Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[TheStormofWar]

ok, pardon my caps lock.

No worries. Again, all I'm saying is that link is one that needs to be taken with some doubt.

 

[The Thriller]

Yeah, that's called lobbying. It's technically legal unless there's a direct bribe involved, but a murky area to be sure. There's a case before the courts related to guests staying at the Trump International Hotel in DC. But that's not going to get Trump impeached.

Of course, you can fervently like or hate any candidate you choose. Vote however you like.

No other president has permitted “lobbying” like that. The very fact that trump is in a lawsuit over the appropriations clause by benefitting directly from this unprecedented “lobbying” undercuts your entire argument that one needs to be on the impeachment committee to recognize that trump is benefitting from the presidency.

But since you’re still whining about Clinton, I’m sure you’d totally be fine with this type of lobbying if she were doing the exact same thing, right?

LOL

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

No other president has permitted “lobbying” like that. The very fact that trump is in a lawsuit over the appropriations clause by benefitting directly from this unprecedented “lobbying” undercuts your entire argument that one needs to be on the impeachment committee to recognize that trump is benefitting from the presidency.

But since you’re still whining about Clinton, I’m sure you’d totally be fine with this type of lobbying if she were doing the exact same thing, right?

LOL

She did that and far worse through the Clinton Foundation, if that's what you're asking. The Clintons took direct donations. The question with Trump is whether he's truly compromised by Russia, or just being diplomatic.

 

[One Brow]

Of course. Comey was Director of the FBI under the Obama administration and up until Trump dismissed him in May 2017. When you say "the White House," you're referring to the Obama White House, rather than Trump's. It would be inaccurate to say that the Democratic Party and certain people within the FBI weren't hostile towards Trump.

That was my mistake, I should have said Rosenstein, who appointed the special prosecutor. At any rate, it was Rosenstein (who was working for Trump at the time) who decided the scope of the investigation, not the already-fired Comey.

And certainly, someone is not telling the truth. That's why it's important to look at forensic evidence and testimony from multiple witnesses, something that Mueller appears not to have done. How can he not know who Fusion GPS is?

Since Fusion GPS was outside the scope of Mueller's investigation, why does this matter?

Ask Bernie Sanders' supporters if it didn't hurt their candidate, and ask them why they went to court seeking restitution.

Do you think of Bernie Sander's supporters as being rational and trustworthy on this matter? Do you extend that courtesy to them on policy matters as well, or only when it suits your argument?

The claim that the DNC was hacked by Russians, who seized emails that showed the DNC favored Hillary, was a claim that originated with the DNC.

Papdopolous was quoted on 2016-APR-26 about the Russian dirt on Clinton. Do you have an announcement from the DNC preceding that? If not, it originated with Papadopolous.

 

[One Brow]

... something that can't be achieved by a remote hack from Russia or anywhere outside a high-speed LAN.

You will probably be shocked to learn this, but sometimes Russian agents actually leave the country of Russia and visit other places.

 

[TheStormofWar]

You will probably be shocked to learn this, but sometimes Russian agents actually leave the country of Russia and visit other places.

This is more about hackers than organic intelligence assets. In truth, depending on your pipes that are available, those transfer speeds are easy to achieve. Very, very easy. Truth is though most data exfiltrations are done at a slower rate so as to not trigger monitoring devices (IDS/IPS with behavior signatures, etc.) and are typically encrypted so that they are not read easily, if at all. It's part of what makes some breaches so difficult to detect. That said, the assertion by the article "Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet." blew whatever credibility it had with me out of the water.

 

[Hotdog]

These facts are supported by all major news outlets and the Mueller report. Is Fox News too Liberal for you?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-gives-detailed-look-at-russias-alleged-election-hacking

How about Breitbart? Still too liberal?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...of-u-s-officials-targeted-by-russian-hacking/

All of which corroborate with CNN’s timeline.

Any more lame comments for me to shred?

And to answer your question:

Give it up Thriller. Its game over. This thing is done.

No Collusion
No Obstruction.
Total Witchhunt.

 

[TheStormofWar]

Give it up Thriller. Its game over. This thing is done.

No Collusion.
No Obstruction.
Total Witchhunt.

Just so we're clear on this, Trump was never exonerated by Mueller. It was that Mueller could not bring charges against him. The DOJ has a standing rule, last reviewed in 2000, that a standing POTUS may not be charged while in office. He would need to be impeached before he was charged, which is the purview of congress. After that? Well, the exchange between Mueller and Schiff was pretty clear on that.

 

[One Brow]

She did that and far worse through the Clinton Foundation, if that's what you're asking. The Clintons took direct donations. The question with Trump is whether he's truly compromised by Russia, or just being diplomatic.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation are not "direct donations".

 

[Zombie]

Just so we're clear on this, Trump was never exonerated by Mueller. It was that Mueller could not bring charges against him. The DOJ has a standing rule, last reviewed in 2000, that a standing POTUS may not be charged while in office. He would need to be impeached before he was charged, which is the purview of congress. After that? Well, the exchange between Mueller and Schiff was pretty clear on that.

There's also the principle that the accused has a right to defend himself which explains why he had to walk such a fine line between explaining Trump's criminal behavior and not making a criminal referral.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Donations to the Clinton Foundation are not "direct donations".

They're not directly campaign contributions, but they're direct donations to the non-profit that the Clintons administer. They're far more direct a monetary contribution than a foreign diplomat choosing to stay at a Trump International Hotel.

 

[TheStormofWar]

There's also the principle that the accused has a right to defend himself which explains why he had to walk such a fine line between explaining Trump's criminal behavior and not making a criminal referral.

That as well, but only in a criminal procedure. Truth is Impeachment doesn't work like that. In a normal, sane world, the House would decide on Impeachment and the Senate would put the matter to trial, in their own way. Recall Clinton's impeachment in 96 (I think that was the year) where the House passed the motions to get it rolling but the Senate found him not guilty. As such, I don't think anything would really come of it.

 

[Hotdog]

Just so we're clear on this, Trump was never exonerated by Mueller. It was that Mueller could not bring charges against him. The DOJ has a standing rule, last reviewed in 2000, that a standing POTUS may not be charged while in office. He would need to be impeached before he was charged, which is the purview of congress. After that? Well, the exchange between Mueller and Schiff was pretty clear on that.

Just so we are clear and factual when it comes to laws and rights.

It is not the job, duty, within the law, nor the right of Mueller to exonerate the president...

Bear with me here because this is where you Dems fail to understand what the hell is actually going on.

Under the law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is not the job the prosecutor to exonerate you. You are either guilty or not guilty. You either find evidence and charge or you dont find evidence and you find them not guilty.

Its absolutel BS to be throwing that nonsense out there and tainting the case with this crap that he was not exonerated.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Just so we're clear on this, Trump was never exonerated by Mueller. It was that Mueller could not bring charges against him. The DOJ has a standing rule, last reviewed in 2000, that a standing POTUS may not be charged while in office. He would need to be impeached before he was charged, which is the purview of congress. After that? Well, the exchange between Mueller and Schiff was pretty clear on that.

Per the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) rules, a sitting president cannot be charged (indicted). Mueller admitted that his team never considered charging Trump. It was never an option.

However, this discussion about Mueller 'not exonerating' the president is just a word game. A prosecutor either has sufficient evidence to bring a case, or not. There is no affirmative exoneration. If there is not sufficient evidence to charge a person, that in itself is considered an exoneration, at least from allegations. What's more, there were no charges brought, so there was never a question or a need for exoneration.

However, in the weird world of politics, Jerrold Nadler can claim, "Mueller did not completely exonerate the President," and claim that this provides grounds to start impeachment proceedings. This is a weak claim, obviously, and that's why Pelosi won't let impeachment move forward.

Keep in mind, Mueller didn't exonerate you either. He didn't exonerate me. He didn't exonerate anyone. Prosecutors charge or they do not charge. If they do not charge, there's no case to be exonerated from.

 

[TheStormofWar]

Just so we are clear and factual when it comes to laws and rights.

It is not the job, duty, within the law, nor the right of Mueller to exonerate the president...

Bear with me here because this is where you Dems fail to understand what the hell is actually going on.

Under the law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is not the job the prosecutor to exonerate you. You are either guilty or not guilty. You either find evidence and charge or you dont find evidence and you find them not guilty.

Its absolutel BS to be throwing that nonsense out there and tainting the case with this crap that he was not exonerated.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. And I am neither a Democrat or Republican. This sort of insane backchatter is actually why I left the Republican party many years ago.

Being indicted is no presumption of guilt. It's simply being accused or a crime. The DOJs rules do not allow for a sitting President to be charged. End of story. Save your virtue signaling for someone else. I care little for it.

 

[Zombie]

That as well, but only in a criminal procedure. Truth is Impeachment doesn't work like that. In a normal, sane world, the House would decide on Impeachment and the Senate would put the matter to trial, in their own way. Recall Clinton's impeachment in 96 (I think that was the year) where the House passed the motions to get it rolling but the Senate found him not guilty. As such, I don't think anything would really come of it.

Absolutely, I don't think Mueller's mandate gave him the authority to make a formal referral for impeachment. There seems to be a little more movement in the House to start impeachment proceedings in the last couple of days but I don't expect it to actually happen.

 

[The Thriller]

She did that and far worse through the Clinton Foundation, if that's what you're asking. The Clintons took direct donations. The question with Trump is whether he's truly compromised by Russia, or just being diplomatic.

Wait, aren’t you going to recognize that I was right and you were wrong about the CNN timetable? Aren’t you going to recognize that RUSSIA hacked the DNC beginning in 2015? Aren’t you going to acknowledge that it was Russia and not a DNC insider? Aren’t you going to admit that you couldn’t find a single intelligence/law enforcement agency in America that disagreed with Russia hacking the DNC?

If we are to have a discussion about the hacking, then you need to acknowledge when you’ve gotten your facts wrong, right?

Otherwise, the discussion will just continue to go in rounds and rounds with you making wild and ridiculous accusations, me refuting them, and you continue to go on your stupid accusations.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Wait, aren’t you going to recognize that I was right and you were wrong about the CNN timetable? Aren’t you going to recognize that RUSSIA hacked the DNC beginning in 2015? Aren’t you going to acknowledge that it was Russia and not a DNC insider? Aren’t you going to admit that you couldn’t find a single intelligence/law enforcement agency in America that disagreed with Russia hacking the DNC?

If we are to have a discussion about the hacking, then you need to acknowledge when you’ve gotten your facts wrong, right?

Otherwise, the discussion will just continue to go in rounds and rounds with you making wild and ridiculous accusations, me refuting them, and you continue to go on your stupid accusations.

I was responding to your asinine claim that Clintons taking donations through the Clinton Foundation was tantamount to someone staying at a business like a Trump hotel that Trump partially owns. I'll get to your other posts. You haven't refuted anything so far.

 

[The Thriller]

I was responding to your asinine claim that Clintons taking donations through the Clinton Foundation was tantamount to someone staying at a business like a Trump hotel that Trump partially owns. I'll get to your other posts. You haven't refuted anything so far.

Please, acknowledge that I’ve thoroughly refuted your ridiculous claims that Russia didn’t hack the DNC and then we can get to your pointing the finger at Clinton. Maybe you’re just too embarrassed to admit it? But all of your asinine claims have been refuted. I’m sorry, you lost.

Which is funny, I’m sure you were totally fine with Clinton using her Foundation throughout her presidency, right?

The thing is, acknowledging corruption shouldn’t be a partisan affair. If your first reaction to Trump’s abusing the White House to his personal financial benefit is to bring up Clinton, you’ve lost the argument already. It’s asinine to continue to bring her up when confronted with Trump’s flagrant corruption.

Have fun arguing at the clouds stupid ***. I’ve got better things to do today than your partisan and honestly, pretty boring, squabbles. Clinton is so used up.

 

[TheStormofWar]

Per the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) rules, a sitting president cannot be charged (indicted). Mueller admitted that his team never considered charging Trump. It was never an option.

However, this discussion about Mueller 'not exonerating' the president is just a word game. A prosecutor either has sufficient evidence to bring a case, or not. There is no affirmative exoneration. If there is not sufficient evidence to charge a person, that in itself is considered an exoneration, at least from allegations. What's more, there were no charges brought, so there was never a question or a need for exoneration.

To be clear, the OLC's policy was the automatic disqualifier for bringing charges against the POTUS anyway and Constitutionally well founded. That is the job of Congress in this circumstance. Whether Trump would have been indicted? Who knows honestly. To be fair with this, Trump is inferred in a lot of indictments, including Manafort and others, without direct naming. However, we'll probably never know if dude was guilty or not. Simply put, any Impeachment resolutions passed by the House will be simply be going through motions in the Senate as it would be probably DOA anyway. It's such a broken system.