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.
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.
This YouTube mentions some of Trump’s sweetheart gifts to Putin.
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?
Could you quit saying that Trump expanded NATO? Thanks.
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.
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.
The Rachel Maddow obsession is a tad creepy, as well.
yes I agree this will be the result
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?
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.
X2
I predict that Mueller will say he needs more time. After all, it worked with the Blair investigation.
The poll results of this thread heavily support the second option
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.