Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Bob001]

US elections are run by the states. Absent new legislation arrogating that responsibility to the federal government, I'm not sure there's much the president can do to harden them.

The federal government wouldn't need to -- nor could it -- take over elections. Except for the President and VP, all candidates are running in state and local elections. But the federal government could appropriate some money to the states to upgrade election systems. It could also create a Uniform Election Code that would recommend and incentivize best practices for conducting elections, registering voters etc. that would be comparable to the national uniform motor vehicle and traffic codes.

 

[Paul2]

We know that Russia is hostile to the USA because they decided to locate their country next to many of our military bases. Had the Russians been less aggressive and warlike they would have decided to locate their country somewhere else.

During the Cold War, and the struggle between Freedom and Communism it made sense to view Russia as hostile to American interests. However, since the fall of Communism there is no reason for the current hostility with Russia. Why do the warmongers, war criminals and war profiteers who inhabit our Deep State and military industrial complex(MIC) get to decide who is friendly and who is a foe? Why does NATO still exist? The war machine always needs an "enemy" to justify it's bloated existence, same for NATO.

Regarding Russian attempts to influence the election, nothing has been officially proven, unless you consider Deep State propaganda evidence. However, there is evidence that foreigners did surreptitiously influence our election. His name is Christopher Steele and he created wild and crazy conspiracy theories to hurt Trump. He even leaked some of his fake information to the press for Americans to read and which allowed a FISA court to approve spying on Americans. Yet the Left doesn't seem to be the slightest bit outraged by any of this foreign meddling. Anything that hurts Trump is acceptable, anything that helps him is treason.

it's a bit of sophistry to defend your position with an idea (Russia is not our enemy) that requires its own entire thread and will contain many sub-arguments and which goes against well-established thought, including Republican thought for many decades, right up until, about, 2016 or so.

 

[Bob001]

This "no collusion" chant obscures the indisputable fact that Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to become President, and the Trump campaign invited Russian help. They didn't have to have secret meetings in garages for us to wonder why Putin wanted Trump to win. Imagine what the right-wing would be saying if Clinton had won with Russia's help. This is the core fact that needs to be explored.

 

[Paul2]

The Republicans held 11 Benghazi hearings and I can't even remember how many Clinton email investigations. It didn't hurt them now did it? No.

What are Democrats afraid of? Trump is corrupt as hell. He oversteps his position. He lies constantly. Congressional hearings can inform more people.

Democrats are rightfully afraid how how Trump will wield even more power like a dictator if he is impeached and not convicted - his worst instincts will be vindicated like never before.

That's why I think the timing of impeachment is crucial - make the hearings crescendo in October 2020 so that they become an October (non-)surprise that loses the election for Trump but which are not concluded so McConnell doesn't have the chance to pull another Merrick Garland on the Senate trial

 

[Stacyhs]

All one has to do is look at this thread to understand that Russia backed attempts at influencing American voters is still alive and well.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

All one has to do is look at this thread to understand that Russia backed attempts at influencing American voters is still alive and well.

 

[Aridas]

Johnson? Clinton? That's two Presidents that have been impeached and gone to a Senate vote on whether to remove them or not. There have been a number of impeachments, either way.

As for the rest of your post, it's been snipped because I don't really have much comment to add, not because I ignoring it. Unnecessary to say, but I felt like saying it this time.

Hmm. It's possible that I slightly misread Meadmaker's post. To clarify, the issue that I'm questioning deals with who took the lead and set the dates for the Senate trial. I'm aware that there hasn't been a case where the trial just didn't happen.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hmm. It's possible that I slightly misread Meadmaker's post. To clarify, the issue that I'm questioning deals with who took the lead and set the dates for the Senate trial. I'm aware that there hasn't been a case where the trial just didn't happen.

