(12-05-2017 02:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So do we generally start investigating people before we have a clue of what they may have done wrong?


No, that's not obvious.... Could it not be that Trump was the more likely candidate to drop them anyway and so the Russians threw trolling efforts out to help him win? Like every government on the planet has been known to do.


So do witch hunts.

Witch hunts do not take time. Open a history book for Christ's sake.

Witch hunts were about falsely accusing some random person through spectral evidence. and burning them at the stake.

sounds like what is happening now, figuratively of course

Actually, it's the opposite. The investigation is taking time which suggests lesss and less that it's a witch hunt and more and more like all the right steps are being taken.

Which is why it's so interesting that his supporters actually want it to be over quickly.

by taking time do you mean expanding outside the scope of the mission/

You go where ever the evidence leads you.

Let's face it. We know Trump has had dealings with Russia for years. His son famously said before Trump ran that the Russians would pay for his campaign.

so dealings with Russia on any level are bad?

(12-05-2017 02:43 PM)solohawks Wrote:  so dealings with Russia on any level are bad?

Well except for when your wife signs over some uranium rights and you get a few million in speaking fees..

Those are all above board.

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

This is true, but I'm not sure you understand the concept you just articulated....

Quote:I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

Demonstrably untrue. The Russians in fact (according to the joint comment by the numerous intelligence sources) were convinced that they were unsuccessful in defeating Hillary (remember all the polls) and that when they supposedly approached the Trump team, they intended to undermine her Presidency... which means that although they may have wanted to use the Trump team's interest in defeating her to distribute the data, they would have had no expectation of quid-pro-quo from someone who wasn't going to be elected....

and more important (pay attention to this before you respond)....

You have no proof that such a quid-pro-quo was offered....

And you just said that what mattered was what you can prove.

Quote:The difficulty is in proving with evidence that it actually occurred. So just because you only have one or two or three bits of evidence doesn't mean you have nothing.

They are building a case against him.

These things take time.

Actually they don't just take time... they take facts. The term 'building a case' means that you're putting bits of circumstantial evidence together and telling a story, which attorney's and story tellers are great at doing... but that circumstantial evidence without a smoking gun is not proof.

The right had created an amazingly long (20-30 years) case against both Bill AND Hillary, but at the end of the day, the only thing they were ever able to prove was that Bill lied to Congress about his affair with an intern, which of course wasn't remotely close to what they thought they had him on, nor was it (despite being a clear violation of the law and an impeachable offense) something that cost him his position nor was it something that halted his Presidency.

(12-05-2017 02:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:59 PM)solohawks Wrote:  so you're saying you got nothing?

I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

The difficulty is in proving with evidence that it actually occurred. So just because you only have one or two or three bits of evidence doesn't mean you have nothing.

They are building a case against him.

These things take time.

how is it obvious? I don't think its obvious. I have seen ZERO evidence of this, just mindless conspiracy theories

They can't answer that. It's based all on hope. We've seen how that works out.

(12-05-2017 12:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Who knows how this all plays out. I don't think firing Comey in and of itself reaches the level of obstruction of justice. However, coupled with the fact that he knew Flynn lied to the FBI before hand lends more credence to that theory.

The rumors however now are that his latest attacks on the FBI are laying the groundwork for firing Mueller.

I think if he does this, the republicans will cut him loose. Especially if they get tax reform through.

What does that mean? The pubs cut cut him loose a long time ago.

(12-05-2017 02:43 PM)solohawks Wrote:  so dealings with Russia on any level are bad?

No one said that.

The United States and any sitting administration can have diplomatic relations with Russia.

However, if they went to Russia and said they would drop the sanctions in exchange for help in the election then I'm pretty sure they did something wrong.

(12-05-2017 03:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:43 PM)solohawks Wrote:  so dealings with Russia on any level are bad?

No one said that.

The United States and any sitting administration can have diplomatic relations with Russia.

However, if they went to Russia and said they would drop the sanctions in exchange for help in the election then I'm pretty sure they did something wrong.

Did they do that?

(12-05-2017 04:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 03:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:43 PM)solohawks Wrote:  so dealings with Russia on any level are bad?

No one said that.

The United States and any sitting administration can have diplomatic relations with Russia.

However, if they went to Russia and said they would drop the sanctions in exchange for help in the election then I'm pretty sure they did something wrong.

Did they do that?

No, they didn't. The Russians came here and did that. Well, at least we know they talked about both sanctions and assistance in the election, but we should totally believe the guy who lied about the meeting multiple times when he says it was nothing.

Quote:I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

Demonstrably untrue. The Russians in fact (according to the joint comment by the numerous intelligence sources) were convinced that they were unsuccessful in defeating Hillary (remember all the polls) and that when they supposedly approached the Trump team, they intended to undermine her Presidency... which means that although they may have wanted to use the Trump team's interest in defeating her to distribute the data, they would have had no expectation of quid-pro-quo from someone who wasn't going to be elected....[/quote]

Quote:and more important (pay attention to this before you respond)....

You have no proof that such a quid-pro-quo was offered....

And you just said that what mattered was what you can prove.

Agreed. Trump will never have to hang for that because it can't be proven. Most people however are smart enough to figure out that the Russians wanted to help Trump win and Trump was willing to let them help. It's not a stretch that he would then forget about the sanctions whether the Russians asked for it or not. It's not rocket science. It's just like Iran contra.

Quote:Actually they don't just take time... they take facts. The term 'building a case' means that you're putting bits of circumstantial evidence together and telling a story, which attorney's and story tellers are great at doing... but that circumstantial evidence without a smoking gun is not proof.

Isn't that what I said? I think Muller has enough information to know what was happening. I wouldn't be surprised if Popodapolus or Flynn has already told him how it went down. It's just a matter of having enough evidence to prove it.

Quote:The right had created an amazingly long (20-30 years) case against both Bill AND Hillary, but at the end of the day, the only thing they were ever able to prove was that Bill lied to Congress about his affair with an intern, which of course wasn't remotely close to what they thought they had him on, nor was it (despite being a clear violation of the law and an impeachable offense) something that cost him his position nor was it something that halted his Presidency.

[/quote]

I totally agree but Clinton didn't have Congress on his side so they impeached him anyway.

Trump has Congress on his side so I doubt that he will be impeached unless the GOP decides that not doing so would do considerable damage to them. Much like what happened to Nixon.

If we have learned anything about the last 8 years, it is that the GOP is happy to sit on their hands as long as it's in their best interests.

Team before country.

(12-05-2017 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  a. Collusion is not illegal
b. The president cannot obstruct justice



In May 1977, three years after he resigned the presidency, Richard Nixon made a stunning declaration. The president, he told British journalist David Frost, in a series of historic interviews, is not bound by the same laws that apply to ordinary citizens. “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” he explained. Congress, which filed articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice in the Watergate affair, obviously disagreed. Yet 40 years later, Donald Trump’s legal team has revived Nixon’s reasoning. As special counsel Robert Mueller closes in on what appears to be an obstruction case against the president, Trump’s attorneys are publicly laying the groundwork to argue that he is immune to any charges that could precipitate impeachment.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/...estigation

How is this new. Noted Democrat Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Prof. Emeritus has been saying this from day 1.

Not one poster here has ever posted the actual law Trump has supposedly broken.

I swear i wish some of you tards would take a at the minimum a basic civics class and put vanity fair, slate, vox, and the other moron magazines down.

(12-05-2017 02:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Witch hunts do not take time. Open a history book for Christ's sake.

Witch hunts were about falsely accusing some random person through spectral evidence. and burning them at the stake.

sounds like what is happening now, figuratively of course

Actually, it's the opposite. The investigation is taking time which suggests lesss and less that it's a witch hunt and more and more like all the right steps are being taken.

Which is why it's so interesting that his supporters actually want it to be over quickly.

by taking time do you mean expanding outside the scope of the mission/

You go where ever the evidence leads you.

last comment edited merely to specify what I'm responding to.....

Like the witch hunt investigation into Bill Clinton that started looking for all sorts of crimes including financial misdealing, murder and rape ended up with lying to Congress about an affair with an intern?

I mean if we're going to look into history, that's the most recent similar event. I'd also note that even in Watergate, what Nixon was ultimately accused of had nothing to do with the initial crime.

I think the fact that the investigation is still going on with nothing demonstrable towards the initial reason for the investigation is a whole lot of proof against your claim. The things that HAVE been alleged since the initial investigation have either been bad, but not related to the initial claim (like Clinton) or truly immaterial (like Clinton). I haven't seen anything like Nixon, where Trump is claiming privilege or we have missing emails (Hillary) or erased recordings (Nixon)

(12-05-2017 05:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If we have learned anything about the last 8 years, it is that the GOP is happy to sit on their hands as long as it's in their best interests.

Team before country.

What would you like the GOP Congress to do?