DescentBB

So after 2 years, millions of dollars and scads of Trump hating special counsel lawyers, the collusion turned out to another high end boondoggle. Now the question is, why did this investigation ever take place to begin with. Bigger question is, if nothing was there how in the heck did a FISA court judge sign off on a investigation? Thankfully AG Barr has stated that he wonders the same thing and will investigate. I suspect a number of people like former CIA director Brennan and NSA director Clapper. It will be interesting to see what Barrs investigation shakes out of the morally corrupt tree that was the attempt to use governmental agencies to impede in a presidential election. More fun will be to watch the Dems twist the unredacted portions of the Mueller report into something useful and even more fun to watch the suck up friends of theirs in the press parrot in lockstep to the Dems desperate rantings. Already you can see the start with both Mueller and Barr being vilified and hung out to dry.
So get your favorite snack as things are going to get much more interesting.

If I can get you to answer just one question, why do you think Trump lies all the time?

Vander wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:14 am If I can get you to answer just one question, why do you think Trump lies all the time?

Why are you deflecting?

Im not deflecting, I’m just trying to get an answer to the question I asked the last time we attempted to discuss this topic that went unanswered, so that I can gauge how much good faith on your part I’m working with.

OK, I'll bite. Trump doesn't lie any more than any other politician. I guess the question is why you fixate on Trump when all presidents have lied. So can we get back to the topic at hand.

Is your premise here that any criminal investigation which finds a person to have not committed a crime never should have been initiated in the first place?

woodchip wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:35 pmTrump doesn't lie any more than any other politician.

That's veritably untrue. Trump is a pathological liar. We expect politicians to lie, but he even lies about stuff that doesn't matter. It's insane.

“woodchip” wrote:Trump doesn't lie any more than any other politician.

In your opinion, what’s the worst thing Trump has lied about?

“woodchip” wrote:Thankfully AG Barr has stated that he wonders the same thing and will investigate.

If you can answer why you think Barr should investigate this, you will likely answer your previous questions. Put simply, you investigate if you have reason to believe a crime has occurred.

The real question is why the investigation started in the first place. If there was never any credible evidence that collusion occurred then what grounds were there to open the special counsel? Or can any accusation be used to open any special counsel? If so then heaven help us as all congress will be doing is using special counsels to try and embarrass/tie up the opposition and succeed only in in not getting real work done.

And Vander, if you want to open a thread about Trump lying, have at it.

Woody, I'm sorry you didn't get the memo. The Special Council was put together to investigate Russian interference in the election, which was well known long before Trump even got the GOP nomination. Part of the mandate was to follow all leads including ties to campaigns, Republican or Democratic. Collusion isn't a legal term, so you can't investigate it. Have you been paying attention the past three years?

Trump IS a liar, far more frequent that most politicians, which is saying something. He even lies in the face of written and video evidence to the contrary when it's presented to his face. That makes him a pathological liar, one who has no remorse and is very comfortable lying to everyone though his teeth when it serves him. It also makes everything that comes out of his mouth suspect. Here's a few of his verifiable whoppers.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/most ... told.html/

However, even if Trump was not charged with the crimes of collusion or obstruction, why was he constantly railing on about Mueller's investigation, even trying to fire Mueller at one point during his presidency? Why was he constantly trying to influence the investigation so vociferously? Innocent men do not try to subvert the justice process in such a public fashion. What's funny about all this is that if Trump had actually succeeded in firing Mueller, he most certainly would have been found guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice. The only thing that saved Trump from being charged with collusion or obstruction of justice is that he was a bumbling idiot who wasn't smart enough to collude or obstruct justice in the first place. The bastard lucked out. Everything he did was an act of bumbling desperation for seemingly what end? Nothing, and that's the question. And on that note, why is Trump so resistant to release his tax returns and is even now actively fighting that Congressional subpoena of information and records from that his favorite Russian money laundering institution Deutsche Bank, hmmmm?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/busi ... gress.html

woodchip wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:32 pm The real question is why the investigation started in the first place. If there was never any credible evidence that collusion occurred then what grounds were there to open the special counsel? Or can any accusation be used to open any special counsel? If so then heaven help us as all congress will be doing is using special counsels to try and embarrass/tie up the opposition and succeed only in in not getting real work done.

