Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You mean about the Senate voting against supporting Saudi Arabia due to Khashoggi?

I think we've seen this before... when congress passed a bill sanctioning Russia for election interference, and then the Trump sprung into action and did... nothing. Well, they did eventually impose sanctioning, but did so after missing several deadlines.
Click to expand...
We're talking about whether or not the Senate would vote against Trump. I'm using an example of the Senate voting against Trump. You've just provided another example, as if it's a counter-argument to the idea that the Senate would vote against Trump.
Click to expand...
Technically I never said Republican senators would never vote against Trump. I said they would never act against Trump.

Republicans senators may occasionally speak out against Trump, and yes, they may vote in ways that are in opposition to the president. But in most cases their actions are 1) over very minor issues (such as not confirming a lower level judge), or 2) things that they will eventually overlook (like missed deadlines for Russian sanctions.) I don't see much evidence that they are willing to stand up against the more serious grievances.
 
The_Animus said:
If the Mueller investigation was finished and the report released tomorrow I don't think it would change anything. For those who have been paying attention it would just be further confirmation of the evidence we've already seen pointing to lying, obstruction, and corruption. For the Trump cult, they're already inoculated to the lying, obstruction, and corruption and the report would just be another among the thousands of 'fake news perpetrated by the deep state Trump haters'. And the Republican controlled senate has already shown they have no problem going along with the corruption and I see no reason why the report, no matter how damning, would change that.

If in 2020 we take back the senate then it will matter. But until then...
Click to expand...

But Mueller is not going to finish and submit his report tomorrow. There are more shoes to drop. The latest info shows the huge conflict of interest Trump had through the campaign and why the Russians were trying EVERYTHING in their power to get Trump elected. And Trump's actions since being elected has been not just deferential to Russia but obsequious. That Trump HAS done NOTHING to oppose Russia's actions in the Ukraine.

Unless you head is buried up Trump's ass, it's easy to see that Trump is working for the Russians and why.
 
The Big Dog said:
Have not checked theAvenatti thread lately?

Fantastic!
Click to expand...
What's fantastic is how accurate Seth Abramson turned out to be regarding Cohen's lies. He called it at the time. There's a whole chapter in his latest book, Proof of Collusion, about Trump's multi-decade attempt to move into Russian real estate and the multiple deals in existence (and illegally undisclosed) during the campaign trail.

Proof of Collusion: available now on Lyin' Jeff Bezos's Very-Low-Class Amazon.
 
Segnosaur said:
Technically I never said Republican senators would never vote against Trump. I said they would never act against Trump.

Republicans senators may occasionally speak out against Trump, and yes, they may vote in ways that are in opposition to the president. But in most cases their actions are 1) over very minor issues (such as not confirming a lower level judge), or 2) things that they will eventually overlook (like missed deadlines for Russian sanctions.) I don't see much evidence that they are willing to stand up against the more serious grievances.
Click to expand...

How about voting against support for the Saudis in Yemen due to perceived complicity of the administration in the cover up of the murder of Khashoggi?
 
Beelzebuddy said:
What's fantastic is how accurate Seth Abramson turned out to be regarding Cohen's lies. He called it at the time. There's a whole chapter in his latest book, Proof of Collusion, about Trump's multi-decade attempt to move into Russian real estate and the multiple deals in existence (and illegally undisclosed) during the campaign trail.

Proof of Collusion: available now on Lyin' Jeff Bezos's Very-Low-Class Amazon.
Click to expand...

His "book" Bwhahaha!! Is that where he basically cut and pasted his twitter threads which were simply a rehashing of other actual journalists work?

Hooboy, what he is right about is that leftist are ******* suckers.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Technically I never said Republican senators would never vote against Trump. I said they would never act against Trump.

Republicans senators may occasionally speak out against Trump, and yes, they may vote in ways that are in opposition to the president. But in most cases their actions are 1) over very minor issues (such as not confirming a lower level judge), or 2) things that they will eventually overlook (like missed deadlines for Russian sanctions.) I don't see much evidence that they are willing to stand up against the more serious grievances.
Click to expand...
How about voting against support for the Saudis in Yemen due to perceived complicity of the administration in the cover up of the murder of Khashoggi?
Click to expand...
From what I understand, they haven't yet actually voted to stop supporting Saudi Arabia over Yemen. They voted to allow debate. There is still the possibility that:
- The 'debate' will end up with a decision not to change anything
- The senate might vote to actually act and punish the Saudis, but their actions will be relatively mild
- The senate might vote for significant punishment against the Saudis, but Trump will ignore them

Maybe this time will be different. Maybe this time Republican congress-critters will actually stand up to Trump. I think at best we should take a wait and see attitude, rather than celebrating what could be a do-nothing vote in the senate.
 
Segnosaur said:
From what I understand, they haven't yet actually voted to stop supporting Saudi Arabia over Yemen. They voted to allow debate. There is still the possibility that:
- The 'debate' will end up with a decision not to change anything
- The senate might vote to actually act and punish the Saudis, but their actions will be relatively mild
- The senate might vote for significant punishment against the Saudis, but Trump will ignore them

Maybe this time will be different. Maybe this time Republican congress-critters will actually stand up to Trump. I think at best we should take a wait and see attitude, rather than celebrating what could be a do-nothing vote in the senate.
Click to expand...

I'm not celebrating anything. I'm saying that the idea that the Senate is in lock-step with the White House is simplistic and naive, and that Repuplicans (and other politicians) behaviour would be better modelled by assuming self-interest rather than brainwashing.
 
The Big Dog said:
His "book" Bwhahaha!! Is that where he basically cut and pasted his twitter threads which were simply a rehashing of other actual journalists work?

Hooboy, what he is right about is that leftist are ******* suckers.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the one. If you'd like to know what other future bombshells the book hypothesizes, you ought to buy it so you don't have to keep bringing up Avenatti every time you get caught with your pants down.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Yes, that's the one. If you'd like to know what other future bombshells the book hypothesizes, you ought to buy it so you don't have to keep bringing up Avenatti every time you get caught with your pants down.
Click to expand...

Pants down? lolz!

Or I could just read the actual journalists actual articles that did the actual research which included Trump's actual tweets about opening a hotel in Russia right?
 
The Big Dog said:
Pants down? lolz!

Or I could just read the actual journalists actual articles that did the actual research which included Trump's actual tweets about opening a hotel in Russia right?
Click to expand...

You could have. But you didn't.
You could have read Seth Abramson's tweets linking those stories and connecting the dots. But you didn't.
You could read Proof of Collusion, laying it all out in an organized manner instead of a string of tweets. But you probably won't.

There's no one forcing you to stay ignorant but yourself.
 
The guy who will dismiss an entire post because it begins with the word "so" is suddenly very interested in thoroughly exploring a person's body of work.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
You could have. But you didn't.
You could have read Seth Abramson's tweets linking those stories and connecting the dots. But you didn't.
You could read Proof of Collusion, laying it all out in an organized manner instead of a string of tweets. But you probably won't.

There's no one forcing you to stay ignorant but yourself.
Click to expand...

Y'all getting a commission from the Poet's silly "book" :thumbsup::D

I Am The Scum said:
The guy who will dismiss an entire post because it begins with the word "so" is suddenly very interested in thoroughly exploring a person's body of work.
Click to expand...

You mean the post where the guy completely made up what I was "contending" that post?

Yea, go back and try again...
 
Been swamped with work and studying for and taking finals and polishing off projects and what not:

So, I need some help catching up. And there's just too many pages to go back and read.

From what I gather:

Michael Cohen admitted in court today that he lied to Congress about Trump and business dealings in Russia.
Why did he lie? To keep his story more consistent with Trump’s.

Is this what is going on/happening?

Trump first said, "No dealings with Russia."
and now he's saying, "We might've a little bit about (putting up a Trump Tower in Moscow?) and even if we did, there was nothing illegal about that."

I heard something about Jared and him having a quote in the past day or so. Or was it that he answered to the Congress (or whoever) that there were no dealings in 2016 or past 2014 or something like that? And what Cohen just testified to yesterday - that he made sure the Trumps/Jared were in the loop about the negotiations in Russia in 2016 - contradicts what Jared testified to?


And some tax lawyer's office in Chicago - someone who possibly did taxes for Trump - had their offices raided by the FBI yesterday morning?


With this lawyer raid, if it is related to Mueller, it seems to me that RM is beginning his endgame with the investigation.


Any other big details I might have missed?



MANY THANKS!
 
C_Felix said:
Been swamped with work and studying for and taking finals and polishing off projects and what not:

So, I need some help catching up. And there's just too many pages to go back and read.

From what I gather:

Michael Cohen admitted in court today that he lied to Congress about Trump and business dealings in Russia.
Why did he lie? To keep his story more consistent with Trump’s.

Is this what is going on/happening?

Trump first said, "No dealings with Russia."
and now he's saying, "We might've a little bit about (putting up a Trump Tower in Moscow?) and even if we did, there was nothing illegal about that."

I heard something about Jared and him having a quote in the past day or so. Or was it that he answered to the Congress (or whoever) that there were no dealings in 2016 or past 2014 or something like that? And what Cohen just testified to yesterday - that he made sure the Trumps/Jared were in the loop about the negotiations in Russia in 2016 - contradicts what Jared testified to?


And some tax lawyer's office in Chicago - someone who possibly did taxes for Trump - had their offices raided by the FBI yesterday morning?


With this lawyer raid, if it is related to Mueller, it seems to me that RM is beginning his endgame with the investigation.


Any other big details I might have missed?



MANY THANKS!
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's loads -

This timeline is quite big, too much to easily follow.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/russia-timeline/
 
Were you around for the Trump administration being conspirators in the murder and ensuing coverup of an American journalist? Because that was a thing too.

[ETA] ooh, and Trump fired Sessions and replaced him with some shmuck who's already under investigation for fraud.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
You could have. But you didn't.
You could have read Seth Abramson's tweets linking those stories and connecting the dots. But you didn't.
You could read Proof of Collusion, laying it all out in an organized manner instead of a string of tweets. But you probably won't.

There's no one forcing you to stay ignorant but yourself.
Click to expand...

Well after all, this is one of the key qualifications to be a member of Der Trumpenführer's base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom