Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: So who will support the new prosecutor if he exonerates Trump?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    15,336
    Thanks
    2,009
    Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,672 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default So who will support the new prosecutor if he exonerates Trump?

    Well the public knowledge of at least two Trump confidants/cabinet members are known to be up to their eyebrows in Russian influence, and we suspect probably two others. Is it realistic to think that a president could be surrounded by Russian influenced people and not have Trump be influenced too? Even if he knew nothing about this influence? Is it even possible to not know anything about this influence from his friends? I remember Ronald Reagan and Oliver North with his bizarre idea of plausible deniability. Didn't believe it then so why believe it now?

    However, if Muller comes back after a proper length of time and declares Trump innocent I will accept that conclusion because I trust Muller. Doesn't mean I have to like Trump in any way.

    Does "innocent incompetence" count for acceptance though? This theory making its rounds now is this concept of "innocent incompetence" Trump just didn't know better is likely. He has, prior to his election, zero years serving as a public official. I would still never have voted for a person who could claim such a condition.

    It appears that Trump has attempted to treat the presidency exactly like a CEO position and as I pointed out they are nothing like each other, the skills and education of a corporate CEO is very different than what is required for a competent POTUS. None of Trump's statements would draw much attention at all if he was merely a corporate CEO. As POTUS those same tweets create chaos and loss of credibility for the entire government. He is not making America great again but driving it into the ground.
    "Any jackass can kick down a barn," former U.S. Houston Speaker Sam Rayburn once said with his famous Texas bluntness, "but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,652
    Thanks
    907
    Thanked 1,109 Times in 950 Posts

    Default

    Honestly, I was just going to hit "thanks" but thought I ought to put a bit more here....much of what you wrote is typical blather but I do appreciate:

    if Muller comes back after a proper length of time and declares Trump innocent I will accept that conclusion because I trust Muller.
    Likewise, if Muller comes back after a proper length of time and declares Trump guilty, then I will accept that conclusion because I trust the process.

    Of course, Bill Clinton was guilty, impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate because...Democrat. But...what ya gonna do?

    BTW...Muller is going to come back and find nothing criminal. Un-ethical? maybe....Immoral? maybe.....Illegal (which is what you need for an impeachment)? I don't think so.

    Elections are how we deal with immoral/unethical behavior...that was part of why Hillary lost....of course, in her case, what she did was also illegal, but Comey chose to bury the charges...something he has a track record of doing for Clintons.

    Comey was an important figure in the investigation of Bill Clinton's 11th-hour pardons of major campaign donor Marc Rich. Comey found that while "proper procedures" for the pardons were not followed, there was no evidence of a quid pro quo.

    Comey's brother apparently works for a law firm that represents the Clinton Foundation (something to do with taxes).

    Comey was a deputy special counsel for the Senate Whitewater Committee. He was part of the Senate investigation into allegations that the Clintons took part in a fraud connected to a Arkansas real estate venture. No charges were ever brought against either Clinton. The overall scandal led to independent counsel Kenneth Starr's probe eventually led to the Lewinsky scandal.

    ...and for what it is worth, Bill Clinton was the first President to ever fire a FBI Director. Don't recall much of an uproar about that.
    “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan
    "This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Ronald Reagan (1964)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    6,653
    Thanks
    401
    Thanked 901 Times in 737 Posts

    Default

    This is why investigations, after they are complete, need to be fully publicly published. Then people can read the evidence for themselves...nobody wants to 'trust a person', especially because, quite frankly, none of us know any of these people personally.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    15,336
    Thanks
    2,009
    Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,672 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The FBI director fired by Clinton was accused of using FBI funds for private things and his being fired was not controversial at all. I also remember Comey refusing to accept the concept of warrantless searchs. Bush sent an emissary to visit with the AG (Comey was acting AG at the time) who was in the hospital at the time and Bush simply could not get that issue past Comey.

    Comey has been seen by both major parties as very respectable was nominated and got approval from the senate by unanimous consent, without comment.

    But Pondering, you never did offer an opinion of the idea that Trump could be inundated with others who are in fact under the influence of Putin and what sort of influence that would be on him. Granted now two of those people are removed Flynn and Manafort. But Jared, Tillerson, Sessions and Wilbur Ross all have deep roots in Russia and Jared has unspecified influence since he is the son-in-law. And just today it seems there were newly discovered 18 new previously undiscovered Trump group contacts with the Russians. This entire issue is not going away soon, and no amount of Trump loudly proclaiming it is a hoax will change that.

