Social Question

chyna's avatar

If Cohen does have supporting evidence that Trump committed crimes while in office, will Trump then be removed from office?

Asked by chyna (42680points) 3 weeks ago from iPhone

Cohen is supposed to start testimony today with supposed support of crimes Trump committed. Will this just be another day of “oh well, it’s just how Trump is” or will this be his undoing?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

175 Answers

seawulf575's avatar

I think a lot of it comes down to what Cohen says, how factual it is (what evidence backs it up), when the crimes supposedly occurred, etc, etc, etc. As we have seen in a number of venues, just because someone accuses another of some crime, doesn’t mean it actually happened or that there is any proof to back up the claim. If Cohen says anything about Trump committing crimes, though, you can bet the Dems will go crazy and start chanting for impeachment.

Dutchess_III's avatar

We can only hope @chyna.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Doubtful, because the Senate republicans are fricking cowards and wouldn’t convict Trump no matter what.

ragingloli's avatar

Just a reminder, that in a court of law, testimony is evidence.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

The accumulation of evidence makes Trump less and less relevant. Fewer and fewer people in government and outside support and tolerate him.

Taking it further and ousting him depends on enough Republican Senators deciding he should replaced.

I don’t think he’ll be impeached for the payoffs we know Cohen facilitated. His campaign actively soliciting Russian aid and support is a step further.

We’ll see. What we know now hasn’t done it, but there’s undoubtedly plenty more to come.

stanleybmanly's avatar

By now the avenues to Trump’s derailment are so numerous that it’s next to impossible to keep track. There is barely a day that passes without some news of another incident or suspicious undertaking that demands investigation. Those surrounding Trump who have been convicted can avoid jail time by simply taking the tour of committee and agency hearings to testify against him. It’s like watching an ammo belt feeding through a machine gun with the observer reduced to speculating on which round will “do the trick”.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Russian roulette! Ha ha!

flutherother's avatar

Trump should be taken somewhere more appropriate for him with lots of high walls and beautiful fences. He would like that.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli testimony is evidence, but in most cases, it isn’t enough. There have been thousands of cases of he said/she said where testimony is not enough. Want the most recent example? Look at the Kavanaugh case. You had several women that came forward with stories about Kavanaugh being a drunken sex fiend. Yet in the biggest of those cases, the Blasey-Ford accusation, she had her story (her testimony) but all of the people she said were witnesses, even those that were her friends, testified under oath that they knew nothing of her story…refuting it. So now you have 4 (?) people saying it never happened and one that said it did. All were done under oath. So Cohen’s testimony is probably not going to be enough. To convict a sitting president based on the testimony of one person who has already been discredited it not a realistic thing. That is why I said it would depend on how much evidence there was. But, as we saw with Kavanaugh, even when there is more evidence discounting the accusation, the Dems and the media wanted to ignore it to say Kavanaugh was the bad guy. So the Dems would definitely try to make anything against Trump as “a thing”. We have seen that since before he was elected. And with the 2020 elections coming up, they will want something…anything…they can broadcast in the media, regardless of how silly it is.

Jeruba's avatar

> will Trump then be removed from office

There’s a process for that, a process of bringing charges and then acting on those charges. That’s what impeachment is:

“Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. It does not mean removal from office; it is only a statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction by a legislative vote, which judgment entails removal from office.”
Impeachment, Wikipedia

In the U.S., the Constitution grants the House the power to impeach “the President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States.” So the House of Representatives brings the charges, and the Senate then tries the accused. If acquitted, the person remains in office, as Bill Clinton did.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yeah ^^^. Bill Clinton was impeached but he wasn’t removed from office.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Nope, no impeachment at this point probably. And yes, it would require solid proof. I’m still not hearing any criticism of Trump, that base pinned its dreams on him. He’s their Obama.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Let me get this straight, it’s all Obama (Hillary) ‘s fault so they won’t find anything to impeach Trump?????????

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Tropical Willie Ha, that’s not what I said at at all. Is English your second language? Seriously, you always seem to misinterpret my words lol

Tropical_Willie's avatar

” I’m still not hearing any criticism of Trump, that base pinned its dreams on him. He’s their Obama” ^^^^^

He has been dirty for years while in construction in New York with his daddy !

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Tropical Willie Okay so dont vote for him haha, I’m certainly not trying to convince you otherwise.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

I’m still not hearing any criticism of Trump

That is a heck of a bubble you inhabit.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

The 64% that think he is an abomination @Call_Me_Jay ! ! !

stanleybmanly's avatar

There is a necessary denial that must accompany those willing to support Trump. @KNOWITALL I know you think I’m harsh on Trump, and you’re right. But I want you to consider my statement on the poor model starring in the previous question from the wulf. The quote from the woman was that she liked the way Trump talked and that he’s honest. Think about that. The woman actually listens to what Trump says and then concludes from WHAT HE SAYS that he is HONEST. Is it really unfair to suspect an empty head behind the conclusion?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Call Me Just being honest. I’m in Trump country and they adore him. Of course Dems hate him, but I was only speaking on Trump fans.

@stanley No, I dont respect juvenile namecalling. In politics, if that is your only card to play, you’ve already lost imo.

As for your criticizing Trump, that is your right. In some countries you’d die for doing that. What I dont like, is that you take your anger at Trump out on people you perceive support him. I wont be any partys punching bag, I have the same one vote that you do to use as I see fit. If you truly believe I dont dispassionately pick Trump apart, like any other politician, you dont know me well haha.

Dutchess_III's avatar

If trump had his way, people in this country would face criminal charges for criticizing him.
“Alec Baldwin tweets back as Donald Trump talks of ‘retribution’ for SNL

ucme's avatar

Nope, must try harder, this idiot is so fucking fake it’s laughable.

LostInParadise's avatar

They need to find something other than using campaign money to try to hush women that Trump had sex with. That may be illegal, but it does not rise to the level of high crime or misdemeanor. What they need is evidence of collusion, and I am skeptical that they will find it. It is clear that the Russians interfered with the election to help Trump get elected. I just don’t see what Trump had to offer before getting elected. The payback came once he was in office.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It was just one of the many things mentioned over thehours @LostInParadise. There was also :

* Cohen said Trump spoke with Roger Stone about WikiLeaks.
* Cohen confirmed Trump directed him to pay off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
* Cohen said Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow (and others) edited his congressional testimony in August 2017.
* Cohen said he briefed Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. a number of times about Trump Tower Moscow.
* Cohen made clear that Trump never directly asked him to lie to Congress.
* Cohen said he has never been to Prague.
* Hope Hicks called Cohen when the “Access Hollywood” tape broke.
* Cohen never sought a presidential pardon.

As for collusion, we have yet to hear from Muller.

seawulf575's avatar

I have not watched the proceedings, just read a number of articles that range from Cohen is a nothing burger to Trump is going down. I think @Dutchess_III is fairly accurate, but most of the things list amount to…well…nothing. Trump spoke with Roger Stone about Wikileaks. Not sure what was said or if it actually happened. Trump directed Cohen to pay off the two women. Again, not sure what was said, or if it did, but if he used his own money (instead of campaign funds) it again is nothing. If he used campaign funds then he has to show that Trump told him to use those funds and even then…its a nothing. Remember Harry Reid spending $16,000 of campaign money for gifts to his granddaughters? It amounted to a slap on the wrist and he had to pay it back. Cohen says he talked to Ivanka and Don Jr about Trump Tower Moscow. Possibly. They were still involved in the business at that time. It would be appropriate. Cohen says Trump never asked him to lie to Congress. He says he has never been to Prague (casting more doubt on the Steele Dossier).
Basically, there is nothing there. No smoking gun, no new revelation. Innuendo at best. As I said in my initial response, it would come down to how much could be corroborated…how many facts are out there. Mainly….there is nothing.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Nothing, huh. Can you imagine if it had been Obama’s former fixit guy testifying to all of these nothing things?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess We’ve been told repeatedly bringing up former presidents is deflection and not allowed. Cant we all play by the same rules?

Dutchess_III's avatar

This is interesting.
Ocasio-Cortez asks if Trump ‘improperly’ avoided paying taxes. Cohen says yes” That is not an innuendo. He tells the court specifically how trump did it (in just one instance.) I also don’t think tax fraud is a nothing misdemeanor.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Cohen alone is probably not enough to put an end to Trump, but even you must recognize that he is certainly not the end of the line of people complicit in the mountain of allegations facing Trump. Committees such as this are going to be dogging Trump until the next President chooses to pardon him. No need to crow I told you so, but what do you make of my pipe dreams now?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You have said since the start of the Mueller investigation that Trump was “just about to go down”. Now it’s coming to the end of that and it doesn’t look like there is anything coming out against Trump on that. There have been a whole lot of things said about Trump, but pretty much all of them come down to “Someone said they think that someone told them about _______.” What allegations facing Trump? Collusion with Russia? That’s falling apart. Cohen was supposed to be the one to put the nails in Trumps coffin and that is falling apart. No, I don’t think much of your pipe dreams. But you are right, the Dems will continue to push these idiotic things against Trump for his entire presidency. It’s called a political witch hunt. They gain by smearing him with anything and everything, regardless of how truthful or accurate it is. Come election time, they then say “Remember all those scandals Trump was involved in?” But the problem is, he isn’t involved in “all those scandals.” They are manufactured.
But now to the facts. Here is the one fact you cannot deny. The Mueller investigation never did put forth an indictment for Trump. Not one. Another Fact: The Senate investigation into the Russian collusion accusations came out and said there was zero evidence of Trump being involved with any Russian Collusion. So we are basically 2 for 2 showing that Trump is clean. Is he childish? Sure. Is he a braggart? Yup. Has he done any of the crimes the left is accusing him of? Apparently not.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Apparently not? Let’s put it this way. Would Cohen be testifying now had there been no mueller investigation? And in view of the results thus far, do you still claim the “witch hunt” unjustified?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III a couple things. First, you bring up Obama? Really? After all the crap you’ve blown me over that? But in answer, I would feel the exact same way. It is one person making statements. It is has to be backed with evidence. That is where you on the left always fall down when dealing with me. I am consistent on how I view things.
Secondly, you give us a citation from PBS which skews left. That, by your rules, should be rejected for being bias. But I find it interesting. Did you actually real the article you posted? Did you see how Cohen says Trump improperly avoided paying taxes? It says Trump would “devalue” his asset (the golf club) and then put in a request for the local tax authority to re-evaluate the property. Think about that for a minute. That is like saying I could tell the local tax authority my home is only worth $10,000 and put in a request for them to re-evaluate it. Does that mean they change it to $10,000 for tax purposes? Absolutely not! They will take the request and see what the property is valued at. The tax payer does not have the luxury of telling the government how much to tax their properties. It is a statement that is blown way out of proportion.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Yep…still a witch hunt. Have they actually come up with anything? Look at the testimony. It is mainly “It is my opinion” and “I think”. As I said…it is a political witch hunt designed with the purpose of running a propaganda campaign against Trump in 2020. All the Mueller investigation did was to open up a lot of innuendo that could be used.

Dutchess_III's avatar

The Mueller investigation IS NOT DONE. We don’t know what he’s found.

seawulf575's avatar

The Mueller investigation is closer to being finished that you are willing to admit, maybe. When you have Dems in congress talking about issuing subpoenas to have Mueller testify if the AG doesn’t release the final report, the end is really near. The final report is probably being written, reviewed, and rewritten right now. And so far….nothing on Trump.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why would I have a problem “admitting” Mueller is close to finishing? The news says he is.
He just hasn’t released any of his findings. Have you read it? How can you be so sure there is nothing on trump if you haven’t read it?
Oh…I forgot. You’re clairvoyant.

seawulf575's avatar

He dug up dirt on Trumplings from 10 or more years ago. He filed indictments every chance he got. Where is the indictment for the POTUS? It isn’t there. So you are really staking your hopes on the idea that for some bizarre reason he’s going to include an indictment as an addendum with his final report? Please. He found nothing involved Trump colluding with Russia because there never was anything there to find. I’m still pissed that for all the rhetoric about Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election, no one ever looked at Hillary and the DNC colluding with foreign representatives who were working with Russia to try stealing the election. THAT was the collusion and every time Mueller came close, he would move purposely avoid digging into that. Corrupt.

stanleybmanly's avatar

So you are saying that the Russians conspired to elect Hillary? Get a grip!

stanleybmanly's avatar

You can bitch all you want about no collusion. Frankly, by now it should be apparent that whether he personally shook hands on a collusion deal or not is increasingly irrelevant, and but another drop in the sea of crimes exposed for investigation through Mueller’s probe: money laundering, tax fraud, bank fraud, racketeering, open profiteering from the discretions of his office—we’re living through the most spectacular corruption show in this nation’s history, and every one of 36 individuals thus far indicted as well as God only knows how many more they point to, can be summoned up to follow Cohen’s lead. Prepare yourself to expect the fool’s name to begin vanishing from all that tasteless real estate. By the time this ends, Trump won’t have the juice to slap his monicker on a memorial outhouse.

ragingloli's avatar

@stanleybmanly
Flat earthers recently published a Netflix documentary, in which they performed experiments that ended up proving that the Earth is spherical.
They rejected the outcomes of their own experiments.
Trumptards have the same mindset.

Stache's avatar

Mueller is not the be all end all. Trump needs to worry more about the southern district of New York.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I did not say the Russians conspired to elect Hillary. I said she worked through a foreign agent who worked with Russians to create the entire “collusion” story against Trump. It was created to either (a) get Trump out of office and Hillary declared the winner or, lacking that, (b) give a propaganda talking point for idiots to claim all sorts of corruption. Where do you fall on this game? You have raved about all the crimes Trump has committed, yet there has never been more than innuendo pointing to those crimes. Where is the proof? Mueller obviously couldn’t find it and you know he looked. That was his mission. The whole thing has turned into more of a conspiracy theory than any Obama-birther ever had.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli ummm…I think you have that backwards. The libertards are the ones that have run the experiments and keep coming up with the evidence showing that none of their theories are even close to being real. Yet they reject those outcomes.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Let me understand you. You are saying that following Trump’s election, Hillary plotted with Europeans to frame Trump for colluding with Moscow?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Jesus. Talk about paranoid. That is a helluva conspiracy story to fabricate out of thin air. And it’s kind of freaky how normal you sound saying it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And for the 100th time, you or I have no idea YET what Mueller has on Trump. What we do know is that several of Trump’s closest minions are now convicted of crimes clearly instigated toward HIS benefit. You may view it all as innuendo, but there is no longer any way of stopping the juggernaut. Were Mueller shut down today, and his accumulated evidence destroyed, he has handed the Southern District of New York and the Democratic Congress the means to tear Trump to shreds and do so for years.

Stache's avatar

@Dutchess_III I bet @seawulf575 is one of those republicans who thinks AOC is a literal witch.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Casting spells 24/7. Those crazy young Hispanic females all do that.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III isn’t it funny how normal facts sound? Fact: The Steele dossier is named for the person that compiled it…Christopher Steele. Fact: Steele is not a US Citizen. He is British. Fact: The entire effort for that dossier was paid for by Hillary and the DNC. Fact: Much of the information used supposedly came from Russians. Fact: Most of the dossier cannot be corroborated….it is hearsay or blatant fiction. Fact: this unsubstantiated dossier has been at the heart of all the hoo-haw surrounding the Trump-Russia narrative. Fact: This unsubstantiated information and unconfirmed information was used as the basis for at least one indictment of a Trump-related person.
So you have information from a foreign agent, paid for by the DNC, being used against their political opponents. Sounds amazingly like collusion, right? Isn’t that effectively what Trump is being accused of? That he worked with a foreign agent to use information against his political opponents?
Now…you say I’m paranoid. I say I am connecting the dots. What in any of these facts I have listed is false? What is conjecture? Meanwhile, you and the rest of the liberal fools go on and on about all these crimes Trump has done and how he “is just about to go down”. You have been singing that same song for 2 years. Nothing has come of any of the b.s. witch hunts and STILL you all go on. You have zero actual facts to back up any of the claims and point to innuendo and allegation as fact. And you call me paranoid.

seawulf575's avatar

@Stache No, I used to date a witch…a real witch. With a W, not a B. She was fine. No…I don’t say AOC is a witch….that would be an insult to witches everywhere. No, I would say at best she is an idiot and at worst she is a puppet.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III that sounds racist, and repetitive.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No, @seawulf575. It’s funny how you make stuff up out of absolutely nothing and yet present it without flinching as though it’s true. Could be sign of some sort of mental aberration.

Not even sure what you’re talking about when you say “that sounds racist and repetitive.” But whatever it is, I don’t really care what it sounds like.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III interesting that you make a personal attack and yet dodge actually having to address facts. Which of the facts I used was false? The question remains. You say I make it up….so prove it. Prove me false.
As for what sounds racist and repetitive, your statement “Casting spells 24/7. Those crazy young Hispanic females all do that.” That sounds racist to me. And initially it showed up twice on my screen…the same comment twice in a row. So it looked repetitive to me as well.

Stache's avatar

@Dutchess_III He doesn’t understand the true meaning of racism and apparently he doesn’t understand sarcasm. Any back and forth with him about racism is futile. I wouldn’t waste my time.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I agree @Stache

BTW, @seawulf575, you might do a bit of research on The Steele Dossier so you’ll understand exactly what in the hell you’re even talking about. The fact that it was named after the person who penned it isn’t exactly earth shattering news. Neither is the fact that he’s British. Unless…you’re racist!

stanleybmanly's avatar

Great link @Dutchess lll

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 There actually are times when I try to view Trump’s situation through your eyes. All of us get the same news. We all heard Cohen testify. Yet you come away from that testimony and the 36 indictments against key operatives in the Trump inner circle convinced of his certain vindication. I can’t decide whether to pity you for a fool or admire your passionate defense of a self serving obvious turd as a great patriot. Perhaps the geeatest tragedy around Trump is that there will still be decent people pulling for the jackass as he swirls in the toilet reserved for history’s great villains.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly
Trump could sit naked on the border wall, whistling Dixie and wearing rebel panties and some people would still vote for him over a Dem….lol. Ya’ll have burned a lot of bridges that can’t be rebuilt.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@stanleybmanly See you’re right! The bad orange make-up job wearing Dixie panties will still be a hero to many people after he runs away to Trump Towers Ukraine.

Ukraine and the United States do not have an extradition treaty.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL To me that’s the great disaster. It isn’t about who’s the greater evil, Hillary or Trump. Hillary may be evil incarnate, but Trump is outside the parameters of good or evil because he is honest to God incapable of understanding the difference. Those who do know the difference and choose to utilize the dummy for evil purposes consistently get screwed. I’ll bet you every one of our villains from Kim through Putin is dumbfounded at the sheer hollowness of the man 5 minutes into any conversation. What his supporters fail to consider is that the flaws with Trump aren’t about his political views or agenda.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly I get it, and I agree.

You gained my respect twice this week for not arguing points I think most of us know is true. I appreciate that and will start reading more of your posts.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Stache's avatar

@seawulf575 My first post addressed the question. As for you, you don’t even know what a personal attack is. Nothing I wrote here is a personal attack. Saying you don’t understand something is a factual statement, not a personal attack.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly let’s review. You have been saying that Mueller is just about to indict Trump for two years. Has it happened? I specifically remember you predicting it would be in the next couple days. That never happened. You keep throwing around 36 indictments, but you are wrong. They aren’t against Trump operatives. Most were against Russians and they came out with the proviso that no Americans knew of any wrongdoings being cited. So you might want to stop the dramatics. And many of the indictments involved actions long before the people were involved with Trump. Others were for lying to FBI about things like meeting with Russians, but even those are on those individuals and not Trump.
So I try to understand you people like you can be so entirely duped. It makes no sense to me. There are facts that you entirely have to ignore to cling desperately to the fantasy that Mueller will be getting Trump. How is it even possible? And I believe THAT to be the biggest tragedy of all….that there are a lot of people out there that are so desperate to believe in the liberal fantasy that they will absolutely refuse to view reality. It is quite scary.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
stanleybmanly's avatar

I suppose passionate discussions must ultimately turn personal. Sooooo I wanna get back to @chyna ‘s question.

Cohen has provided the committee canceled checks signed by Trump for highly suspect purposes. In addition, there is absolutely no denying that he worked at Trump’s behest facilitating criminal enterprises. And last but certainly not least, he has told the committee who the people are who know “where the bodies are buried” The committee can now call every one of those people to ask about the “bodies”, and so it goes.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

And I am confident he has the supporting evidence.
I have been kicking around a question about whether they would have even convened the hearing without proof at hand.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_lll I believe they would have convened the hearing without proof at hand. They did it before with Kavanaugh. This isn’t about crime fighting. This is about political attacks. The Dems have nothing to offer America in the way of policy so all they have is smear of their opponents to get elected. Getting someone, anyone, to dish dirt on Trump, whether it’s true or not, is all they want. As I stated before, most of his answers are opinion and not fact. That’s all they want. The propaganda machine will turn an “I believe he could do this” into “He did this”.

stanleybmanly's avatar

No one has to make anything up when it comes to Trump. In fact Trump is the one man for whom no one can dream up anything as absurd or negatively slanted as the truth about the fool. The man is so phenomenally defective that making fun of him is a simple matter of quoting what he says line for line. The late night comedy format now across the board consists nearly exclusively of comics whose nightly opening monologues amount to newsreels of the dummy’s daily fkups. SNL’s ratings are through the roof from Alec Baldwin’s caricature of Trump which would work just as well if he merely lip synced Trump’s actual dialog. The fact is that the democrats, Mueller, the Congress, NOBODY can smear Trump better than himself. He IS without a doubt a sensation as this country’s greatest tasteless practical joke.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly they made up the entire Russia Collusion thing! There is zero evidence of that. It was created to start the witch hunt. Even those that have been indicted have not been indicted for colluding with Russia to steal an election. You can’t say no one has made anything up….that is just plain false.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The investigation is still underway, and it is probably the tightest in the history of the country when it comes to leaks. You keep howling no collusion, but YOU CANNOT KNOW THAT YET. Like it or not, and however you look at it, you would be a fool to contend that there was no justification for Mueller’s investigation. The trips to Moscow and clandestine meetings by Trump’s inner circle and his family left the DOJ no choice. Kushner, Flynn, Mantafort, etc.—their behavior was so stupidly flagrant that every one of the country’s intelligence services agreed UNANIMOUSLY that the allegations warranted investigation, and for the life of me, considering the results thus far, I would expect you to have the sense to shut up about collusion until after the FAT LADY SINGS.

seawulf575's avatar

So, when the Mueller report comes out and says there is no collusion between Trump and the Russians, are you going to issue an apology? Are you finally going to come out and say you were wrong and that the whole thing was just a conspiracy theory for the past 2 years?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yes. If some solid evidence comes out that proves there was no collusion, I, for one, will be very surprised and I will apologize.

Will you do the same if the report comes out that proves there was collusion @seawulf575?

stanleybmanly's avatar

I will certainly apologize if your offer meets Dutchess III’s stipulations and if you admit the “witch hunt” was justified.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There’s another thing that’s itritating in your arguments, and that’s your constant insistence that dems are out to get Trump. You might as well tell me that water is wet. Of course they’re out to get him, just like your team was out to nail Obama. But you want to blame the Democrats because YOUR boy makes it so damned easy. The sun can’t rise without him poking his fat behind right at them and screaming at the top of his lungs “KICK IT”

Dutchess_III's avatar

^^ Right. He makes it SO easy it’s horrible. It’s horrible to have a fool for a president.

One of the first SNL skits, “They make me look bad by publishing everything I do, and everything I say.”

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III if something didn’t happen, there usually isn’t evidence of it not happening. Evidence shows something happened. But I understand your question. If the Mueller report comes out and says “yes, there is evidence showing Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election” and it goes on to list what that evidence is, AND it’s not just innuendo, I will gladly admit the whole thing was not a witch hunt. But here’s the thing. If there was evidence, it would have been brought forward already. That was the whole point (supposedly) of the investigation. To go through and try digging up age old dirt on all sorts of people and put forth indictments on them and then stop when you get to the whole point of your investigation? That makes no sense. If they had any sort of smoking gun, there would be an indictment or the investigation would not be winding down.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly you should know by now that I don’t have a team. But I do stand up for facts and logic. When those two things go away, we are left with chaos. That is why the incessant decrees that there is something coming is just silly to me. Oh! and you keep saying I haven’t seen the report so I don’t know. That is true. But in the same fashion, You haven’t seen it either. So we both speculate. But to say there is something more coming when it has already been put out that he is writing the final report makes zero sense to me. If there were an indictment coming, it would be there already…long before the final report was drafted. It would have to be included in the final report. That is the logic that makes sense to me.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Have we been told that there will be no further indictments? Hillary was found to be careless, but determined unindictable. What if the report states that Trump played footsie with Russia, but that it isn’t the job of the DOJ to prosecute the President?

And you’re right. Neither of us is in a position to guarantee Trump’s future, but I have a very big hunch that If Mueller doesn’t skewer Trump for the spit, he has already provided the democrats with the grill, spit, charcoal, sauce…...and those folks have a BIG appetite for this particular piggy.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Oh I see @seawulf575 Trump sez “NO COLLUSION” therefore there was no collusion !

HE lies 8 to 15 times a DAY ! ! ! ! You lost me me at Trump SEZ !

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Where did I say “Trump Sez”? I haven’t. Don’t be foolish. Don’t try to create a narrative so that you can try making a point. But let’s flip that over. Who says there IS collusion? Hillary? The Dems? So just because they “Sez” means there was? They lie 8–15 times a day as well. Something you on the left really need to grasp is that just because someone accuses another person of something doesn’t make it fact. You are very weak with that concept…unless of course it is a liberal that is being accused. Then you want ALL the facts and don’t want to believe them even then.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

The narrative comes out of Trump mouth at least twice a day and every time someone mentions Russia. The point is valid without deflection of “They lie 8–15 times a day as well.”

Being ultra-right doesn’t make you the only one to determine FACT; which you do all the time.

seawulf575's avatar

Okay, @Tropical_Willie, show me the proof of your statement. Show me the FACT. Right now you have a wild statement with nothing backing it, which is very standard for you. Yet you want to rave about my facts or logic.

seawulf575's avatar

So you gave me a highly liberal source (daily beast) that documents one event where Trump said there was no collusion. That does not constitute 8–15 times a day. You have failed to prove your statement. Your other link was to a Quora page that doesn’t exist. And Quora might as well be you saying it since it requires no proof. It is an opinion blog at best. But what you have shown is that despite all the crap you try to blow me over using conservative websites as sources, you are even worse. Hang it up, son.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Um, how about twice, just today! Here.

seawulf575's avatar

And twice is not 8–15. it’s a simple equation, really.

seawulf575's avatar

Oh, and @Dutchess_III…where is your outrage at @Tropical_Willie for using Quora and Daily Beast as sources? Remember? You call everyone when they use biased sources. At least that is your story.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I am not having a debate with @Tropical_Willie. If I were I would have called him on it.

Also, he said Trump lies 8 to 15 times a day. He didn’t say Trump says, “No collusion” 8 to 15 times a day. I simply go to twitter and get it straight from the jack asses mouth. I can also count real good. In my link above I only captured 3 of the idiot’s tweets. All 3 were lies!

I’ll go look again, check out what all he’s done today while he’s pretending to be president.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Here is from just an hour ago. It’s his most recent tweet. It’s bullshit. “The reason I do not want military drills with South Korea is to save hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S. for which we are not reimbursed. That was my position long before I became President. Also, reducing tensions with North Korea at this time is a good thing!”

Two hours ago, and more BS “My wonderful daughter, Ivanka, will be interviewed tonight by Steve Hilton on “The Next Revolution.” @FoxNews 9:00 P.M. She works so hard and has achieved so much for the U.S.A.(and gets so little credit!). Then watch Mark Levin at 10:00 P.M., a great show!”

3 hours ago ”“Look how they’re acting now and how we act when we’re in the majority. What the Democrats are doing is an abuse of power. They couldn’t find anything…they took a Fake Dossier & couldn’t find any Collusion. Now they have a fake witness in Cohen.” Congressman Mark Green, (R-TN).”

6 hours ago “After more than two years of Presidential Harassment, the only things that have been proven is that Democrats and other broke the law. The hostile Cohen testimony, given by a liar to reduce his prison time, proved no Collusion! His just written book manuscript showed what he….....said was a total lie, but Fake Media won’t show it. I am an innocent man being persecuted by some very bad, conflicted & corrupt people in a Witch Hunt that is illegal & should never have been allowed to start – And only because I won the Election! Despite this, great success!

Ad nauseam.

seawulf575's avatar

Gee, @Dutchess_III, there have been times recently that you weren’t having debates with me until you jumped in to try slamming my source. Remember that? You claimed you did it to everyone because you didn’t like biased sources. Now you are dodging and showing what a liar you are.
And I’ve asked him to show me proof he lies 8–15 times a day. He failed miserably. And you supported him so you failed right along with him. But maybe the issue is what you consider a lie. “No Collusion” is a fact, not a lie. Yet you count it as a lie. Maybe it is you on the left that can’t tell the difference, eh?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

You’re right I should quoted one of your right wing skinhead websites that advertise 30 round clips for hunting deer and pigs.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Never mind how many times a day the fool lies. Do you dispute that he is an undisputably pathological liar? Are you silly enough to accept on his word ANYTHING the jackass might bray?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I don’t trust anything anyone in our government says. I hear it and run it through my bullshit filter. Trump does exaggerate. But here’s part of the problem. You on the left can’t actually identify what a lie is, I believe. Two of your counterparts as screaming about how Trump lies when he says “No Collusion”. But let’s look at the facts. There has been no actual proof of collusion and several statements that there has been no collusion. Even when Mueller indicted the Russians he said no Americans were in on anything that had been done. No collusion. Yet the left keeps screaming about his collusion. So when he says there is none, you all say “He’s lying!!!!!!!” Maybe you all need to stop a moment and look at what is real and what is not. Yes, I know…the proof is just around the corner….as it has been since the beginning but is still not there. Some of his cohorts were indicted! But most of that was for past sins (not Trump related) and some were for lying. So again…it isn’t Trump, though you all want it to be soooooo badly.
Has Trump done bad things in his past? Probably. Has he lied? Sure…we all do. But you are all so wrapped up on the idea that he lies about everything you are conflating that to take everything he says as a lie, whether it is or not.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I’m no longer going to haggle over the collusion thing. There’s only one question I have for you regarding that subject before the results of the investigation are released. Why can’t Kushner get a security clearance?

seawulf575's avatar

First off, Kushner, as far as I can tell, does have a security clearance. He was granted a temporary clearance while the investigation moved forward for the permanent one. I understand there were some delays because he needed more information on his application.
But let me ask: Have you ever had a security clearance? I had a top secret security clearance when I was in the service. It required a very extensive investigation by the FBI. I had them going back and talking to friends and neighbors I hadn’t seen in years. Thankfully I had been a decent sort in my youth and nothing ugly came back. But one of the guys on my sub, who had been on there for about a year, suddenly had to be removed. Why? They found that he had some distant relative he didn’t even know about (some cousins removed several times) that lived behind the Iron Curtain. The fear was that they could have been seized and used against him as leverage to get information. And he was a nothing seaman…an enlisted guy. My step-son went into the army and had to get a top secret clearance for his job. He got it and then had it pulled. Why? Because someone came up with a picture of him sitting with several other soldiers at a party and there was drug paraphernalia (a bong) on the table. He had not participated in any drug smoking, but he was deemed not a good risk because he had not immediately reported those that had. My point is that there are a lot of things that play into getting a security clearance. I don’t know the details of Mr. Kushner’s case and neither do you. But it could be any number of things that are not nefarious. It could be a past brush with the law. It could be monetary debt. It could be any number of things. It might be as simple as the investigation is just not through the system yet. And the level of rigor in the investigation is based on the level of security clearance being sought. If during the investigation they determine there is anything questionable, they will err on the side of caution and not give the clearance.
Again, the leftist media makes a huge deal out of innuendo, but little fact. They want to point, as you did, to him not having a security clearance and then try to make it sound nefarious. In fact I have read many articles where the leftist media uses supposition and assumption to paint whatever picture they want.
But this has what bearing on things?

Dutchess_III's avatar

And another round. Check out the names on the list!
Kushner Co.
Donald Trump Revocable Trust
Don Jr.
Eric Trump
Jared Kushner
Trump Foundation
Trump Campaign
Trump Organization
Trump Transition….

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III you do realize that doesn’t actually prove anything, right? They launched all sorts of probes into the Trump/Russia investigation including assigning a special counsel. The left was sure that impeachment was just around the corner because of that. How’d that work out for you? So the Dems want to launch probes into Trump and his associates. Personally, I would rather spend that money on something worthwhile. It offends me that we spend tax dollars on political witch hunts.

stanleybmanly's avatar

So you are telling us that we would be better off not knowing that these people are criminals? It would by just hunky dory if Flynn, Manafort, Cohen—the entire slimy crowd were left in peace to serve the President?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Sigh. Wait! You mean simply asking people questions and getting information doesn’t prove any thing? I have been doing it wrong all of my life. What did I ever do without you @seawulf575.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III don’t be foolish. If a crime had been committed and they were investigating it, have at it. Right now, it is “let’s pay millions to see what dirt we can dig up!” That is a political witch hunt and you know it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

37 indictments , guilty pleas, jail time…. and you are still trying to call it a witch hunt?

Hillary was a witch hunt. Trump is being brought to justice.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575. You can call it a witch hunt if you choose, and I’m willing to accept the metaphor if you are willing to admit that there was evidence of witchcraft all over the place. Once it was understood that the Russians went to great lengths to manipulate Trump’s election, while his family, lawyers, and future national security advisor commuted back & forth to Russia to hobnob with Russian plutocrats, suspicions were unavoidable. Meanwhile, open evidence of looted Russian money underwiting the Don’s tacky real estate enterprises, as the fool openly praised Putin and LOUDLY urged him to dig up dirt on Hillary. Every one of our intelligence services as well as those of our allies agreed that the signs of witchcraft were undeniable and a witchunt not only justified but urgently required.

stanleybmanly's avatar

But beyond all of the above. Objectively speaking, can you seriously view Trump as a man reluctant to collude with the Russians, the Klan or the devil himself toward his own self advancement?

Dutchess_III's avatar

All anyone would have to say to trump is “There is money in it for you,” and he’d think no further.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly First off, the Russians did not go to great length to manipulate the election. Even if you believe they hacked the DNC computers (which I am not conceding at all) let’s review. They took emails and gave them to Wikileaks. This seems an odd way to work it. Now let’s go further. They released the emails just shortly before the election. Now here’s the quiz: What was in the emails? I’m willing to bet my next paycheck that the average Joe on the street never saw the emails. They never heard what was actually in them. So that is a really cheesy way to influence the election…wait until the last minute to hack the DNC computers and then release emails that no one will really read? What a plan! And for God’s sake, let’s not actually look at what was in the emails. They supposedly were released to make Hillary look bad. How so? If they are that bad, maybe we should be doing investigations into her actions. Would you have been good with that had she won? But that is the discussion the Dems/Libs/Lefties never really want to have…what was in the emails that would have made her look bad.
What else? Oh yeah! They supposedly took out ads on Facebook! Oh MY! Again, I’d bet my paycheck that the average Joe could not actually tell you one ad they saw on Facebook from Russia much less how it impacted their decision on who to vote for. And that is the last point. If no one can tell you what was in the emails and no one can actually remember the ads, how is this influencing the election? Seems such a stretch.
You are ranting about how the Russians “dug up dirt” on Hillary. What was it? What did they have that came out in the election that influenced it? Again….the average Joe couldn’t begin to tell you anything. But again, the lefties (such as yourself) always want to dodge the actual FACT…proven and verified…that it was actually HILLARY using foreigners to dig up dirt on Trump. Talk about trying to influence the election! AND she used that dirt prior to the election to try swaying people into believing that somehow Trump was working with Russia. And her efforts continued after he won. I give you the entire Mueller investigation as proof. There is no collusion between Trump and Russia…never was. But it was a cool way to try digging up dirt. I give you all the indictments as proof. Nothing current except when someone lied about their past. But it makes for great talking points and innuendo.
Your thinking is so bass ackwards it is dazzling to me.

flutherother's avatar

@Seawulf575 You, who are usually so sceptical are prepared to state that the Russians didn’t go to great lengths to influence US elections and that Trump is innocent of collusion even before the investigation to look into these matters is completed. That, if you are sincere, is what I call gullibility.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@flutherother The Trump has spoken and he said, “No Collusion”! ;>0

Dutchess_III's avatar

Like, 9,788 times he’s spoken. Hm. Think I’ll go check in with Twitter and see how many times he’s mentioned it today…..

Donald J. Trump
2 hours ago
Now that they realize the only Collusion with Russia was done by Crooked Hillary Clinton & the Democrats, Nadler, Schiff and the Dem heads of the Committees have gone stone cold CRAZY. 81 letter sent to innocent people to harass them. They won’t get ANYTHING done for our Country!
Where is my red correcting pen when I need it?

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother I am skeptical. And my statements about the Russians influencing the US elections stands. Because I am also logical. The “standard” statement is that Russia went to great lengths to influence our election. So the skeptical side of me asks “what was the influence?” The follow up question to that was “Was it effective?” And I’m sorry, but the logical side of my brain says there wasn’t much in the way of influence that made any real impact on our election, based on my reasoning in my previous response which apparently no one really cares to address. So the skeptical side of my brain continues with the questioning. If the efforts were not that effective, is it because Russia is inept? No…Russia is many things but being inept at clandestine things is not one of them. I feel strongly that if they truly wanted to influence our elections they could have done it quite well. They could have easily dug up or created all sorts of nasty things about Hillary and started seeding them out there a whole year before they supposedly did. It’s called a misinformation campaign. And they could have tied Hillary into knots trying to deal with the accusations to the point where she would have a huge shadow of doubt on her (more than I felt she had). So the Skeptic continues. If Russia isn’t inept, why would they go through the trouble of hacking the DNC computers for random emails that they would then release via Wikileaks? What could they gain? In my mind, they gain nothing for the reasons I explained in my previous post. So now my skeptical side says (and my logical side agrees) that the things everyone says are “extraordinary efforts” to influence the election had really no impact at all on the election. So there is a huge narrative out there that makes no sense to me at all. Combine that with the fact the DNC refused to let the FBI and law enforcement look at their servers to find the source of the hacking as would have been appropriate and instead hired a private firm that supposedly analyzed the servers, came to a conclusion and then the DNC destroyed the servers so no one else could look at them (which is very odd) and I start to question the whole Russia interference narrative altogether. It makes no sense. The supposed actions to influence were weak and ineffectual, the actions by the DNC were out of character for the supposed victim of a crime….it doesn’t pass the smell test for me. So if the Russians really didn’t do much to interfere, does it make any sense for the narrative that Trump colluded with them? No. So where did that come from? Looking back, it came from Hillary when she realized her chances of winning were slipping away. She is the one that floated the idea that Russia interfered on behalf of Trump. Obama even supposedly had the FBI look into things and came to the conclusion that the Russians may have tried to interfere, but didn’t really impact anything (pretty much what I have said) and the results of the election would be good, the will of the people would be upheld. Everyone was happy…until Trump won. Everything that followed made no sense except from the aspect of political smearing and possibly finding a way to frame up Trump.
Now it is interesting that you call me gullible. I have laid out, quite clearly, how I see that we got to where we are and why I believe what I believe. NO ONE…yourself included…has done the same to justify why we got to where we are. I have asked the question that really need to be answered to make sense of it…was what the Russians supposedly did effective and if so how?. No one can answer that. Releasing emails is a surface answer. The obvious follow up is “what was in the emails and did the average voter know that?” Until you can answer those questions, I would suggest that anyone buying into the Russia/Trump narrative is the gullible one. You have bought a story that makes no sense on the sole basis that someone told you it was true.

LostInParadise's avatar

Several Russians were tried and convicted of DNC email hacking Many of those emails were rather embarrassing to Clinton. It certainly seems likely that she lost votes because of them. How many votes? Who knows, but the election was decided by a relatively small percentage of the total vote.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 The greatest proof of Russian success in influencing Trump’s election is in the fact that despite the conclusions of every intelligence service in the free world there are foolish people such as yourself who in the face of such overwhelming evidence have the temerity to brag openly about their objectivity in disbelieving it. It is a wondrous thing to witness someone so impervious to reality regardless of how often or hard they are slapped in the face with the truth.

stanleybmanly's avatar

In fact, I tell you honestly that when it is revealed that your entire persona is the invention of some Russian disinformation mill, I won’t be one bit surprised.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

^^^ @stanleybmanly Do you think maybe, “Putin’s chef”? ^^^

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise ummm….did you read the article you posted? 12 Russians were indicted, that is true. None have been convicted.
As for the content of the emails, what was in them? Please, fill us in. Show me a link to the emails. And you claim it SEEMS LIKELY that Hillary lost votes because of them. How so? To me it seems MORE likely that most people, by the time the emails were released, had already made up their minds on who they were voting for between Trump and Clinton. That election was one of the most polarized elections I have ever seen. There wasn’t a lot of gray area. And do you really believe that if someone was on the fence, they would take the time to hunt down these emails, read all 20,000 of them to see what was in them, to help them decide who to vote for? Is that really what you think is the sane and rational explanation? And according to that logic, there had to be several million people that did that. Does that really make sense to you?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly your conclusion of me seems to be based solely on your private belief that you are right. I have spelled out, in detail, my rationale and conclusions. You have not actually addressed any of them to poke a hole in anything I stated….you are just clinging desperately to the story you have been fed. Tell you what…why don’t you, as I did, go through and explain your rationale and conclusions as to why you really believe the Russians impacted our election so badly. You claim that all these intelligence agencies say it was so, yet your boy Obama looked at their information and discounted it as any real threat to the election. You haven’t seen their actual evaluations, he did. Was he wrong too? You are the one that is right and the everyone else is wrong? Megalomania much?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III The challenge is open to you as well. If you believe he is right, please state your rationale and conclusions. See? This is where I cannot support liberals for the most part. You all accuse me of believing things that aren’t true. Yet when I spell out exactly why I believe what I believe, not a single one of you can take it apart. Instead, you all cling to your beliefs and claim I’m wrong, yet you cannot actually defend your beliefs. So who is believing things that aren’t true?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Hell, I don’t even know what you two are talking about, LOL!

seawulf575's avatar

Yet you have no problem jumping into the conversation and taking a side. What does that say about you?

Dutchess_III's avatar

You certainly do look for any half baked reason to Be Offended and Outraged Everyday. You really don’t have to take everything so seriously. But, I have popcorn and beer here, and it’s kind of funny, so carry on.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I will grant you that I cannot say to what extent Russian cyber operations influenced the outcome of the election, but the documented evidence of the disinformation campaign mounted on behalf of the dummy and against Hillary is beyond dispute. I don’t claim that Putin elected Trump. I say the Russians did what they could to achieve that election and did it brilliantly. You and I agree that the Russians are no fools. The amazing thing is that they apparently followed to the letter the plot you outlined above to @flutherother starting at “They could have easily dug up….” Now the Russians are indeed shrewd, but with the economy of Italy are in no position to compete with the United States for global domination—and they know it! We should have seen it coming, but were asleep at the wheel. But just because we don’t know the extent of the damage does not justify a conclusion of “it didn’t happen”. And since it clearly did happen, the question should no longer be whether or not it worked. The bigger question is why the Russians pimped TRUMP for the Presidency. Now about the justification for the witch hunt. The Russians were slick enough to initiate a skilled misinformation and cyber hacking campaign. What they could never control was the volatility of the fool who on world wide television loudly congratulated Russia on its success in hacking Hillary’s emails and then encouraging them to “keep up the good work”. I can just imagine Putin staring at his screen in disbelief as the idiot snatched the covers off him on live television. Meanwhile looted millions in Russian money floods in to finance candidate Trump’s tasteless real estate carnival, while key members of his family and inner circle shuttle back and forth to Russia for clandestine meetings with people who would be arrested on the spot if they showed up over here. The legitimate reasons to suspect Trump of collusion are too numerous to list. And considering the preponderance, there really was no choice if our intelligence agencies are to be regarded with any degree of competence.

You have the forlorn job here of upholding the conservative viewpoint. You’ve gotta do better than the standard wingnut explanations on how the world works.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@stanleybmanly You are correct
Wingnuts unite
the new guard for Trump followers.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I still believe you are looking for shadows that aren’t there. Hillary lost because Hillary was arrogant and ran a poor campaign. She bought the DNC nomination and was sure she would just skate to the presidency. At the tail end of Obama’s time in office upwards of 70% of Americans felt the country was going in the wrong direction. Hillary and the Dems ignored this and promised more of the same, but at an accelerated rate. If you feel the country is going down the wrong path and one candidate says it is the wrong path and the other wants to move faster down that wrong path, who do you choose? Trump tapped into the anger many Americans had at the corruption in our federal government. He pointed out many of the things that people very much disliked. It made him sound more in touch with America. The Russians had basically nothing to do with it. As I have said, if they were trying to do anything, their targets were poor choices and their play was too late in the game to make any difference at all.
You can continue to try beating that drum, but in the end, it makes no sense. Your entire premise seems to start with “The Russians gave the election to Trump” and goes from there. But you haven’t really established that this is a fact. You spout it like it is, but it isn’t. It makes zero sense when you think it through. But it IS the narrative that Hillary and the Dems fed to the media and they have fed to the public.
If there was so much evidence concerning Trump colluding with Russia, then answer me two questions. First, why did they rely so heavily on the Steele Dossier which was unsubstatiated muck, compiled at the request and on the dime of Hillary and the Dems? If there was that much evidence, why not just use the evidence and not go on what amounts to fiction? And Secondly, if there was so much evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, why can’t anyone actually find that evidence? Every investigation so far has come to the same conclusion…there is no collusion.
As for me using wingnut explanations, maybe you can then tell me why none of you have actually tried deconstructing my logic or conclusions? If they are so wingnut, you should be able to do that easily. I have pointed out the weaknesses in your own reasoning. So if I can do that to your arguments but you can’t do it to mine, who has the wingnut explanations?

