US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[mapuc]

This is going to be interesting to follow

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018...tion-meddling/

Markus

[Rockstar]

So no Trump campaign members charged? Must be why were moving on to background checks, porn stars and NDA .


All that bandwidth all those walls of text

Lol

[August]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

So no Trump campaign members charged? Must be why were moving on to background checks, porn stars and NDA .


All that bandwidth all those walls of text

Lol

More than that Rosenstein said "No Americans were knowing participants in the scheme, and there is no evidence it effected the outcome of the election."

Looks like Trump is off the hook. That gnashing and wailing sound you may hear is the Democrats seeing their best chance of overturning the 2016 election going down in flames.

Now I want to see a new Special Counsel go after members of the Obama administration, the Democratic National Committee and especially Madame Secretary for attempting to influence it's outcome.

[Rockstar]

They needed to show something for their efforts and millions spent on this political boondoggle. I know I'm not the only one who's getting tired of their tax dollars paying for a social media drama show. Mueller basically had too, as they say, "poop or get of the pot".



All those walls of text all that bandwidth all for naught. Sad really

Now who is this porn star I keep hearing about? Anyone?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

More than that Rosenstein said "No Americans were knowing participants in the scheme, and there is no evidence it effected the outcome of the election."

The amount of irony of you spreading fake news about indictments that are partly about spreading fake news could solve world hunger.

Here's the correct, actual quote:

Counts three through eight charge aggravated identity theft by internet research agency and four individuals. Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charge conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.

Source

[Rockstar]

yes yes dowly we get it. but what about the porn star is she good looking did Trump play a role in any of her movie?

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

The amount of irony of you spreading fake news about indictments that are partly about spreading fake news could solve world hunger.

Here's the correct, actual quote:
Source

Which means the same thing. Solve world hunger? Really? Drama much Dowly?

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein held a brief press conference Friday to explain details in the indictment of 13 Russians over alleged election interference. Rosenstein said that no Americans had any knowledge of the operation listed in this indictment and that the operation had no impact on the outcome of the election.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ouncement.html

BTW "Fake News" means that it's not true, not minor quibbles over the exact verbiage that was used.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

Which means the same thing.

No, your omissions and replacing of words change its meaning. Why did you change "allegations" to "evidence"? There's a pretty big difference between the two words, would you not agree?

You also complete omitted the fact that Rosenstein was speaking specifically about these indictments for some reason. You follow up the "quote" with "Looks like Trump is off the Hook" which further shows that you seem to think Rosenstein was talking about the investigation in general, which he was not.

So, yes, Fake News. SAD!

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

No, your omissions and replacing of words change its meaning. Why did you change "allegations" to "evidence"? There's a pretty big difference between the two words, would you not agree?

No I wouldn't and that's how I first heard it put on the news yesterday on the way home from work so sue me. The meaning is the same, especially when "allegations" were what caused the investigation for "evidence" to be conducted in the first place.

You also complete omitted the fact that Rosenstein was speaking specifically about these indictments for some reason.

You follow up the "quote" with "Looks like Trump is off the Hook" which further shows that you seem to think Rosenstein was talking about the investigation in general, which he was not.

Not just my opinion:

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary...ssia-collusion

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._trolling.html

You can find opposing opinions of course but they are filled with the same wishful Trump hater thinking that has permeated them from the start. That indeed created this whole boondoggle, the Democrats just can't accept that they lost. Can't you recognize that if there were actually some valid evidence of Trump collusion that it would have been leaked already? Nothing. A year of investigation, more if you count the Obama administrations spying on the Trump campaign, and the result so far? Some russian troublemakers, a game that both them AND US have engaged against each other for over a century BTW, and some bit players in trouble for stuff that they did long before they ever became associated with Trump and a whole lot of of liberal bloviating and innuendo and that's it.

It becomes clearer ever day that the political witch hunt against Trump is exactly that.

What I want Mueller or another less conflicted Special Counsel to investigate is how a salacious dossier filled with unproven allegations, provided by Russians, written by a self described Trump hating foreigner, and paid for by the Clinton campaign was apparently used as a fraudulent pretext by the Obama administration to use the criminal investigative resources of the United States to spy on Trump and his campaign in order to try and affect the outcome of the election and when that failed try to overthrow it's result.

If this is what it appears to be even just partly then it is far worse than any (not illegal) collusion candidate Trump could possibly have done with the Russians. Far greater than Watergate, maybe only slightly less grievous than the Beer Hall Putsch.

And before you dismiss this remember that the Obama administration has a well documented history of weaponizing federal agencies against their political opposition, or have we already forgotten the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, Operation Choke Point, James Rosen or the DOJ harassment of Boeing?

So yeah keep holding your breath for something that is just never going to happen. You've managed it for a year now, only seven more to go!

[Mr Quatro]

I love Donald Trump the POTUS ... He's a lot like GOD you can't tell either one what to do

I for one think it's going to be impossible for President Trump to even run much less win the 2020 National election.

My boss says Mike Pence is the next president and then some lady on a TV talk show says that people that hear from God are mentally ill and then Oprah comes out with a statement that she is waiting to hear from God on if she should run for president.