I hate to waste my time doing work for you when you should be getting off your tush and reading from news sources other than Fox News, but here's the timeline courtesy of Politifact.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... e-updated/

Russia did interfere with our 2016 election, that's a FACT, and Trump and his campaign dipped their greedy fingers into the whole mess like kids in a candy store. It's a miracle he wasn't charged with SOMETHING surrounding all this BS. Remember, a lot of his campaign aides or people who worked for him were actually indicted by Mueller, and have gone to prison, for crimes that involved lying, Russians and dirty money. In fact, when Trump made his famous joke at one of his stupid campaign rallies that he was hoping the Russians were listening and could find Hillary's lost emails, the GRU was actually listening themselves and soon targeted Hillary for some personal state sponsored hacking attacks.

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurit ... ours-after

“woodchip” wrote:The real question is why the investigation started in the first place. If there was never any credible evidence that collusion occurred then what grounds were there to open the special counsel?

My understanding is the FBI was investigating the DNC hack, which was pointing towards Russia. This investigative track was going before the Wikileaks dump, and didn’t include Trump. After the July Wilileaks dump, the USG was informed by Australia that their UK Ambassador was told by Papadopoulos in May that Russians had material on Clinton they were going to use. That’s when the second investigative track was opened on the Trump orbit.

Now, if you want to say there’s some parallel construction going on, fine. I wouldn’t be shocked.

The Special Council was established after Trump fired Comey amid concerns of obstruction. Both tracks of the investigation were given to the Special Council.

Any more questions on that?

Should have expected the standard lemming post.

Do tell, woody, how do you spin away the black-and-white statements that Trump attempted to obstruct justice on multiple occasions but didn't succeed only because his lackeys had enough sense of self-preservation to say "no we're not doing that"? Should be entertaining.

ITT Woodchip has gone off the rails and lashes out at everyone.

I mean, at best, the president is Lawful Evil. Perhaps he didn't commit a crime, or there isn't enough evidence for a clear conviction, but just because a law isn't broken doesn't mean a person's actions are ethical.

vision wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 4:25 pm Woody, I'm sorry you didn't get the memo. The Special Council was put together to investigate Russian interference in the election, which was well known long before Trump even got the GOP nomination. Part of the mandate was to follow all leads including ties to campaigns, Republican or Democratic. Collusion isn't a legal term, so you can't investigate it. Have you been paying attention the past three years?

Vision, while what you say is true Mueller also was mandated:

any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea ... 1/download

This was the part everyone was referring to as "Collusion"

Vander wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:03 pm

My understanding is the FBI was investigating the DNC hack, which was pointing towards Russia. This investigative track was going before the Wikileaks dump, and didn’t include Trump. After the July Wilileaks dump, the USG was informed by Australia that their UK Ambassador was told by Papadopoulos in May that Russians had material on Clinton they were going to use. That’s when the second investigative track was opened on the Trump orbit.

Yeah, did you ever take the time to learn where Papadopoulos got his Russian information that he passed on to the Australian Diplo?. Kinda of reminds me of how DeLorean was set up.

vision wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:36 pm I mean, at best, the president is Lawful Evil. Perhaps he didn't commit a crime, or there isn't enough evidence for a clear conviction, but just because a law isn't broken doesn't mean a person's actions are ethical.

Name me one President who acted ethically during his Presidency. I suspect if any of them had a special prosecutor eyeball them like Mueller did Trump, they would all have some very dirty laundry exposed.

woodchip wrote:Yeah, did you ever take the time to learn where Papadopoulos got his Russian information that he passed on to the Australian Diplo? Kinda of reminds me of how DeLorean was set up.

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised to find out there's some parallel construction going on. But this isn't fruit of the poisonous tree type stuff. Don Jr. trying to do crimes has nothing to do with Pap. Manafort trying to do crimes has nothing to do with Pap. All the lying has nothing to do with Pap. (well, except Pap's lying) It's ultimately about whether or not our President is fit for office.

It seems like this is a hill you're willing to die on because it's a cornerstone of the 'deep state out to thwart Trump' theory. But it's a stupid theory to begin with.

Remember when you were all bothered when Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch? Those were good times.

Woody, you're grasping at straws. You're as deluded as the Dems were when Bill Clinton was impeached. Take off your orange colored glasses. Trump is a crook.