    Finally, if Trump had the same reputation as Comey of being a straight shooter of honesty and integrity, we would not be having this discussion. Trump's view of the truth is no where near the same as 99% of the world.
    "Any jackass can kick down a barn," former U.S. Houston Speaker Sam Rayburn once said with his famous Texas bluntness, "but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,652
    Thanks
    907
    Thanked 1,109 Times in 950 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    But Pondering, you never did offer an opinion of the idea that Trump could be inundated with others who are in fact under the influence of Putin and what sort of influence that would be on him.
    Ok....so just who do you think is under the influence of Putin and how does Putin exert that influence? And after 6 months and 3 investigations, no one has produced any evidence of any of the Left's claims? ALL the Left has produced in insinuation, innuendo, unsourced rumors, and manufactured hypotheticals....

    It's gonna be interesting to see where the investigation goes. Hillary's campaign manager Robby Mook would not confirm or deny whether the Clinton campaign had contact with the Russians. I'm gonna bet that the answer to that is "yes" (contact) but contact doesn't equal collusion....I think they're gonna find similar info about the Trump campaign. Guess who else likely reached out to both candidates during the course of their campaigns.....EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS A DIPLOMAT in the U.S......it's part of how this all works. Still doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal...although you may be right and maybe they did.

    According the "tell-all" book Shattered, Hillary's folks made up the whole Russia story and pushed it to the press as a fig leaf for why she lost. I can't vouch for the veracity of the book's claims....but it certainly seems plausible to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Granted now two of those people are removed Flynn and Manafort.
    Exactly. And the fact that Trump fired both of them undercuts your insinuation that he's "inundated with others who are in fact under the influence of Putin." But then logical consistency has never been the Left's strong suit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    But Jared, Tillerson, Sessions and Wilbur Ross all have deep roots in Russia ...
    Do they? "Deep roots"? Or, in the case of Jared and Tillerson, maybe it's just international businessmen who did business in Russia?

    Sessions and Russia? He met the Russian Ambassador once in a large public forum and once in his office (which was on his schedule). Or are you aware of more?

    Wilbur Ross has a connection due to his prior job....which again, would be normal and legal. Unless you have some kind of evidence that he somehow did something illegal. Have you done this same kind of investigation about Democratic politicians and there connections to Russia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    ...and Jared has unspecified influence since he is the son-in-law.
    Correct...personally I'm not real happy about that, but I get it...he trusts him which is understandable given the fact that his White House is leaking like a sieve right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    And just today it seems there were newly discovered 18 new previously undiscovered Trump group contacts with the Russians.
    Nope. Not "newly discovered"...it's "newly reported". Again....were any of those deals illegal? Multinational corporations do multinational deals. I know the Left doesn't like capitalism, but this is how business works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    This entire issue is not going away soon, and no amount of Trump loudly proclaiming it is a hoax will change that.
    Agree...but the Left convicted Trump as soon as he won....now they're just looking for a crime to tie it to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Finally, if Trump had the same reputation as Comey of being a straight shooter of honesty and integrity, we would not be having this discussion.
    False, the Left and the media would be doing this whoever won....The "ruling class" is furious they've been defeated by an outsider. They will not rest until they've taken Trump down, even if it means inciting a rebellion.

    Even the leaders on the left, from the relatively sane Senator Feinstein to the crazy-loon Rep. Waters have publicly stated that there is zero evidence of Russian/Trump collusion when asked directly....the more loony of the group have said words to the effect of "well, we haven't found the evidence yet, but I'm sure it's there...."

    And had the Left would be doing this regardless of which Republican won. Had it been Cruz, they'd gin up the same kind of insinuation and attempt to make ties between Cruz's wife's former job and some sort of evil nefarious "insider" dealing....

    The Left has lost the public debate. ALL they have are attacks on Republicans. They're made more effective because the vast majority of the media are happy to be the megaphone....Fortunately, most Americans seems to see through their attempts and mostly, these attacks have been ineffective. Unfortunately, they seem to be most effective on Republican members of Congress who are making big mistakes right now by not just getting on with it...but that's the Democrats goal...slow the Congressional agenda to a crawl and then point to the Republican during the election cycle and say "see, these guys can't get anything done."

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Trump's view of the truth is no where near the same as 99% of the world.
    a) What exactly is the view of "truth" of 99% of the world? You think Syrian and Chinese and Somalis all have the same view of the "truth"
    b) This is the U.S. Why would or should we care about what other countries think about "the truth" and what bearing does any of that have on how we select our leaders?
    “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan
    "This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Ronald Reagan (1964)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    15,336
    Thanks
    2,009
    Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,672 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Speaking of someone convicted without trial Hillary fits that description exactly. Tell me now how you and several others here on this forum have time and time again convicted her in theory and even gone on to suggest she belongs in prison (Remember shouts of Lock her Up). After years of hearing these screes from the republicans why shouldn't we on the left offer our own such unilateral declarations about our favorite targets.

    I dont know personally but is it even possible to do anything major within Russia without some influence of Putin or some other Kleptocrat? Holding a Miss Universe pageant without the expressed personal approval of Putin seems unlikely. I've heard that the Russian economy is not at all like our American economy (well the mathematics of it might be) but getting approvals for major events always goes through the Kremlin.
    "Any jackass can kick down a barn," former U.S. Houston Speaker Sam Rayburn once said with his famous Texas bluntness, "but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,652
    Thanks
    907
    Thanked 1,109 Times in 950 Posts

    Default

    Thanks for not answering any of the questions I raised.....but moving on:

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Speaking of someone convicted without trial Hillary fits that description exactly.
    True.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Tell me now how you and several others here on this forum have time and time again convicted her in theory and even gone on to suggest she belongs in prison (Remember shouts of Lock her Up).
    She's clearly guilty because:
    a) those who call for her being charged can point to a specific law (the Federal Records Act, 18 U.S. Code § 2071) and
    b) those who call for her being charged can point to her specific responsibility to not violate that law and
    c) those who call for her being charged can point to at least 2,900 emails which contained classified material in violation of the law as the material was not stored in the manner proscribed by the law:

    (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
    It's that simple. The fact that Obama's DoJ and the FBI refused to file charges is political even though they had the authority to do so (i.e. not charge her based on prosecutorial discretion)...but it's still an injustice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    After years of hearing these screes from the republicans why shouldn't we on the left offer our own such unilateral declarations about our favorite targets.
    a) What specific law has DJT broken and where is the factual evidence that he broke that law?
    b) you will not like where this ends

    In short, our Republic is nearly over. I think we have two choices...continue down the oligarchy path we're on (the permanent Government "representatives" (like Pelosi, Schumer, O'Connell, McCain) or start to transition to direct democracy....In many ways we've already evolved into a form of direct democracy via social media and polling. Too many politicians won’t risk going against a sizeable minority – even for noble reasons – because social media will organize to drive that person out of office over the issue. (see Planned Parenthood de-funding issue for an excellent example...or the Transgender bathroom issue....or just about any other liberal issue...)

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    I dont know personally but is it even possible to do anything major within Russia without some influence of Putin or some other Kleptocrat?
    Probably not....but you don't seem to have these same concerns when the Clinton Foundation accepted millions from Russian businessmen (and other countries that were looking for favors) while she was serving as Secy of State....In short, the Left seems to have taken the position that anything Democrats do is good and noble and anything Republicans do is evil and corrupt.

    Again....you will not like how this ends when we as a nation reject the Rule of Law and equal representation under the law (both in terms of prosecution and defense) and replace that will partisan affiliation....that ends in one group literally persecuting the other to retain power and the "out groups" violently resisting that persecution....

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Holding a Miss Universe pageant without the expressed personal approval of Putin seems unlikely. I've heard that the Russian economy is not at all like our American economy (well the mathematics of it might be) but getting approvals for major events always goes through the Kremlin.
    Likely true. And? The same is likely true of Cuba (through the Castros) but Democrats cheered Obama's re-opening of relations/commerce with Cuba. Again....Democrats can only do good, therefore anything they do must be good....Republicans are evil so anything they do must be evil.

    See how this simplistic binary thinking is not gonna work out well in the end?
    “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan
    "This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Ronald Reagan (1964)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •