Planet Rugby Forum

zt1903 wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:

Waratah wrote:Speaking of the NYT, they've obtained an illuminating letter from Trump's former lawyers to Mueller back in January, trying to argue that if the President does it, it's not illegal, an argument which failed Nixon. It shows their desperation, their willingness to test the limits of executive power to avoid him having to testify under oath. That wouldn't end well, either.

I'd already commented I thought it utter bumbling incompetence. Did they really think they can either intimidate Mueller, or give him lessons in his jurisprudence?

Perhaps the directive came from on high, as we've now discovered from the letter that Trump dictated Trump Jr's reply about the Russia lawyer meeting. Yep. The one Jr. fudged while under oath.

Alan Dershowitz made the point some time back that you can’t charge a President with obstruction for exercising his constitutional powers.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... pr-consent

Of course the president can obstruct justice. Nixon obstructed justice. President Clinton was charged with obstructing justice. A president can’t obstruct justice by simply exercising his constitutional authority. That is: A president can’t obstruct justice by pardoning. A president can’t obstruct justice by firing somebody he’s authorized to fire. If a president bribes or takes a bribe, or if a president, as Nixon did, pays hush money, or tells his subordinates to lie to the FBI, or destroys evidence, of course he can be charged with obstruction of justice, but he can’t be charged with obstruction of justice simply by exercising his constitutional authority. That would be a clear violation of the separation of powers, to punish a president for exercising Article II authority.

Dershowitz is one lawyer, expressing an opinion.

Is that some sort of argument against what he’s saying

Yes he is one lawyer expressing an opinion. But he’s a very prominent highly rated expert one. And he’s a staunch Democrat.

It’s worth reading the interview rather than dismissing him because he doesn’t fit what you hope to be true.

My point is that his opinion is just that, an opinion; it's worthless, until it's tested in Court !

And in the last week a tape made by Nixon, where he told Haldeman that he didn't need to worry, because he'd just pardon him anyway, has come back to light. Why did it come to light; well because of the parallels with the Dipshits series of pardons. Here's the conversation between Nixon & Haldeman, (before Haldeman was even charged)

White House, May 1973 wrote: Nixon: 'There is going to be a total pardon.'
Haldeman: 'Don't -- don't -- don't even say that.'
Nixon: 'You know it. You know it & I know it.'
Haldeman: 'Nope. Don't say it.'

This tape was lost amoungst all the others, but in 1997 when it came to light; Sam Dash, who was Chief Counsel to Senate Watergate Committee during those hearings, he said they:

would have justified a seperate article of impeachment all by itself

So H.R. Haldeman knew this use, or promise of use of Presidential pardon, constituted obstruction, & Sam Dash thought so too.

Hong Kong wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:Let’s not forget - there have been people indicted and convicted on guilty pleas, of involvement with Russia who were close to, connected, in bed with, associated with the Orange shitgibbon.

Is that a factual statement?

At best it’s significantly misleading.

The facts are.

4 Trump associates have been charged so far.
- George Papadopoulos was indicted for and plead guilty to lying to the FBI (about something that in itself wasn’t a crime)
- Mike Flynn was indicted for and plead guilty to lying to the FBI (about something that in itself wasn’t a crime)
- Paul Manafort has been indicted (and has pleaded not guilty) on various financial charges related to his business dealings in Ukraine and predating his involvement with the campaign
- Rick Gates (Manafort's partner) was originally indicted on similar charges to Manafort but entered a plea deal and plead guilty to making false statements.

Two other associates of Gates and Manafort (unrelated to Trump) have pleaded on false statements charges.

None of this relates to Russia's interference with the 2016 election, in fact Flynn's contact with the Russians happened after the election.

In addition, 13 Russian Nationals and 3 companies were indicted in relation to “troll farms” and face charges of identify theft.

oh dear. For someone who claims he is not a orange shitgibbon apologist, you sure go the extra mile to claim 1) it’s misleading (at best) and the 2) presents “facts” which are, at best, misleading

Which facts are misleading and why?

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:Let’s not forget - there have been people indicted and convicted on guilty pleas, of involvement with Russia who were close to, connected, in bed with, associated with the Orange shitgibbon.

