Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Former FBI Director R. Mueller III named Special Council to FBI Russia-Trump Probe

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Again with Russia allegations?

    Come on, didn't Clapper and other agencies admitted publicly that their assessment was that there's no evidence of collusion between Trump campaign and Russian government? There's no evidence of Russian interference in our electoral system. There's no evidence of Russian hacking into over 60 million voters who voted for Trump.

    All you have going is Flynn, and even that's still a weak case given the fact he lied to Pence and other Trump officials in order to get the job. He should have told the truth, and technically there's nothing illegal about doing private business with Russians as we're not at war with them.

    To me, it's pretty much beating dead horse.

    Democrats need to get themselves over Trump winning the election. This is purely payback, nothing more than that.
    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

    "Aim small, miss small."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
      Again with Russia allegations?

      Come on, didn't Clapper and other agencies admitted publicly that their assessment was that there's no evidence of collusion between Trump campaign and Russian government? There's no evidence of Russian interference in our electoral system. There's no evidence of Russian hacking into over 60 million voters who voted for Trump.

      All you have going is Flynn, and even that's still a weak case given the fact he lied to Pence and other Trump officials in order to get the job. He should have told the truth, and technically there's nothing illegal about doing private business with Russians as we're not at war with them.

      To me, it's pretty much beating dead horse.

      Democrats need to get themselves over Trump winning the election. This is purely payback, nothing more than that.
      The good news for you Cheetah is that if you are correct about no Russian collusion then this action will exonerate Trump.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
        Again with Russia allegations?

        Come on, didn't Clapper and other agencies admitted publicly that their assessment was that there's no evidence of collusion between Trump campaign and Russian government? There's no evidence of Russian interference in our electoral system. There's no evidence of Russian hacking into over 60 million voters who voted for Trump.

        All you have going is Flynn, and even that's still a weak case given the fact he lied to Pence and other Trump officials in order to get the job. He should have told the truth, and technically there's nothing illegal about doing private business with Russians as we're not at war with them.

        To me, it's pretty much beating dead horse.

        Democrats need to get themselves over Trump winning the election. This is purely payback, nothing more than that.
        You need to keep up.

        That generally requires that you keep yourself informed on what's going on.

        The intelligence chiefs all stated before Congress that the Russians attempted to influence the election.

        And Flynn is in deep with the Russians, along with other cutthroats in the Trump campaign.

        And Trump himself peddled classified information to two senior Russian officials in the Oval Office.

        Mueller will figure it out and I don't think Trump and his minions will like the outcome.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
          The good news for you Cheetah is that if you are correct about no Russian collusion then this action will exonerate Trump.
          Yes, then it will come with a heavy price tag for Trump. Even if his name is cleared, his position will be greatly weakened.

          Look at Clinton, he survived special prosecutors and impeachment process, but he never really recovered from the assaults on his position.

          Now Trump is no Clinton, so his reputation will be greatly tarnished and gives every Democrat an excuse to go bonkers over every little slight from Trump.

          We're just few months into Trump's first term, can you imagine the kind of storm he's going to be in for next 4 years? Clinton didn't really a major hit to his reputation until 2nd half of his second term, big difference here.
          Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

          "Aim small, miss small."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Massena View Post
            You need to keep up.

            That generally requires that you keep yourself informed on what's going on.

            The intelligence chiefs all stated before Congress that the Russians attempted to influence the election.

            And Flynn is in deep with the Russians, along with other cutthroats in the Trump campaign.

            And Trump himself peddled classified information to two senior Russian officials in the Oval Office.

            Mueller will figure it out and I don't think Trump and his minions will like the outcome.
            Okay, show me evidence that Russians influenced 60 million voters to vote for Trump. Show me where Russians successfully hacked electoral systems to spit out votes for Trump. Attempted is not same as actually doing it.

            Trump had every right to share classified info with others, he has power to do it. Technically there's nothing illegal about that. Was it a smart move, no, but is it a criminal act? Nope. Besides, Obama shared Syrian intelligence with Russia, but you don't see the outrage from Republicans over that. Why? Because Obama was perfectly within his rights to do that.

            As for Flynn, so fare you just have one man, and that doesn't equate with a clear indication of collusion with Russian government on Trump's part.

            As far I am concerned, all of this is nonsense.
            Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

            "Aim small, miss small."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
              Yes, then it will come with a heavy price tag for Trump. Even if his name is cleared, his position will be greatly weakened.

              Look at Clinton, he survived special prosecutors and impeachment process, but he never really recovered from the assaults on his position.

              Now Trump is no Clinton, so his reputation will be greatly tarnished and gives every Democrat an excuse to go bonkers over every little slight from Trump.

              We're just few months into Trump's first term, can you imagine the kind of storm he's going to be in for next 4 years? Clinton didn't really a major hit to his reputation until 2nd half of his second term, big difference here.
              Ahh Ken Starr and Robert Mueller. Let me tell you Cheetah, I knew Robert Mueller, he was a friend of mine, and Ken Starr is no Robert Mueller.

              Just kidding, I don't know Robert Mueller, I just wanted to use that line. The point still stands though. Robert Mueller is no Ken Starr. Ken Starr was a cowboy independent prosecutor whose only interest was to find a way to bring down the duly elected President of the United States. When he found out about a seedy little affair he used that to try to entrap the President and go on to bring the Presidency down.

              That isn't the situation unfolding here. Now there is a fair impartial Special Prosecutor doing what is right.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
                Okay, show me evidence that Russians influenced 60 million voters to vote for Trump.
                Nobody said they caused 60 million votes. The election came down to the wire, with key swing states being won by a margin of thousands of votes (with a voting population of millions). If the Russians do not hack the DNC and release that information, that's one major scandal that never happens. Their attempts to influence the election were exactly this - by selectively releasing dirt on one candidate, but not the other. The fact that it was obtained through hacking is secondary. In theory they could have obtained it by bribing a DNC staffer or whatever else, but their choice was to leak information that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton's candidacy. They did this because they wanted Donald in the white house.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
                  Nobody said they caused 60 million votes. The election came down to the wire, with key swing states being won by a margin of thousands of votes (with a voting population of millions). If the Russians do not hack the DNC and release that information, that's one major scandal that never happens. Their attempts to influence the election were exactly this - by selectively releasing dirt on one candidate, but not the other. The fact that it was obtained through hacking is secondary. In theory they could have obtained it by bribing a DNC staffer or whatever else, but their choice was to leak information that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton's candidacy. They did this because they wanted Donald in the white house.
                  Oh come on, truthfully, Democrats brought this upon themselves. They selected a horrible candidate by fixing their primary election. No, what I think killed Clinton's chance of winning the crown is her email server. That became her albatross. Russians certainly did not leak anything about her email server. Not only that, Comey coming out to announce the reopening of investigation into Clinton emails a couple of weeks before the election may have also damaged Clinton's chance as well. Did Russians influence Comey to come out like that?

                  There's so many factors that you can't say with certainty that Russia's influence was the main one that sunk Clinton campaign.
                  Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                  "Aim small, miss small."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    You know guys this constant stream of fake news might turn Trump into the teflon don. Think about it, just how many fake news stories have been disproven...

                    When something real shows up how many will just yawn and say its the boy who cried wolf again...

                    It seems that the media is shooting itself in the foot with this constant stream of fake news. Myself I'm still looking around for a news source that I can trust.

                    Haven't found one yet and will I?
                    Credo quia absurdum.


                    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
                      Oh come on, truthfully, Democrats brought this upon themselves. They selected a horrible candidate by fixing their primary election. No, what I think killed Clinton's chance of winning the crown is her email server. That became her albatross. Russians certainly did not leak anything about her email server. Not only that, Comey coming out to announce the reopening of investigation into Clinton emails a couple of weeks before the election may have also damaged Clinton's chance as well. Did Russians influence Comey to come out like that?

                      There's so many factors that you can't say with certainty that Russia's influence was the main one that sunk Clinton campaign.
                      Trump and Clinton were both candidates who derived strength from "not being Hillary Clinton" and "not being Donald Trump", respectively. But I think you're possibly not appreciating how close the election was. It's easy for you to look at a county map and sea a sea of red, or to look at the final EC votes and observe that it wasn't the closest race in history. But the election result defied expectations primarily because of an increase in voting strength for the Republicans in the rust-belt, which had generally been assumed to be safely democratic prior to the election.

                      In Wisconsin, Trump won by 0.8 percentage points (10 EC Votes). In Pennsylvania, Trump won by 0.7 percentage points (20 EC Votes). In Michigan, Trump won by 0.2 percentage points (14 EC votes).

                      Clinton won NH by 0.4 percentage points (4 EC Votes), which was also razor thin, but a much, much less important state overall for EC.

                      These margins are so small in such key states that if the polling took place a few days sooner or later, the result might have flipped. And despite winning the EC, Trump lost the popular vote - his victory was secured not by being more popular overall, but by being "popular enough" in enough different states. This cannot be exclusively blamed on the Democrats, although I would at least agree that it was their race to lose in the first place. They had major advantages going in and made mistakes. But even with all of those mistakes, even with Russia leaking dirt on the Democrats, even with Comey making the bizarre public announcement so close to the election, it still could have been a Democrat victory going into the last couple of days.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/864994472492453888

                        Wikileaks has suddenly announced that Mueller was involved in delivering enriched Uranium into Russia. I'm sure the timing of this release is just a total complete coincidence and is in no way an effort to discredit the man who was just announced as being involved in this investigation.

                        The fact that they left out important context is I'm sure just an unhappy accident.



                        Edit:

                        https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/865020656760573952

                        Oh whoops now they're saying "his FBI" trained torturers in Egypt. I'm sure, again, just totally coincidental timing, not intended to make him look bad in direct response to him being announced as heading this investigation.
                        Last edited by ThoseDeafMutes; 17 May 17, 20:56.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                          The good news for you Cheetah is that if you are correct about no Russian collusion then this action will exonerate Trump.
                          It won't, actually, as it will only lead to more wasted time by the Democrats. They're not interested in the truth, they're only interested in the noise they can generate, the confusion and chaos they can sow, and the anger and hatred they can rile up.
                          The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                            You know guys this constant stream of fake news might turn Trump into the teflon don. Think about it, just how many fake news stories have been disproven...
                            All of them so far.

                            When something real shows up how many will just yawn and say its the boy who cried wolf again...
                            I agree. However, the Dems aren't smart, they won't stop until something, anything, finally sticks to our POTUS. They don't care what the damage is to the country.

                            It seems that the media is shooting itself in the foot with this constant stream of fake news. Myself I'm still looking around for a news source that I can trust.

                            Haven't found one yet and will I?
                            I see quite a bit garbage (on Facebook) about how "48% polled now think Trump should be impeached" or this government official or that government official (always a Democrat) is claimed to say that the table is set for a Trump impeachment. But, of course, Facebook is grossly biased against Trump AND common sense. I can't watch any news service anymore aside from my local news, and even then they're reporting fake anti-Trump news from time to time.

                            It's madness, I tell you. Madness. And I'm hoping it backfires on the media as a whole in a spectacularly epic way.
                            The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
                              Oh come on, truthfully, Democrats brought this upon themselves. They selected a horrible candidate by fixing their primary election. No, what I think killed Clinton's chance of winning the crown is her email server. That became her albatross. Russians certainly did not leak anything about her email server. Not only that, Comey coming out to announce the reopening of investigation into Clinton emails a couple of weeks before the election may have also damaged Clinton's chance as well. Did Russians influence Comey to come out like that?

                              There's so many factors that you can't say with certainty that Russia's influence was the main one that sunk Clinton campaign.
                              A rock would have been a better choice than Shrillary. But the Democrats stuck with what they knew and it cost them dearly. Russia didn't have to lift a finger.
                              The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
                                A rock would have been a better choice than Shrillary. But the Democrats stuck with what they knew and it cost them dearly. Russia didn't have to lift a finger.
                                True, they didn't have to lift a finger...but they did.

                                Sad part is he probably would have won even without their help. Now, history will always have a question mark over Trumps presidency and the universe rejoices at the irony/justice for the man that used 'birtherism' to endear himself to the right.
                                Conservatives in the U.S. won't be happy until Jim Crow returns and "White Heterosexual Only" signs are legalized.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X