The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Just because there’s no “evidence” of Trump colluding with Russia doesn’t mean Trump didn’t collude with Russia.
-CNN
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
-CNN
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
They could always appoint a special prosecutor to investigat
Trump had the most unorganized, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants campaign that I've ever seen or read about. He had 3 different campaign managers in the span or a few months. The notion that he or someone in his campaign conspired with Russians to steal the election was absurd on its face when it was first alleged, and never got any less absurd.
13 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 500 witnesses interviewed, 500 search warrants executed, 2800 subpoenas issued, an unlimited budget.
The findings? Russia Collusion Hoax.
You are right as far as that goes.
I don’t see why any campaign has to travel in this day and age with all the communication that we have. Obviously they had to do it a hundred years ago but not now. I don’t have to see them in person. I do want to hear them and know their policies. Think of how much money we would save and put to better use.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Hillary was a flawed candidate from the get go. If anybody cares to remember, i had been saying from the begining, the Democrat rank and fille, the everyday joe Democrat was not a fan of Hillary Clinton.
Impeachment evaporating? I think not, not even a little. That's because the collusion investigation is but one of many. Muller's work is done. Several other investigations are underway.
Regarding the Barr letter about the Muller report, the most impressive paragraph to me at this point is this one:
"...the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses."
That is an impressive body of work. Muller's integrity and competency were highly praised by Democrats and Republicans when he was appointed as special counsel, and despite Trump's many attempts to smear Muller, Muller's integrity remains intact. When Muller oversees an investigation of this thoroughness and scope, and issues a report that states, “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” it is reasonable and wise to accept that as a fact.
That said, we have not yet heard from Muller or seen his report. We will. Congress is certain to call on him to answer questions and Barr has indicated a willingness to release as much of the report as the law and Justice Department policy allows. The sun shines brightly on Trump today and there are a whole lot of long-face Democrats and anti-Trump journalists on TV tonight. The clouds will likely form again when the actual report is publicly available and questions are put to Muller.
One question I would ask if given the chance is why did you not "make a traditional prosecutorial judgment" on the obstruction question? Was it because you were ordered by Barr not to? Was it because you felt it best to simply turn the question over to congress? Was it because you could not make up your mind because the evidence cut both ways? Was it because the Justice Department rule that prevents indicting a sitting president rendered moot the obstruction question?
I'm sure someone in congress will ask Muller that question. I'm looking forward to the answer.
Finally, I'll say I'm grateful this investigation was initiated and allowed to proceed to its natural end. For far too long, we've been listening to opinions, charges, counter charges, breathless media reports pro and con, and endless clap-trap about the collusion question ... all without factual basis. When released, the Muller report will soon provide real facts that will better inform our ongoing political debate.
Regarding the Barr letter about the Muller report, the most impressive paragraph to me at this point is this one:
"...the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses."
That is an impressive body of work. Muller's integrity and competency were highly praised by Democrats and Republicans when he was appointed as special counsel, and despite Trump's many attempts to smear Muller, Muller's integrity remains intact. When Muller oversees an investigation of this thoroughness and scope, and issues a report that states, “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” it is reasonable and wise to accept that as a fact.
That said, we have not yet heard from Muller or seen his report. We will. Congress is certain to call on him to answer questions and Barr has indicated a willingness to release as much of the report as the law and Justice Department policy allows. The sun shines brightly on Trump today and there are a whole lot of long-face Democrats and anti-Trump journalists on TV tonight. The clouds will likely form again when the actual report is publicly available and questions are put to Muller.
One question I would ask if given the chance is why did you not "make a traditional prosecutorial judgment" on the obstruction question? Was it because you were ordered by Barr not to? Was it because you felt it best to simply turn the question over to congress? Was it because you could not make up your mind because the evidence cut both ways? Was it because the Justice Department rule that prevents indicting a sitting president rendered moot the obstruction question?
I'm sure someone in congress will ask Muller that question. I'm looking forward to the answer.
Finally, I'll say I'm grateful this investigation was initiated and allowed to proceed to its natural end. For far too long, we've been listening to opinions, charges, counter charges, breathless media reports pro and con, and endless clap-trap about the collusion question ... all without factual basis. When released, the Muller report will soon provide real facts that will better inform our ongoing political debate.
Last edited:
One additional thought. Democrats are demanding full and immediate release of the Muller report. They should be careful what they wish for because they may get it. One of the reasons Barr cites for not releasing the entire report is parts of it could interfere with ongoing investigations. Presumably, these investigations are into Trump and his associates. If releasing the full report can mess up investigations, releasing the report may be very much in Trump's interests. He has the power to declassify the report and release it at will. The Democrats should think twice before demanding its full and immediate release.
Well she did win the popular vote. Lol
Don’t get me wrong. I wasn’t taking up for Hillary, I’ve been saying this for years. It just doesn’t make any sense to waste all that money when they can have more debates and give speeches from their home areas or something like that. The networks can cover them just as well if not better at far less expense. We would just turn our TVs or computers on and we would know just as much as we do now.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
This is true and if the Democrats don't get their shlit together, Trump will win in a landslide next time without help from Russia.
I think this whole thing may expose a whole lot of issues internally with the FBI and others. Notice how all the people involved with that dossier plead the 5th or disappeared? Ummm ???? After 30 million, the hoax may be investigated as to why it started in the first place.
Yes she did, but she did not close the deal. Given what could have been done and what she should have done, she has no one but herself to blame.
You may be one to cast an informed vote based on what you see, hear and read on screens. But many voters are not the same. They respond to a candidate visit. Locally-engaged candidates and campaigns get out the vote and raise more funds than those that remain remote. A voter energized by a candidate visit or handshake can produce additional votes from his/her freinds and neighbors by enthusiasm alone. Not so much on screens.
I think a lot of people would like the answer to that one since collusion and obstruction were his primary mandates. But I bet dollars to donuts the answer is, "I was unable to find evidence of guilt of an underlying crime. He didn't obstruct me or the investigation, so I leave it to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General as to whether Trump obstructed justice in some other way."
But also, "unable to find evidence that a crime was committed, but nevertheless am unable to exonerate..." is a classic parting shot zinger from a prosecutor who's lost, knows he's lost, and is a tad ticked that he couldn't nail someone. By definition prosecutors aren't in the business of exonerating people of crimes. They prosecute. The only time they exonerate anyone is when they have no choice, and they do it by saying they can't find evidence of the crime.
I am thinking that had a little to do with Rod Rosenstien signing off on it. Here is the guy that supposedly was going to wear a wire to take Trump down. Not mentioned much by media but I find that a interesting part of it. Democrats are glazing over that with almost every interview I have seen.
I agree. We also know Barr had the information three weeks ago that Mueller wasn't going to render a finding on obstruction, which I'm sure is why Rosenstein extended his stay with the department. If "hand picked" Barr alone made the call, the Dems (and The Media) would howl (like they are, anyway). But if Barr and the guy who wanted to wear a wire as well as the one who advised Trump to fire Comey was also in on the decision, their howling can only be just so loud.
But the bottom line is, you cannot be exonerated for a crime unless it's a crime.
Modern Politics isn’t based on truth or facts, or even results for a LARGE portion of America. It’s based on emotional pulls.
If I was a Democrat Strategist, I would’ve jumping for joy, because this vacuum allows anyone to rise to the top of the Democrat Party, and frankly, that’s all any Democrat running for President should be focusing on, the nomination.
Democrats win on Healthcare.
If I was Beto or Kamala’s advisor, I would be saying, give vanilla answers on all subjects except Healthcare. Be passionate about healthcare, and nothing else.
What I mean is, if asked about guns, give a statistic about gun violence, pivot into healthcare.
If asked, how to cure gun violence, quote a expert on that, then pivot it into healthcare.
The Democrat with the best, or best promoted, Healthcare Plan Wins the nomination.
After the nomination, have enough sense to realize a 3% swing in white voters in battleground states will win the Election. Stop playing to California and New York.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums