01:39 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
There is. But there is also a whole lot of far right here. And a lot of in-between too.

One is a foreign power committing an illegal act and then offering the proceeds of that act to a political campaign with the purpose of influencing the election with the enthusiastic participation of the campaign itself. The other is an independent consultant hired by a company hired first by a right-wing publication and subsequently by a political campaign to do opposition research, the product of which was handed to law enforcement in the US and UK due to some of its findings. There are similarities but the differences are the important bit.

Her department was one of nine. There were representatives from each department involved in the decision but she wasn't the State Department one. Obviously she held oversight power of her department's decision as Secretary but there's zero evidence to suggest she even attempted to influence the decision of her own department, let alone the others or the president.

Not if you prevent the uranium from leaving the country, as the deal did, contrary to the claim made by some that its was sold to be shipped off to Russia.
The first half of your description of the difference sounded like you were describing the dossier.


So, it sounds like at best thd meeting was gossip and at worst collusion and election interference.

The dossier at best sounds like research middle collusion or spying using a middleman. At worst sounds like conspiracy and election interference.

As understand its sources were Russian spies and or brittish spies no?
  #89  
Old 01-31-2019, 01:40 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I can't speak for anyone else, but on my end, I think the evidence at this point is so far that it'd be really bizarre if Trump was not involved. 6 people from his inner circle and campaign have already been convicted, with more implicated. Trump's behavior with regards to Russia and Putin has been quite utterly bizarre, to the point where it's nearly impossible to ignore or write off, and in the meanwhile he's been committing quite a bit of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. The administration's talking points on the subject has been a constantly-shifting morass of lies. There's not enough evidence to construct a criminal case, but in terms of what's most likely? This is "stupid watergate". Trump is almost certainly implicated in or guilty of something.

Now, if the report comes out and completely clears him? Maybe I'm wrong. But if we're talking about our predictions about the report, the assumption that he's on the hook for something probably isn't that far off.
I suspect less pragmatic reactions from politicians, and the general public

Last edited by Littleman; 01-31-2019 at 01:43 PM.
  #90  
Old 01-31-2019, 01:55 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
I also kind of expect the report to be incomplete facts of events left up to interpretation more than to offer a solid conclusion.
  #91  
Old 01-31-2019, 01:57 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Sigh ... no blowjob ... gotta let it all go then ...
  #92  
Old 01-31-2019, 02:31 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
The first half of your description of the difference sounded like you were describing the dossier.
Sorry, not seeing it--could you explain? Maybe start with the first 4 words and work out from there. "One is a foreign power". Could you explain specifically how this applies to the dossier?
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #93  
Old 01-31-2019, 02:48 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Sorry, not seeing it--could you explain? Maybe start with the first 4 words and work out from there. "One is a foreign power". Could you explain specifically how this applies to the dossier?
5 words
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #94  
Old 01-31-2019, 02:57 PM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Wow! A whole week?
I'm guessing that the implication here is that, if nothing is going to happen within the extremely short period of a week, this whole effort is a complete wast of time and it should be dropped.

Nice try, Ancient Erudite.

Should I have said a month later? Forces were out to get Trump the moment he was the President-Elect. Two years have passed Czarcasm.

Mueller and his large team have had plenty of time to investigate. If you think he's holding back on a charge against Trump, I've got a gold mine the size of a mountain I'm looking to sell for $19.95

Impeachment is far fetched unless something significant comes up that has Watergate-like proof. Let's say audio and visual evidence. Or email evidence. There is no such thing here. Congress can vote to impeach; it takes s 2/3 vote from the Senate to confirm it. That would be a low point in USA politics, voting to impeach when nothing guilty was found on the President. I don't even want to think of the ramifications or payback for such a stunt. Nancy, just don't.
  #95  
Old 01-31-2019, 03:01 PM
digs's Avatar
digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 9,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Wow, I know this board learns to the left, but the choice of #4 is a long shot. People are going to be upset here.
So, wanting criminals brought to justice means you're a leftie?


(Which is my problem with the current Republicans that are in power. When I was young, we conservatives were for law and order. Now it's "Let's throw law and order, and justice, out the window if we can grab more power or make a buck doing it")

Last edited by digs; 01-31-2019 at 03:06 PM.
  #96  
Old 01-31-2019, 03:04 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Should I have said a month later? Forces were out to get Trump the moment he was the President-Elect. Two years have passed Czarcasm.
Please don't play with the time frames involved-you're not that good at it. Your "poll" gave a bunch of possibilities for after the report is released, but few(if any) of the possibilities you listed can happen in the incredibly short amount of time of one week.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 01-31-2019 at 03:07 PM.
  #97  
Old 01-31-2019, 03:11 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Anyone remember that one time Trump fired the head of the FBI because he didn't like that the head of the FBI was investigating potential criminal activity by his campaign? And then the special council called to investigate afterwards found a criminal coverup that implicated 6 of Trump's inner circle? And the Trump publicly told his justice department to go after a family member of one of those people after they flipped on him, and that person delayed their testimony as a result?

I feel like we need to keep reminding people of this, because Trump supporters seem to keep forgetting.
  #98  
Old 01-31-2019, 03:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Anyone remember that one time Trump fired the head of the FBI because he didn't like that the head of the FBI was investigating potential criminal activity by his campaign? And then the special council called to investigate afterwards found a criminal coverup that implicated 6 of Trump's inner circle? And the Trump publicly told his justice department to go after a family member of one of those people after they flipped on him, and that person delayed their testimony as a result?

I feel like we need to keep reminding people of this, because Trump supporters seem to keep forgetting.
The other possibility is that they remember...and they approve.
  #99  
Old 01-31-2019, 03:22 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Sorry, not seeing it--could you explain? Maybe start with the first 4 words and work out from there. "One is a foreign power". Could you explain specifically how this applies to the dossier?
Well let's see Russian spies(foreign power) gather info or rumours that they then sell to Steele....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost....s-treason/amp/

Last edited by Littleman; 01-31-2019 at 03:24 PM.
  #100  
Old 01-31-2019, 03:30 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Should I have said a month later? Forces were out to get Trump the moment he was the President-Elect. Two years have passed Czarcasm.

Mueller and his large team have had plenty of time to investigate. If you think he's holding back on a charge against Trump, I've got a gold mine the size of a mountain I'm looking to sell for $19.95

Impeachment is far fetched unless something significant comes up that has Watergate-like proof. Let's say audio and visual evidence. Or email evidence. There is no such thing here. Congress can vote to impeach; it takes s 2/3 vote from the Senate to confirm it. That would be a low point in USA politics, voting to impeach when nothing guilty was found on the President. I don't even want to think of the ramifications or payback for such a stunt. Nancy, just don't.
Nah, impeachment is just a first action for moderates😂

Talking about the right here too, weren't they screaming the same thing about Obama or Hillary or something before either election was even done with.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017