stanleybmanly's avatar

When in our discussions have I EVER stated that “the Russians handed Trump the election.” ? You are CONSTANTLY attributing quotes to me that just plain are not there. You hear what you want to hear & NOTHING more. I gave you excellent reasons why Trump should be investigated, which you choose to ignore, not a one of which was the Steele dossier. Without that dossier, there were a pile other reasons justifying a look into Trump and YOU know it. To this day not a single security agency would approve a security clearance for Kushner, due principally to his clandestine meetings in Russia & Eastern Europe with Putin operatives. Trump overrode the UNANIMOUS recommendations of them all to secure the clearance for his son-in-law. Why can’t you see that your logic on Clinton meddling or incompetence of the Russians is meaningless regarding the FACTS above. I won’t attempt deconstruct your so-called logic because it is irrelevant to the legitimate points I have listed. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you persist on insisting that this investigation into Trump is but a witchhunt, while the man’s cabinet, closest associates and family members are indicted and convicted in front of you CLEARLY as a result of THIS investigation. There is no need to defend the investigation. The results speak for themselves.

seawulf575's avatar

You’re right. You never said “the Russians handed Trump the election. But every one of your arguments is that (a) Russia interfered and (b) Russia put forth massive effort to undermine Hillary. Effectively, you are saying they handed Trump the election. Yes, it’s paraphrased, but really…it means the same as the song you sing. Own it.
As for your reasons for investigating Trump, they amount to really nothing. There is no starting point on any of those things…without the Steele Dossier. If that statement is false, then did the FBI have to sneak that in as a reason for a FISA warrant against Carter Page? Without that, or more accurately, if they had told the FISA judge that the Steele Dossier was paid for as a political smear tactic to dig up dirt, that judge would not have approved that warrant. Nor any of the subsequent filings in which they used it. Yes, Trump did business with Russia. That proves nothing. He also did business with Turkey, Dubai, Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Brazil, Panama and a number of other countries. So by your rationale, because he does business in Mexico, he should be investigated because he is probably part of a drug cartel.
As for Jared Kushner, you are stretching. First off, I need to see your citations that none of the security agencies would give him a security clearance because of his meetings in Russia and Eastern Europe. You, again, are making grand jumps in reality. He has a security clearance right now. It isn’t at the level Trump wants, but the paperwork is in process. Oh, and to start your education, the security agencies do not issue the White House security clearances. They do the investigations based on the SF-86 that is filled out. But the individual agencies (cabinet offices for example) and the Office of Personnel Management is in charge of the investigations. Kushner has an interim clearance (which does not give him access as high as Trump wants) but his permanent request is in the backlog (about 700,000 requests in that backlog.) Once again, you are buying into innuendo and supposition and using it as fact. Now, to be perfectly fair, if Kushner were found to have been handling and dealing with security issues above his pay grade, I would view that the same way I viewed Hillary’s e-mail scandal. It is a violation and should be dealt with that way. Though now the FBI has introduced the “intent” idea to commission of crimes, so he could probably get off.
You cannot deconstruct my statements because you cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction. You have put forth all sorts of imagined things and suppositions, but have not backed them up with any facts at all. Even your logic is lacking.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You are correct. I should have said that every agency vetting Kushner recommended against granting him clearance and Trump overrode them. And to suggest that any official as high as Kushner is baclklogged behind 700 individuals is just plain stupid. You can carry your Steele dossier to your grave, pretend that it doesn’t matter that manafort, Cohen, Flynn, etc. are going to jail, as though they have nothing to do with Trump or crime. We must both wait for the results to determine whether there was collusion or not. Meanwhile, like the fool, you don’t seem capable of mustering the will to wait until proven correct. But you must admit that it’s difficult to label an investigation resulting in 37 indictments a smear or witchunt merely because the same was not done to Hillary.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly again…let’s get to the facts:

Manafort – five counts of tax fraud, one count of failure to file a report of foreign bank and financial accounts, and two counts of bank fraud. Nothing involving Trump, nothing involving collusion with Russia.

Cohen – eight criminal counts including tax fraud, false statements to a bank and campaign finance violations. With him violating the laws and pleading guilty to them it doesn’t tie him to Trump or Russia either.

Flynn – lied to the FBI about talking to the Russian ambassador. Now this one does deal with Russia, but has nothing to do with collusion with Russia or the election and has not shown anything on Trump.

I have never said these folks didn’t commit crimes or that they knew Trump. But most (I would say all) of their crimes have absolutely nothing to do with Trump. If they did, Trump would already be facing impeachment for those crimes…you know it and I know it.

As for the Mueller investigation (and all the subsequent ones the Dems want to conduct), they are indeed witch hunts. A criminal investigation starts with a crime. Then the investigation gathers the facts and leads to the prosecution of those crimes. All these investigations are not starting with crimes. They are starting with people they want to find dirt on and then digging until that dirt is found. And yes, the 37 indictments prove that. Take your Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, etc. They had nothing on any of those folks and only could indict them on past crimes they could dig up dirt for. It had nothing to do with the purpose of the investigation…the Russian interference in our 2016 election and the possible collusion by Trump. But they got dirt and fools get say “See? They got indictments! That proves it was valid!” when it is actually proves the exact opposite.

stanleybmanly's avatar

We’ll see.

Dutchess_III's avatar

This is too much! On Twitter: Both the Judge and the lawyer in the Paul Manafort case stated loudly and for the world to hear that there was NO COLLUSION with Russia. But the Witch Hunt Hoax continues as you now add these statements to House & Senate Intelligence & Senator Burr. So bad for our Country!
Of course the judge did not say that (maybe his first lie of the day) but I’m sure the lawyer did. So if the lawyer said it, it must be true~

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther