The Mueller report. The week after its released

[Czarcasm]

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.

[DirtyHippy]

@Littleman

But really , staight up dirty hippies, the lot of ya

Why, thank you.

[running_coach]

@Littleman

The poll results of this thread heavily support the second option

Even more heavily the fourth option.

[enipla]

@WillFarnaby

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nato-montenegro-putin-membership-582454It happened under his regime.

Well, you got that right, it sure isn’t an Administration.

[CarnalK]

@WillFarnaby

Trump Backs Montenegro's NATO Admission Over Russian Objections

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.

[WillFarnaby]

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 NATO is obsolete.

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh? Russia isn’t a threat anymore?

[Littleman]

@Gyrate

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?

[Littleman]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

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

[Littleman]

I also kind of expect the report to be incomplete facts of events left up to interpretation more than to offer a solid conclusion.

[ElvisL1ves]

Sigh … no blowjob … gotta let it all go then …

[Evil_Economist]

@Littleman

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?

[Evil_Economist]

@Evil_Economist

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

[Ancient_Erudite]

@Czarcasm

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.

[digs]

@Ancient_Erudite

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”)

[Czarcasm]

@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.

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.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

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.

[Czarcasm]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

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.

[Littleman]

@Evil_Economist

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…

Why doesn’t Hillary’s ‘dossier’ trick count as treason?

[Littleman]

@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.

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.