The FBI started looking at Russian interference in our election long before 2016, full stop. Trump, his son and his campaign actively sought some proffered help from the Russians during his campaign during multiple contacts, including that meeting in Trump Tower, full stop. Paul Manafort, now indicted and in prison, was in constant contact with and actually gave polling data to a Russian-trained Ukrainian operative, Constantine Kilimnik, full stop. Trump and his lackeys lied through their teeth when the FBI started sniffing around about all those Russian contacts, full stop. Trump hoped to hinder the FBI's investigation when he fired James Comey, full stop. The only reason that Trump wasn't charged with collusion is that everyone around Trump including Trump himself either constantly lied or destroyed evidence when investigators started looking into the Russian connections with the Trump campaign, full stop. An internal Russian memo went out directly to Valdimir Putin that said "We won" after Clinton conceded election night, full stop. All this is in Mueller's Report.

Now here's the kicker. The ONLY reason Trump wasn't charged with obstruction of justice by Mueller is because of a standing DOJ memo that says a sitting president can't be indicted for a crime. In other words, it wasn't under Mueller's purview to charge Trump with a crime. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, Mueller definitely laid out in his report that there is now enough evidence for Congress to IMPEACH Trump on the grounds of obstruction of justice. Trump was not exonerated by Mueller's report as AG Barr and Trump himself keep saying. Read the full report for yourself. It's damning against Trump. And if you don't like WAPO, download the PDF report yourself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... 4ba008e048

In fact, Barr has been involved in presidential butt covering before and no surprise, it was during Watergate. Barr also gave the White House access to Mueller's Report well before he gave it to Congress. Independent AG my rear end. More like the President's lapdog.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opin ... tions.html

woodchip wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:36 amName me one President who acted ethically during his Presidency. I suspect if any of them had a special prosecutor eyeball them like Mueller did Trump, they would all have some very dirty laundry exposed.

You are missing the big picture: Why is the president in this position in the first place? The "Deep State"? Which is somehow made up of Republicans in the FBI and Democrats?

Jimmy Carter had accusations of subordinates with improper business dealings. You know what he did?

The September 21, 1977 resignation of Bert Lance, who served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Carter administration, came amid allegations of improper banking activities prior to his tenure and was an embarrassment to Carter.

Carter became the first sitting president to testify under oath as part of an investigation into that president, as a result of United States Attorney General Griffin Bell appointing Paul J. Curran as a special counsel to investigate loans made to the peanut business owned by Carter by a bank controlled by Bert Lance and Curran's position as special counsel not allowing him to file charges on his own. Curran announced in October 1979 that no evidence had been found to support allegations that funds loaned from the National Bank of Georgia had been diverted to Carter's 1976 presidential campaign, ending the investigation.

Why couldn't Trump be as upstanding as Carter? Trump refused to be interviewed, let alone make statements under oath. That's pathetic.

The difference is that Carter would never tell a lie and Trump can never tell the truth.

Yeah, if you can be impeached for lying under oath then republicans would be wise to never let Trump testify, about anything, ever.

He has literally been saved several times by his own incompetence, because nobody obeys his retarded illegal orders.

Krom wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:17 am Yeah, if you can be impeached for lying under oath then republicans would be wise to never let Trump testify, about anything, ever.

He has literally been saved several times by his own incompetence, because nobody obeys his retarded illegal orders.

We've basically lucked out so far, in that the demagogue who claimed control of the entire American right is weak and incompetent. If he actually knew what he wanted and knew how to do it, our situation would be so much more dire. The problem is that almost all of the people who failed to follow through with the President's intentions to do crimes fall out of favor and get expelled, and their positions filled with more subservient people.

Why that man manages to find so many sycophants willing to fall on their swords for him is beyond me. The bastard would just a soon throw anyone under the bus for so much as saying "no" to him that it boggles the mind.

I also like that Mueller stated the possibility that Trump is open to prosecution once he's out of office. So you can bet Trump will run again just to save his butt from prosecution, because as president, that would give him four more years to outlast any statute of limitations on any of those past and current investigations. Just to see that happen, I will vote for any Dem they nominate.

Here is the thing that a lot of people aren't understanding. Foreign involvement in our election process is not acceptable in any form. If someone in Hilary Clinton's campaign solicited help from an ally like Germany, I want that person in jail. Period. We have a hard enough time managing the fake struggle between Republicans and Democrats (fake, because people are made to believe political platform differences are important when the real problem is our implicit caste system).