Although I'm not a Trump supporter, I don't see why you're saying he definitely colluded with the Russians as even Mueller was unable to come to that conclusion. I'd say he did obstruct bigtime but not officially collude although he was more than happy to receive their help. If he colluded, Mueller would have said so.
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
Political Thread
- Thread starter Bama Ravens
- Start date
- Status
Although I'm not a Trump supporter, I don't see why you're saying he definitely colluded with the Russians as even Mueller was unable to come to that conclusion. I'd say he did obstruct bigtime but not officially collude although he was more than happy to receive their help. If he colluded, Mueller would have said so.
Downeastnc
Member
Mueller does say it, he even goes into a explanation as to why they did not charge Trump Jr for the Tower meeting, how anyone can think Trump Jr agreeing to meet with Russian government officials for the sole purpose of being given damaging information about Hillary is anything other than collusion mystifies me. Then there were numerous other incidents with Manafort, Flynn. Papadopoulous etc that were clearly Russian meddling.....what Mueller actually says is he could not prove a conspiracy among all of them to satisfy the letter of the law to a point that it is beyond a reasonable doubt they acted maliciously. So while the Trumpers will beat the no collusion drum at the end of the day all ANYONE has to do is read the Mueller report to see just how much Trump's team used and accepted Russian help.
As for OOJ its all there in black and white as well, more than enough to seat a grand jury.......and IF Mueller thought he was allowed to indict Trump I think he would have, obviously Barr is in the bag for Trump and shot down any real chance of anything happening IRT that.
Mueller had the opportunity to explicitly and specifically, with crystal clarity, state that there was illegal activity by the Trump campaign and advise that impeachment be considered. But he didn't. He opted out. He took a pass. Checked up. Stopped short. Took a knee. Passed the bacon. Froze the biscuits. Instead, he fumbled about, shuffled his papers around and rambled on and on, as if he he just woke up from a 300 year nap, completely unaware of what was in his own report.
And there is no way that most people have read or ever will read a multi-volume mini-series on the Trump-Russia saga. That is unrealistic.
@Downeastnc Hey man, I apologize if I came off disrespectful before. It wasn't my intent. You have always been one of my favorite posters here and at American, and I have a lot of respect for you and your weather knowledge and insights. I just have a different take on how all of this is playing out. I could probably have done a better job of articulating it. Just wanted you to know I wasn't trying to be rude or sarcastic or anything.
Downeastnc
Member
LOL ditto, I did not take any offense, it never even crossed my mind......I am the same way, it always sounds better in my head than when I type it out and its just a jumbled mess most of the time.......
I am pretty good at conveying my snark when needed....I try to use it sparingly
Last edited:
Avalanche
Member
Well you know the general populous isn't going to read it if Mueller didn't. LOL. 3 years of fruitless investigations by the special council, all in an attempt to impede the administration's agenda, and it didn't work. 3 percent unemployment and wage increases. However, the constant lies of the MSM (especially Schiff lying on air and to Congress) has managed to decrease Trump's approval to 47 percent, down from 53 a few months ago, but still pretty high. The polls are seldom right anyway, depends on the demographics/locations in which you poll. As long as the MSM doesn't affect spending or dissuade commerce, let them continue to have at it.
Downeastnc
Member
Oh I know folks have not read it but its there for those that do look......for instance what I pasted below...basically they did not charge Trump Jr for the crime in the Trump tower meeting because they could not prove he knew he was committing a crime....the key takeaway is they were committing a crime they just could not quantify it enough to get convictions cause the law is not well defined on what a "thing of value" is
bottom line though is the Trump campaign willingly met with Russians ( hell government types even) to get information to directly use in a US presidential election so how is that not collusion? Again there was tons of collusion the part Mueller could not prove was conspiracy. From Mueller report.... Volume 1 pages 185-190 focus on Trump Tower meeting.....
The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful") , and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. " Justice Manual§ 9-27.220.
In brief, the key facts are that, on June 3, 2016, Robert Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr., to pass along from Emin and Aras Agalarov an "offer" from Russia's "Crown prosecutor" to "the Trump campaign" of "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr.'s] father." The email described this as "very high level and sensitive information" that is "part of Russia and its government's support to Mr. Trump-helped along by Aras and Emin." Trump Jr. responded: "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Trump Jr. and Emin Agalarov had follow-up conversations and, within days, scheduled a meeting with Russian representatives that was attended by Trump Jr., Manafort , and Kushner. The communications setting up the meeting and the attendance by high-level Campaign representatives support an inference that the Campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects.
This series of events could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals , 52 U.S.C. § 3012 l(a)(l )(A).
Most significantly, the government has not obtained admissible evidence that is likely to establish the scienter requirement beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove that a defendant acted "knowingly and willfully, " the government would have to show that the defendant had general knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.
YetAnotherRDUGuy
Member
https://www.axios.com/trump-impeach...ton-858da3dd-3c1b-4918-a80d-f58fd9c5ce9e.html
For historical context, here are peak public polling numbers for impeachment and removal of Nixon, Clinton, & Trump.
Nixon: 58% (upon resignation)
Clinton: 33% (this link says 29%, but I found another that says the 'peak' during trial was about '1/3rd' of all voters)
Trump: 44% (current polling)
Considering the country is more polarized politically than when Nixon was facing impeachment (at least I BELIEVE it is--I wasn't alive then), I think it would take at least 60% favoring removal from office to represent a true 'tipping point'
For historical context, here are peak public polling numbers for impeachment and removal of Nixon, Clinton, & Trump.
Nixon: 58% (upon resignation)
Clinton: 33% (this link says 29%, but I found another that says the 'peak' during trial was about '1/3rd' of all voters)
Trump: 44% (current polling)
Considering the country is more polarized politically than when Nixon was facing impeachment (at least I BELIEVE it is--I wasn't alive then), I think it would take at least 60% favoring removal from office to represent a true 'tipping point'
Downeastnc
Member
Gordan "Call Me" Sondland contacted the inquiry and is volunteering to come in and testify against the orders of Trump/Pompeo putting his State Dept job on the line.....yesterday 2 Ukrainian fixers were arrested trying to flee the country the same day they were suppose to go before Congress concerning campaign finance fraud for funneling money from Ukrainians to Trumps campaign. Rudy had lunch with them the day before they were arrested. One of those guys was the one setting up the meetings alluded to in the txt conversations Volker turned over....
SimeonNC
Member
Ben Shapiro is getting a lot of flack for some stuff he said, while I agree with a lot of it he probably should not have said anything about picking up a gun, he kinda brought it on himself.
Rosie
Member
He is just plain stupid to say that.
What did he say?
SimeonNC
Member
He was talking about how he opposed Beto O Rourkes plan to penalize churches that didn't perform gay marriages along with his LGBT education policy, and he said that if it was implanted nationwide that there would be two options, leave or pick up a gun.
Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
SimeonNC
Member
I'm glad you posted the video because the entire statement needed to be heard in it's full context. He's right too because at that point, if Beto or any leader does this, they're literally destroying the constitution and dismantling the foundation this country was built on. At that point he's right we only have 2 options and it's the very reason the 2nd amendment is there.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Btw be sure to listen to the entire statement understanding the government overreach Beto is proposing, don't just read the cherry picked quotes.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I bet you, if not in my lifetime, in my children's lifetime, pastors will be arrested for calling homosexuality a sin or preaching sanctity of life, opposing abortion. It's closer than we think
Edit: Its really why the two topics cross paths often and are not mutually exclusive.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Edit: Its really why the two topics cross paths often and are not mutually exclusive.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
That's right.
D
Deleted member 1449
Guest
As some of you know, I am a pastor and I am both theologically and politically conservative. You also know that I have no love for our president, and I grimace every time evangelicals hold him up as “the chosen one” or whatever. But, Beto’s comments and the general radical trajectory of the left is precisely why so many Christians have no qualms supporting Trump. When people wonder why some can vote for Trump, all they need to do is look at Democrats from the other night to find out why.
By the way, below is a great article explaining how devastating Beto’s plan would be:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/beto-orourkes-pluralism-failure/599953/
By the way, below is a great article explaining how devastating Beto’s plan would be:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/beto-orourkes-pluralism-failure/599953/
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 1449
Guest
Let me also add that just because I affirm "traditional marriage", I should not be labeled a bigot, homophobe or an enemy of the state. I simply believe that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman and that human flourishing results when people follow God's design. This has been the teaching of orthodox Christianity for ~2,000 years. It's absolutely insane that somehow--virtually overnight--those who hold such a view could be punished by the government.
- Status