Oprah says she's waiting to hear from God about 2020 run, after Joy Behar mocked Pence for listening to Jesus

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...-to-jesus.html

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Dowly

...

In other news, remember that story about Trump most definitely not humping a pornstar named Stormy Daniels? Well, Trump's own attorney has now confirmed that there was a NDA agreement. Bit of an oops, since the NDA *allegedly* said the existence of the NDA should not be mentioned.

Sources (first ones I found on google for I am lazy):
On Bannon: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...t-week-n848421
On Stormy Daniels: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/u...hen-trump.html

Trump's attorney really did step in it big time in claiming he independently paid the hush money to Stormy Daniels; he did, indeed, violate the terms of the NDA and, in so doing, now appears to have freed Daniels from the restrictions of the NDA; its going to be interesting to see if any more comes of the situation...

In a further development, former Playboy Playmate of the Year, Karen McDougal, in an article published in The New Yorker, with documentation obtained by The New Yorker and verified by McDougal and verified by herself as authentic, has come forward with an account of an affair she had with Trump; the documentation also gives a glimpse into the modus operandi of Trump and his minions in trying to keep word of his transgressions from becoming public; interesting reading:


Donald Trump, a Playboy Model, and a System for Concealing Infidelity --

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...karen-mcdougal

Originally Posted by August

No I wouldn't and that's how I first heard it put on the news yesterday on the way home from work so sue me. The meaning is the same, especially when "allegations" were what caused the investigation for "evidence" to be conducted in the first place.



Not just my opinion:

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary...ssia-collusion

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._trolling.html

So, if you heard it on the news it must be exactly the facts? Even if the outlet you heard it on got it wrong? Well, that explains a lot...

Allegation and evidence are the same? Lets take a better look than just a couple of slanted op-ed pieces, perhaps something neutral, like maybe a Legal Dictionary site?:

allegation

n. a statement of claimed fact contained in a complaint (a written pleading filed to begin a lawsuit), a criminal charge, or an affirmative defense (part of the written answer to a complaint). Until each statement is proved it is only an allegation. Some allegations are made "on information and belief" if the person making the statement is not sure of a fact.

evidence

n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.

Sources:

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2387

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671


I challenge you to prove beyond a doubt an allegation is in any way fully or even substantially equal to actual evidence. Maybe if you actually based your contentions on actual facts rather than what you "heard", you'd be more credible...


In the news of the Russian indictments, a related matter has not been as widely reported; the Special Counsel also got a guilty plea form a California man who had unwittingly aided the Russians in the activities for which they were indicted:


Who is the California man who just pleaded guilty to unwittingly aiding Russian interference in the 2016 election --

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...216-story.html


The article notes the guilty party, Pinedo, is now cooperating with the SC in the continuing investigations, joining a growing number of participants who are tuning states evidence...


BTW, for those who are interested in actual fact, not just what they "heard", here is a link to the DOJ Special Counsel's Office website where they post court documents as they are filed:


https://www.justice.gov/sco


The full text of the indictment against the Russian individuals and entities is very interesting...













<O>

[Mr Quatro]

The administration still harbors deep worries about the direction of Mueller's nine-month probe, which has shown no signs of abating and has expanded to explore potential obstruction of justice on the part of the president and his top aides.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ove...-politics.html

Trump is saying they won due to the Russian interference started in 2014 before he said he was going to run for POTUS ... weak

[vienna]

..and sad...












<O>

[August]

Until the Obama administrations and Clintons real crimes are taken seriously I think all talk of obstruction for non existent crimes is is nothing but a partisan witch hunt designed to overthrow the legally elected leader of our country.

Rod Rosenstein who commissioned the Mueller Russian collusion investigation in the first place was the one who recommended that Comey be fired. It is the height of ridiculousness for the DOJ to prosecute someone for following their official recommendations!

DOJ: "We think you should fire this guy. Here is our official recomendation."

Trump: "Ok I will, he's gone"

DOJ: "Now waaaaiiiit a minute, did you fire this guy because we said you should fire him or because of another nefarious reason? We need to investigate this even though (because) there was no Russian collusion.

Does anyone on the left even fathom how monumentally stupid and self serving that sounds? Probably not. They have been in complete Trump Derangement Syndrome since last November and are quite willing to tear the country apart to overturn the election. Damn them all.

What is really ironic is that should they somehow be successful in overthrowing Trump they actually think that the right is just going to cave to it and we'll all get along singing Kumbaya together.

What is going to happen is that their hypocritical calls for unity are going to be roundly ignored and the divisions of today will seem minor to the gulf that will exist going forward. So keep it up Comrades, i'm sure that it'll make the Russians and Chinese very happy.

[vienna]

I don't buy the whole "what about Clinton?, et al, argument endlessly brought up as a defense for Trump and his minions failings and criminality. Shouldn't the question be "With a GOP controlled House and a GOP controlled Senate, a GOP Attorney General, and a GOP President, why haven't any of them even taken the smallest move to actually launch and prosecute investigations into what they keep carping about incessantly; they've got the power and the authority yet they do nothing but bitch loudly and fruitlessly; so far, its all been all hat and no cattle..."...

So, then: where is the substance to the noise?...


BTW, any answer yet on the 'allegation vs. evidence' question I posed earlier...











<O>