I don't know. I'm supposing the Senate has some sort of rules about how trials get scheduled, but I don't know if there is some sort of limit, such as "not more than 90 days after" or if it is, "at a time seen fit by the majority leader" or.....I have no idea, really. I assume that it is set by the Majority Leader within guidelines in the rules.

 

[Cabbage]

US elections are run by the states. Absent new legislation arrogating that responsibility to the federal government, I'm not sure there's much the president can do to harden them.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 9.

you're going to have to elaborate on how that excuses Trump from pretending the problem doesn't exist.

 

[Upchurch]

I've looked at the Mueller Report. In there, there's the stuff about Michael Cohen and Trump Tower Moscow. I began my participation in this thread asking what Trump actually did. It's kind of telling that no one picked up on what I actually meant, or could answer the question, but let me demonstrate what I meant. Here's what he did:

While campaigning to be President of the United States, he was engaging in negotiations with the Russian government for real estate deals worth billions. He lied about that, repeatedly, and directed his cronies to lie about that, repeatedly. After being elected, one of those cronies kept up that same set of lies before a congressional committee, in order to protect Trump's image. Trump let it go on, which resulted in his former lawyer being thrown into jail, and Trump turned on him and let him go down.

That's a winning political narrative.

Heh.

OR nobody picked up on your great hidden insight because it’s incredibly naive to think that one lie in a sea lies is the one thing that’d do Trump in.

I mean, really?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My posting here does not prevent anyone from reading the Mueller report. It is available in bookstores and on-line. I asked if you are curious to discover whether or not Joseph Mifsud is a Russian agent or not. You seem not to care about this critical piece of information.

Devin Nunes has sent letters to the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and the State Department asking for all the documents they have on Joseph Mifsud. All but the FBI are cooperating.

Do you support Devin Nunes and his attempt to discover the real identity of Joseph Mifsud? Don't you care about transparency?



We know that the Left and the Democrats are insincere when they say they are outraged by Trump "colluding" with Russia. They aren’t. If it is treason to get “dirt” on your political opponent from Russia then why isn’t the Left and Democrats outraged by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Fusion GPS. The Steele dossier which was used to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page and the Trump campaign came in part from Russian sources. So paid for political opposition, with Russian sub-sources, was used to go after Trump and interfere in an election. Yet they aren’t the slightest bit bothered by any of this. In the 2018 mid-terms some 70 percent of Democratic voters, along with a high number of Independents and even Republicans believed that Trump had colluded with Russia. Yet with so many voters basing their voting decisions on fake news and misinformation, once again, the Left doesn’t seemed concerned at all.

So do you believe that Joseph Mifsud is a Russia agent as stated by James Comey in his Washington Post op-ed a few days ago? This was the supposed basis for opening the Crossfire Hurricane counter-intelligence investigation on July 31, 2016. How could George Papadopoulos be colluding with the "Russians" if he had not met any Russians?

First, I didn't just start following these events yesterday. I know all about the faux issues Trump has created with his propaganda.

It's all bull ****. But even if it wasn't, look at what the investigation found. If someone was spying on the Trump campaign, how is it they found significant Russian election influence?

How is it they found out the Trump campaign had multiple meetings with the Russians involved and lied about those meetings to the FBI?

Just what did this scandalous spying on Trump find that let Clinton win the election.


And don't try to tell me Obama and the Democrats failed to stop the Russian spying when McConnell threatened Obama with crying election interference if he made the spying public.

Unfortunately the Democrats have been foolish still believing the GOP was playing fair long after they weren't.

 

[PhantomWolf]

All this talk about Republicans not holding a trial, though, is strictly theoretical. I agree with Applecorped that it would be a huge win for the president.

A huge win how? 54% of voters are already saying that they are not definitely not going to vote for Trump in 2020. I even know ex-Republicans who are saying that they will bite their tongues and vote for Sanders or Warren if they have to. Only 38% of voters think he is doing a good job currently.

Do you really think that these people will somehow change their minds about him if the House shows via hearings and witness testimony that he categorically broke the law and then the Republicans in the Senate refuse to even deal with the case?

 

[Meadmaker]

I found this by googling:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

It's one guy's discussion on whether or not the Senate is compelled to hold a trial. The answer: not sure, but likely, and polls and politics are likely to influence the decisions.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Democrats can’t impeach a Republican President for crimes committed by Democrats. The facts are “pouring” in. The Greatest Witch Hunt in American History! Congress, go back to work and help us at the Border, with Drug Prices and on Infrastructure.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

..…. I've looked at the Mueller Report. In there, there's the stuff about Michael Cohen and Trump Tower Moscow. I began my participation in this thread asking what Trump actually did. It's kind of telling that no one picked up on what I actually meant, or could answer the question, but let me demonstrate what I meant. Here's what he did:

We answered the ******* question multiple times. And your version of events not only whitewashes the Trump contacts with a foreign power that was hacking the DNC servers and posting stolen material on Wikileaks, it also doesn't address the obstruction of the investigation into the Russian meddling.

While campaigning to be President of the United States, he was engaging in negotiations with the Russian government for real estate deals worth billions. He lied about that, repeatedly, and directed his cronies to lie about that, repeatedly. After being elected, one of those cronies kept up that same set of lies before a congressional committee, in order to protect Trump's image. Trump let it go on, which resulted in his former lawyer being thrown into jail, and Trump turned on him and let him go down.

So are you downplaying Trump's corruption?

That's a winning political narrative. That really demonstrates the sort of scumbag that Trump is. He's a lying weasel who surrounds himself with yes-men, with the sort of people who would do anything to gain his favor, but when the heat is on, Trump cuts and runs, and throws them under the bus.

(Just in case anyone wonders, that above paragraph is not just some sort of "Here's how they should spin it" example. It's my actual opinion of Donald Trump.)

So you recognize Trump is a crook?

Even that one probably isn't enough to get a conviction in a court of law, which means it sure as heck isn't enough to get a conviction from a Republican senate, but it's something that people can relate to as really, truly, awful behavior.

The rest of the report is full of ways that Trump and his cronies tried to spin things for public relations purposes. That might be contemptible, but it's not criminal. The Democrats should shut up about that and emphasize the one thing that probably also isn't criminal, but it might be, and it is, at the very least, disgusting.

So obstructing the investigation simply slipped your mind? It doesn't count unless the obstruction is directly tied to charges against Trump himself?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Speaking of Mitch, he may have his own Russian connections:
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/24/is...-to-care-about-election-interference_partner/

There are more GOP legislators up to their eyebrows in the Russian affair so I guess I'm not surprised McConnell is one of them.

Disgusting.

 

[Meadmaker]

Heh.

OR nobody picked up on your great hidden insight because it’s incredibly naive to think that one lie in a sea lies is the one thing that’d do Trump in.

I mean, really?

Yeah. Really.


Here's the thing. The vast majority of the country right now isn't even paying attention to this stuff. It's "politics" and they don't really care. Even among the people who care, most people aren't paying any real attention, because they have made up their minds before there was anything to make up their minds about. Most of the people who really, really, hate Trump would take anything about about him and decide it clearly is a crime and he should clearly be removed from office. They would almost certainly include "clearly" in the sentence, because that's what people say when they wish that a really unclear thing were actually clear, and in their favor.


Meanwhile, the Republican team would take any evidence and insist that it was totally insignificant and could be ignored. In other words, most people aren't paying any attention at all. Most people who are paying attention aren't really thinking about it, just repeating the portions they think best support their narrative and (pre-conceived) conclusions.


However, throw that into a trial where the president might actually be removed from office, and suddenly they would start paying attention. When they got to that point, they would look at most of this stuff and say, "Who cares?" Just like they did, correctly in my opinion, in 1998. So, for example, the dialog might go like this

"This dirty rotten scoundrel fired the FBI director because the director launched an investigation of him. And that's a crime you see, because..."


"Wait. Back up. The FBI director works for him, and the investigation went ahead anyway, didn't it?"

"Well, yes, but Trump didn't want it to, so, you see...."

"Who cares?"


Or maybe, you see.

"Trump told his lawyer to go talk to Rod Rosenstein and tell him that Trump thinks Mueller has a conflict of interest, so Rosenstein ought to get rid of him. But you see, later it was said that Trump tried to fire Mueller, but he denied it, and told the lawyer to tell people that Trump didn't really try to fire Mueller, but the lawyer thought that it was obvious that Trump did want Rosensteing to fire Mueller, so that's really the same thing as trying to get Mueller fired, which is a crime because it's possible that Trump might have actually wanted Mueller gone because Mueller was on to something, so...."

"Wait. Back up. Can Trump fire Mueller?"

"No. That's why he sent the lawyer to tell Rosenstein that Mueller should be fired.

"So, was Mueller fired?"

"No, but the real crime is that Trump wanted to fire him, but told the lawyer to say that he had never said he wanted him fired, even though when he said Mueller had a conflict of interest, it was obvious that the president wanted Mueller fired, so that's a crime because...."

"Who cares?"



And so it is with most of the report. All those things so many of you are sure are just horrible crimes are things people would look at and shrug their shoulders.


In my opinion, the Trump Tower thing is a little bit different, and the worst thing in the report.

I know, I know. You don't see it that way. (You, referring to a lot of people reading this thread.) Sure. Of course you don't.

But all of those people who aren't paying attention to this right now because they find it tedious are going to want a simple explanation of what Trump did that was so bad. All that stuff with McGahn? There's nothing there that most people would find troublesome. The firing of Comey? No problem. The Trump Tower Moscow stuff, though, has elements that most people would find problematic.

Most of you can't see that, because what you think this is all about is finding some sort of legal pretense to shove Trump out of office. That's not it. To win, you'll have to find some reason to say that Trump did something pretty darned awful which would justify throwing a president out of office. You'll need to find the "elevator speech" version of why Trump ought to be thrown out. In my opinion, the only part that even comes close is the Trump Tower Moscow portion of the report.

 

[Meadmaker]

A huge win how? 54% of voters are already saying that they are not definitely not going to vote for Trump in 2020. I even know ex-Republicans who are saying that they will bite their tongues and vote for Sanders or Warren if they have to. Only 38% of voters think he is doing a good job currently.

Do you really think that these people will somehow change their minds about him if the House shows via hearings and witness testimony that he categorically broke the law and then the Republicans in the Senate refuse to even deal with the case?

Yeah, I really do. So does Nancy Pelosi. She's done pretty well for herself. Maybe she's onto something.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah, I really do.

Why do you think that people who are already disposed to not vote for Trump, would change to supporting him after seeing his crimes laid out and then watching the Republicans refuse to deal with those crimes?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Speaking of Mitch, he may have his own Russian connections:
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/24/is-...rence_partner/

There are more GOP legislators up to their eyebrows in the Russian affair so I guess I'm not surprised McConnell is one of them.

Disgusting.

Why do you think that people who are already disposed to not vote for Trump, would change to supporting him after seeing his crimes laid out and then watching the Republicans refuse to deal with those crimes?

I think the whole swamp needs drained, for real this time. And I don't believe all the Republicans are in on the take. From Bob's link:

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio is demanding answers after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called for lifting sanctions on Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska — a proposal that was followed by a deal in which the oligarch’s company announced a $200 million investment in a Kentucky aluminum plant. And this is the same McConnell who, in recent weeks, has neglected bipartisan bills that address security in the 2020 election.

The Kentucky senator’s lack of urgency in addressing election interference stretches back to the 2016 presidential election. According to Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s administration had asked McConnell to sign on to a bipartisan statement on Russian interference. McConnell refused.