Is that a factual statement?

Yes

which individuals connected with the Trump campaign have been convicted of “involvement with Russia”?

As far as I knew the only person convicted of an offense which is directly connected to Russian contacts was the chap from LA.

The rest are tax and conspiracy to defraud charges or lying to the FBI.

Correct

Well there you go.

It’ll only get worse when the Dems control the House. Trump has made a fashion out of division. To imagine it will go un-copied is a conceit reserved for the dopiest of the dopey.

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:Let’s not forget - there have been people indicted and convicted on guilty pleas, of involvement with Russia who were close to, connected, in bed with, associated with the Orange shitgibbon.

Is that a factual statement?

Yes

which individuals connected with the Trump campaign have been convicted of “involvement with Russia”?

As far as I knew the only person convicted of an offense which is directly connected to Russian contacts was the chap from LA.

The rest are tax and conspiracy to defraud charges or lying to the FBI.

Correct

So not a factual statement.

It’s so challenging in this post truth world, trying to work out hard facts from partisan fiction.

fishfoodie wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

zt1903 wrote:
Alan Dershowitz made the point some time back that you can’t charge a President with obstruction for exercising his constitutional powers.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... pr-consent

Of course the president can obstruct justice. Nixon obstructed justice. President Clinton was charged with obstructing justice. A president can’t obstruct justice by simply exercising his constitutional authority. That is: A president can’t obstruct justice by pardoning. A president can’t obstruct justice by firing somebody he’s authorized to fire. If a president bribes or takes a bribe, or if a president, as Nixon did, pays hush money, or tells his subordinates to lie to the FBI, or destroys evidence, of course he can be charged with obstruction of justice, but he can’t be charged with obstruction of justice simply by exercising his constitutional authority. That would be a clear violation of the separation of powers, to punish a president for exercising Article II authority.

Dershowitz is one lawyer, expressing an opinion.

Is that some sort of argument against what he’s saying

Yes he is one lawyer expressing an opinion. But he’s a very prominent highly rated expert one. And he’s a staunch Democrat.

It’s worth reading the interview rather than dismissing him because he doesn’t fit what you hope to be true.

My point is that his opinion is just that, an opinion; it's worthless, until it's tested in Court !

And in the last week a tape made by Nixon, where he told Haldeman that he didn't need to worry, because he'd just pardon him anyway, has come back to light. Why did it come to light; well because of the parallels with the Dipshits series of pardons. Here's the conversation between Nixon & Haldeman, (before Haldeman was even charged)

White House, May 1973 wrote: Nixon: 'There is going to be a total pardon.'
Haldeman: 'Don't -- don't -- don't even say that.'
Nixon: 'You know it. You know it & I know it.'
Haldeman: 'Nope. Don't say it.'

This tape was lost amoungst all the others, but in 1997 when it came to light; Sam Dash, who was Chief Counsel to Senate Watergate Committee during those hearings, he said they:

would have justified a seperate article of impeachment all by itself

So H.R. Haldeman knew this use, or promise of use of Presidential pardon, constituted obstruction, & Sam Dash thought so too.

If we're on the subject of pardons, why was George HW Bush never indicted for the pardon of Caspar Weinberger? A more egregious obstruction through pardon is hard to imagine.

shanky wrote:Well there you go.

It’ll only get worse when the Dems control the House. Trump has made a fashion out of division. To imagine it will go un-copied is a conceit reserved for the dopiest of the dopey.

At least two years of carnage...

zt1903 wrote:

shanky wrote:I happen to agree with Dershowitz (Fox shill though he is). The President’s judges are the Congress and the People

Oddly enough though, that didn’t stop them going after Clinton. So, he who screws the pooch, thereafter lives with said pooch.

All the handwringing ‘poisoned tree’ types can keep squealing in the bed that they made.

Dershowitz makes clear that a President can obstruct justice. Nixon destroyed evidence, paid hush money and ordered subordinates to lie, none of those things are his constitutional right. Likewise with Clinton who was accused of perjuring himself in the Paula Jones trial and obstructing justice by asking Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp to lie in the same trial.

Trump is being accused of obstructing justice for firing someone he is allowed to fire.

That’s a fairly trite view of all of those circumstances. But I’ll allow it, since you seem to be convinced that justice is being uncharacteristically miscarried right now, like Braveheart meets Wall Street - or something.

shanky wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

shanky wrote:I happen to agree with Dershowitz (Fox shill though he is). The President’s judges are the Congress and the People

Oddly enough though, that didn’t stop them going after Clinton. So, he who screws the pooch, thereafter lives with said pooch.

All the handwringing ‘poisoned tree’ types can keep squealing in the bed that they made.

Dershowitz makes clear that a President can obstruct justice. Nixon destroyed evidence, paid hush money and ordered subordinates to lie, none of those things are his constitutional right. Likewise with Clinton who was accused of perjuring himself in the Paula Jones trial and obstructing justice by asking Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp to lie in the same trial.

Trump is being accused of obstructing justice for firing someone he is allowed to fire.

That’s a fairly trite view of all of those circumstances. But I’ll allow it, since you seem to be convinced that justice is being uncharacteristically miscarried right now, like Braveheart meets Wall Street - or something.

Actually I don’t think that at all.

I think that the special counsel investigation was poorly formed and is a colossal waste of time. I think it has become extremely partisan and ultimately is going to spectacularly backfire on the Dems (I suggested this a year ago). It’s been as plain as day from the outset that the accusation was thin.

I do think people continue to get too giddy with anticipation that Mueller is going to “bring Trump down”. We’ve seen the cycle a dozen or more times over the course of the best part of two years.

As this rolls on finding nothing meaningful to suggest that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians to subvert the 2016 election, it allows Trump to increasingly convince Americans that he is the injured party. At the same time it is also starting to unravel the some clearly inappropriate actions of the previous administration.

Mr Mike wrote:so not a factual statement.

It’s so challenging in this post truth world, trying to work out hard facts from partisan fiction.

I was was deliberately being vague in my statement and subsequent posts.

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:so not a factual statement.

It’s so challenging in this post truth world, trying to work out hard facts from partisan fiction.

I was was deliberately being vague in my statement and subsequent posts.

This lack of candor is a distressing trend. Fortunately there are still some of us carrying the illuminating torch of truth in these dark times.

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:so not a factual statement.

It’s so challenging in this post truth world, trying to work out hard facts from partisan fiction.

I was was deliberately being vague in my statement and subsequent posts.

This lack of candor is a distressing trend. Fortunately there are still some of us carrying the illuminating torch of truth in these dark times.

I hear you dude but I became disenchanted with the bullshit and the inability to accept that maybe, just maybe, the Orange shitgibbon is not as good as some think/believe/accept he is. I have long given up trying to reason with buffoons here because it’s pointless. They cannot accept that he is a cretin who has no idea of politics, diplomacy, international relationships, acceptable behaviour, being a president, etc , etc. And, as a result, my position on this thread, is somewhat lazy.

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:so not a factual statement.

It’s so challenging in this post truth world, trying to work out hard facts from partisan fiction.

I was was deliberately being vague in my statement and subsequent posts.

This lack of candor is a distressing trend. Fortunately there are still some of us carrying the illuminating torch of truth in these dark times.

I hear you dude but I became disenchanted with the bullshit and the inability to accept that maybe, just maybe, the Orange shitgibbon is not as good as some think/believe/accept he is. I have long given up trying to reason with buffoons here because it’s pointless. They cannot accept that he is a cretin who has no idea of politics, diplomacy, international relationships, acceptable behaviour, being a president, etc , etc. And, as a result, my position on this thread, is somewhat lazy.

Doubt it is as lazy as mine, we all have our coping mechanisms.

The problem with the president has unlimited powers view is that it would mean, that the investigation, if it were set up by Obama is perfectly legitimate. It would also mean that all the conspiracy shit that Obamas accused off is also perfectly legitimate. It's a nonsense view.

paddyor wrote:The problem with the president has unlimited powers view is that it would mean, that the investigation, if it were set up by Obama is perfectly legitimate. It would also mean that all the conspiracy shit that Obamas accused off is also perfectly legitimate. It's a nonsense view.

The President doesn’t have unlimited powers, so that solves that conundrum

paddyor wrote:The problem with the president has unlimited powers view is that it would mean, that the investigation, if it were set up by Obama is perfectly legitimate. It would also mean that all the conspiracy shit that Obamas accused off is also perfectly legitimate. It's a nonsense view.

And this is why sensible commentators roll their eyes when they hear, from the WH, how it's perfectly legal & possible for the President to pardon himself; or whatever other bullshit they want to float as a possibility.

Even with the various shitty Presidents there've been before; they all maintained some grasp of reality, & knew that they were a President, not a King; & the framers of the Constitution were very clear on that point. So even if they didn't explicitly put in words to explain that to some halfwit two hundred years later, the Supreme court has regularly made it clear, that yes, you can subpoena a President, & yes, they can be impeached. It's clearly in the Constitution that there are limits to the power of pardon, when, if you were to listen to Guiliani, or any of the previous TV Lawyers, you'd be under the impression there are no limits.

Section 2:1 wrote: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

zt1903 wrote:

paddyor wrote:The problem with the president has unlimited powers view is that it would mean, that the investigation, if it were set up by Obama is perfectly legitimate. It would also mean that all the conspiracy shit that Obamas accused off is also perfectly legitimate. It's a nonsense view.

The President doesn’t have unlimited powers, so that solves that conundrum

I think paddyor is a little confused.

It might be instructive to look at one of the charges against the Trumpian evil doers. Let's go for Papadopoulos. Even though his crime occurred as part of the investigation rather than during the presidential campaign, at least it relates (in some way) to activity sort of during the Trump campaign, unlike Manafort and Gates.

So, to the statement of offence!

M'lud it is alleged that on the day of January 27th 2017 the defendant did, with malice a forethought, claim to FBI agents that his interactions with an overseas professor occurred before he became a foreign policy advisor to the [Trump] Campaign. In fact the defendant's meeting with the professor occurred on March 14th 2016, days after he had become an advisor but a week before it was announced to the Washington Post on March 21st.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

That's it.

So much will depend on the mid-terms.

Santa wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

paddyor wrote:The problem with the president has unlimited powers view is that it would mean, that the investigation, if it were set up by Obama is perfectly legitimate. It would also mean that all the conspiracy shit that Obamas accused off is also perfectly legitimate. It's a nonsense view.

The President doesn’t have unlimited powers, so that solves that conundrum

I think paddyor is a little confused.

To be fair, if he’s trying to work out what Giuliani is on about then that’s fairly understandable.

zt1903 wrote:

paddyor wrote:The problem with the president has unlimited powers view is that it would mean, that the investigation, if it were set up by Obama is perfectly legitimate. It would also mean that all the conspiracy shit that Obamas accused off is also perfectly legitimate. It's a nonsense view.

The President doesn’t have unlimited powers, so that solves that conundrum

Indeed he doesn't. He's arguing he has unlimited powers with regard to the DOJ. He's trying to say he can direct it open or close any investigation as he sees fit. In effect he's arguing that he could take a bribe to shut a case and that would be fine.

All hail the god king!

zt1903 wrote:I think that the special counsel investigation was poorly formed and is a colossal waste of time. I think it has become extremely partisan and ultimately is going to spectacularly backfire on the Dems (I suggested this a year ago). It’s been as plain as day from the outset that the accusation was thin.

FFS. Just keep your eyes closed, your fingers in your ears and your head deep in the sand and perhaps everything will be ok.

paddyor wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

paddyor wrote:The problem with the president has unlimited powers view is that it would mean, that the investigation, if it were set up by Obama is perfectly legitimate. It would also mean that all the conspiracy shit that Obamas accused off is also perfectly legitimate. It's a nonsense view.

The President doesn’t have unlimited powers, so that solves that conundrum

Indeed he doesn't. He's arguing he has unlimited powers with regard to the DOJ. He's trying to say he can direct it open or close any investigation as he sees fit. In effect he's arguing that he could take a bribe to shut a case and that would be fine.

The first bit, yes. The second, no.

Of course, that doesn’t mean he gets a free ride on the former. The constitution provides a remedy for a president abusing his executive powers - impeachment.

zt1903 wrote:

shanky wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

shanky wrote:I happen to agree with Dershowitz (Fox shill though he is). The President’s judges are the Congress and the People

Oddly enough though, that didn’t stop them going after Clinton. So, he who screws the pooch, thereafter lives with said pooch.

All the handwringing ‘poisoned tree’ types can keep squealing in the bed that they made.

Dershowitz makes clear that a President can obstruct justice. Nixon destroyed evidence, paid hush money and ordered subordinates to lie, none of those things are his constitutional right. Likewise with Clinton who was accused of perjuring himself in the Paula Jones trial and obstructing justice by asking Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp to lie in the same trial.

Trump is being accused of obstructing justice for firing someone he is allowed to fire.

That’s a fairly trite view of all of those circumstances. But I’ll allow it, since you seem to be convinced that justice is being uncharacteristically miscarried right now, like Braveheart meets Wall Street - or something.

Actually I don’t think that at all.

I think that the special counsel investigation was poorly formed and is a colossal waste of time. I think it has become extremely partisan and ultimately is going to spectacularly backfire on the Dems (I suggested this a year ago). It’s been as plain as day from the outset that the accusation was thin.

We can be comforted with the knowledge that it is not costing too much money.

Waratah wrote:

zt1903 wrote:I think that the special counsel investigation was poorly formed and is a colossal waste of time. I think it has become extremely partisan and ultimately is going to spectacularly backfire on the Dems (I suggested this a year ago). It’s been as plain as day from the outset that the accusation was thin.

FFS. Just keep your eyes closed, your fingers in your ears and your head deep in the sand and perhaps everything will be ok.

What're your thoughts on the Benghazi/Email investigations ZT?

fishfoodie wrote:

paddyor wrote:The problem with the president has unlimited powers view is that it would mean, that the investigation, if it were set up by Obama is perfectly legitimate. It would also mean that all the conspiracy shit that Obamas accused off is also perfectly legitimate. It's a nonsense view.

And this is why sensible commentators roll their eyes when they hear, from the WH, how it's perfectly legal & possible for the President to pardon himself; or whatever other bullshit they want to float as a possibility.

Even with the various shitty Presidents there've been before; they all maintained some grasp of reality, & knew that they were a President, not a King; & the framers of the Constitution were very clear on that point. So even if they didn't explicitly put in words to explain that to some halfwit two hundred years later, the Supreme court has regularly made it clear, that yes, you can subpoena a President, & yes, they can be impeached. It's clearly in the Constitution that there are limits to the power of pardon, when, if you were to listen to Guiliani, or any of the previous TV Lawyers, you'd be under the impression there are no limits.

Section 2:1 wrote: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

So he can pardon himself if the Russian investigation leads to charges but the act of pardoning himself would lead to his immediate impeachment for abuse of power for personal gain. So Rudy was correct

Santa wrote:It might be instructive to look at one of the charges against the Trumpian evil doers. Let's go for Papadopoulos. Even though his crime occurred as part of the investigation rather than during the presidential campaign, at least it relates (in some way) to activity sort of during the Trump campaign, unlike Manafort and Gates.

So, to the statement of offence!

M'lud it is alleged that on the day of January 27th 2017 the defendant did, with malice a forethought, claim to FBI agents that his interactions with an overseas professor occurred before he became a foreign policy advisor to the [Trump] Campaign. In fact the defendant's meeting with the professor occurred on March 14th 2016, days after he had become an advisor but a week before it was announced to the Washington Post on March 21st.

It's particularly naive to assess only the charges which have elicited guilty pleas from those indicted. It ignores the fact that many other charges have been pleaded down for what can only be information especially useful to the investigation. Why the f@ck do you think all these people are cooperating?

bleacher wrote:

Hong Kong wrote: ... I have long given up trying to reason with buffoons here ... as a result, my position on this thread, is somewhat lazy.

No, your position on this thread has been lazy from the get-go in that throughout you (and your cohort) have done absolutely nothing other than regurgitate the MSM indoctrination.
Try using logic and independent thought for a change.

You do know, don't you, that anyone making the 'MSM indoctrination' claim immediately marks themselves out as having sh*t for brains?

Waratah wrote:

Santa wrote:It might be instructive to look at one of the charges against the Trumpian evil doers. Let's go for Papadopoulos. Even though his crime occurred as part of the investigation rather than during the presidential campaign, at least it relates (in some way) to activity sort of during the Trump campaign, unlike Manafort and Gates.

So, to the statement of offence!

M'lud it is alleged that on the day of January 27th 2017 the defendant did, with malice a forethought, claim to FBI agents that his interactions with an overseas professor occurred before he became a foreign policy advisor to the [Trump] Campaign. In fact the defendant's meeting with the professor occurred on March 14th 2016, days after he had become an advisor but a week before it was announced to the Washington Post on March 21st.

It's particularly naive to assess only the charges which have elicited guilty pleas from those indicted. It ignores the fact that many other charges have been pleaded down for what can only be information especially useful to the investigation. Why the f@ck do you think all these people are cooperating?

It is a factual statement of the charge for Papadopoulos. He got his date wrong by a few days. But what you're saying is they let the paedophilia go yeah?

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:Just saw thisfrom Behemoth brewery re their Drunk the Trump IPA.

BOY! that escalated quickly. I mean it really got out of hand fast. We have just had a group of pro trumpers take over comments and reviews of our page. A big CHUR to all our supporters who have given us great reviews to counter the Trump-puppets!

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12060907

Bunch of snowflakes getting offended....

Wait until they see this one.

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:so not a factual statement.

It’s so challenging in this post truth world, trying to work out hard facts from partisan fiction.

I was was deliberately being vague in my statement and subsequent posts.

This lack of candor is a distressing trend. Fortunately there are still some of us carrying the illuminating torch of truth in these dark times.

I hear you dude but I became disenchanted with the bullshit and the inability to accept that maybe, just maybe, the Orange shitgibbon is not as good as some think/believe/accept he is. I have long given up trying to reason with buffoons here because it’s pointless. They cannot accept that he is a cretin who has no idea of politics, diplomacy, international relationships, acceptable behaviour, being a president, etc , etc. And, as a result, my position on this thread, is somewhat lazy.

He was elected on the basis that his skill set is not rooted in "politics, diplomacy, international relationships, acceptable behaviour, being a president, etc , etc", but rather in managing a business. As disillusionment has risen with politicians and cynicism coloured the political landscape, I believe that the majority of Trump voters voted that way because they wanted to see a successful businessman who knew how to run a business in charge.

In Trump, however, they got neither.

Floppykid wrote:

Waratah wrote:

zt1903 wrote:I think that the special counsel investigation was poorly formed and is a colossal waste of time. I think it has become extremely partisan and ultimately is going to spectacularly backfire on the Dems (I suggested this a year ago). It’s been as plain as day from the outset that the accusation was thin.

FFS. Just keep your eyes closed, your fingers in your ears and your head deep in the sand and perhaps everything will be ok.

What're your thoughts on the Benghazi/Email investigations ZT?

Broadly

1. Benghazi attack was the result of a failure of intelligence and general incompetence at State. I don’t believe that there was any particular wrongdoing by Obama admin officials but there were significant findings and recommendations from the various investigations that were conducted - several of which were non-partisan.

2. Email investigation was not properly conducted. Affair should have been dealt with properly and much earlier and should have precluded Clinton becoming the Democrat nominee, she almost certainly should have been charged. There is significant evidence of inappropriate action by Obama administration officials throughout this investigation.

Rinkals wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:so not a factual statement.

It’s so challenging in this post truth world, trying to work out hard facts from partisan fiction.

I was was deliberately being vague in my statement and subsequent posts.

This lack of candor is a distressing trend. Fortunately there are still some of us carrying the illuminating torch of truth in these dark times.

I hear you dude but I became disenchanted with the bullshit and the inability to accept that maybe, just maybe, the Orange shitgibbon is not as good as some think/believe/accept he is. I have long given up trying to reason with buffoons here because it’s pointless. They cannot accept that he is a cretin who has no idea of politics, diplomacy, international relationships, acceptable behaviour, being a president, etc , etc. And, as a result, my position on this thread, is somewhat lazy.

He was elected on the basis that his skill set is not rooted in "politics, diplomacy, international relationships, acceptable behaviour, being a president, etc , etc", but rather in managing a business. As disillusionment has risen with politicians and cynicism coloured the political landscape, I believe that the majority of Trump voters voted that way because they wanted to see a successful businessman who knew how to run a business in charge.

In Trump, however, they got neither.

That, and there were people I know who expected the rhetoric to tone down and Trump to be pragmatic, plus the chunk of people who were convinced by the conservative mainstream media that managed sell the idea that Hillary was going to be Lucifer in a pant suit as a President, absolutely not an option.

Personally I'm more interested in seeing where those who voted GOP out of principle are ending up in the mid-terms. You've got the freedom caucus voters who are never going away, but the middle of the road Republicans are between a rock and a hard place. A lot will depend on individual local candidates this time round.

Santa wrote:

Waratah wrote:

Santa wrote:It might be instructive to look at one of the charges against the Trumpian evil doers. Let's go for Papadopoulos. Even though his crime occurred as part of the investigation rather than during the presidential campaign, at least it relates (in some way) to activity sort of during the Trump campaign, unlike Manafort and Gates.

So, to the statement of offence!

M'lud it is alleged that on the day of January 27th 2017 the defendant did, with malice a forethought, claim to FBI agents that his interactions with an overseas professor occurred before he became a foreign policy advisor to the [Trump] Campaign. In fact the defendant's meeting with the professor occurred on March 14th 2016, days after he had become an advisor but a week before it was announced to the Washington Post on March 21st.

It's particularly naive to assess only the charges which have elicited guilty pleas from those indicted. It ignores the fact that many other charges have been pleaded down for what can only be information especially useful to the investigation. Why the f@ck do you think all these people are cooperating?

It is a factual statement of the charge for Papadopoulos. He got his date wrong by a few days. But what you're saying is they let the paedophilia go yeah?

Got his date wrong by a few days? In April 2016, Papadopoulos got a tip from a foreign professor he understood to have Russian government connections that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He then proceeded to have extensive contacts with the professor and a Russian contact, and subsequently tried to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia. When questioned about all this in January 2017, he repeatedly lied about what happened.

But you think he just got a date wrong, and that nothing he has been charged with is relevant to he investigation into Russian interference and possible collusion by the campaign? Really?

Rick Gates was charged with similar to Manafort including money laundering and conspiracy, but has pleaded down to one charge of making a false statement and one of conspiracy. Flynn has pleaded down to a guilty charge of making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials. Flynn, Papadopulous and Gates have all pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about their contacts with Russian officials connected to the Russian government.

But you maintain none of this is germane to the investigation and just amounts to someone getting a date wrong?

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Waratah wrote:

bleacher wrote:

Hong Kong wrote: ... I have long given up trying to reason with buffoons here ... as a result, my position on this thread, is somewhat lazy.

No, your position on this thread has been lazy from the get-go in that throughout you (and your cohort) have done absolutely nothing other than regurgitate the MSM indoctrination.
Try using logic and independent thought for a change.

You do know, don't you, that anyone making the 'MSM indoctrination' claim immediately marks themselves out as having sh*t for brains?

What if one was to reach that conclusion after thumbing through Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent'? Or maybe what if one applied the lessons learnt from the media behaviour in the leadup to the second Gulf War? I certainly recall an ancient time when it was considered highly fashionable, indeed compulsory for the smart set, to have a healthy skepticism for the motives of the mass media and to constantly be on the lookout for the filters that they apply to the transmission of news.

No more it seems.

The great bulk of what has been reported by the reputable MSM with regard to Trump, his campaign and his Presidency has been confirmed as true by subsequent events. By contrast Trump has broken the scale for habitual and transparent lies. So anyone parroting this egregious liar's claims then delivers the coup de grace of stupidity by accusing others of being indoctrinated, is an especially dim bulb indeed.

Seneca of the Night wrote:The 'conservative mainstream media' . . . you must be having a laugh. There's Fox and um, ah, yeah, um USA Today?

The Wall Street Journal is the highest circulation newspaper in the US and the New York Post has a higher circulation than the WaPo. You seriously can't come up with any others?

Seneca of the Night wrote:The reputable MSM has been peddalling the line that Trump and his campaign colluded with Putin and Russia to steal the election. That is the line. It should be easy to prove as they are so convinced of this extremely serious crime. so the evidence should be easy to hand. So far we have next to nothing.

I've been watching politics for a long time in several countries - not as long as some here admittedly. But this is the craziest set of affairs I've ever seen. People have seriously lost their minds over this.

Hey, you never know, maybe Trump will go to prison, you get your bottle of wine, and I have to go and examine my world view in a darkened room somewhere. But you seem to me, at this moment, crazy.

The reputable MSM media has been pushing the line that Trump is an appalling human being, an habitual liar and an impossibly ignorant and divisive populist running a shambolic government because he displays those qualities virtually every day. They are also reporting on a constant stream of evidence that his campaign may have been aware of Russian interference and colluded, not least because of the many shady contacts his team had with Russian officials and financiers, their constant lies about it, subsequent guilty pleas, Trump Jnr's (now public) invitation to Russian government officials to help them defeat Clinton, Trump's email lying about the reason for the meeting, his constant efforts to obstruct the investigation, including his efforts to suborn Comey's loyalty then his admission to firing Comey 'because of this Russia thing'. Your denials that this evidence exists is mystifying.

I've also been watching politics in many countries most of my life, and like you, this is the craziest thing I've ever seen, but the reason for that is pretty clear. A lifetime huckster and snake-oil salesman has been elected President of the US.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Waratah wrote:
I've also been watching politics in many countries most of my life, and like you, this is the craziest thing I've ever seen, but the reason for that is pretty clear. A lifetime huckster and snake-oil salesman has been elected President of the US.

I don't find it that crazy which is why I was able to predict his rise. There are some tensions tearing away at American society atm which are being very well, and humorously, observed by some great writers out there. Trump's probably just the beginning of the main event.

Trump is the full stop at the end of The American Century.

Waratah wrote:

Santa wrote:

Waratah wrote:

Santa wrote:It might be instructive to look at one of the charges against the Trumpian evil doers. Let's go for Papadopoulos. Even though his crime occurred as part of the investigation rather than during the presidential campaign, at least it relates (in some way) to activity sort of during the Trump campaign, unlike Manafort and Gates.

So, to the statement of offence!

M'lud it is alleged that on the day of January 27th 2017 the defendant did, with malice a forethought, claim to FBI agents that his interactions with an overseas professor occurred before he became a foreign policy advisor to the [Trump] Campaign. In fact the defendant's meeting with the professor occurred on March 14th 2016, days after he had become an advisor but a week before it was announced to the Washington Post on March 21st.

It's particularly naive to assess only the charges which have elicited guilty pleas from those indicted. It ignores the fact that many other charges have been pleaded down for what can only be information especially useful to the investigation. Why the f@ck do you think all these people are cooperating?

It is a factual statement of the charge for Papadopoulos. He got his date wrong by a few days. But what you're saying is they let the paedophilia go yeah?

Got his date wrong by a few days? In April 2016, Papadopoulos got a tip from a foreign professor he understood to have Russian government connections that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He then proceeded to have extensive contacts with the professor and a Russian contact, and subsequently tried to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia. When questioned about all this in January 2017, he repeatedly lied about what happened.

But you think he just got a date wrong, and that nothing he has been charged with is relevant to he investigation into Russian interference and possible collusion by the campaign? Really?

Rick Gates was charged with similar to Manafort including money laundering and conspiracy, but has pleaded down to one charge of making a false statement and one of conspiracy. Flynn has pleaded down to a guilty charge of making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials. Flynn, Papadopulous and Gates have all pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about their contacts with Russian officials connected to the Russian government.

But you maintain none of this is germane to the investigation and just amounts to someone getting a date wrong?

He has been charged with one thing you idiot. One thing. It's there in the charge sheet. Read it. And the one thing he has been charged with, lying to the FBI, occurred AFTER the presidential campaign, because that's when he was questioned. So he has not been charged for anything that occurred during the campaign.

Those are the facts.