Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[Deleted member 365]

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.

 

[Deleted member 365]

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.

 

[Deleted member 365]

You’d think that @Catchall would get the hint. His *** is being dropkicked all over this website by multiple posters. You’d think he’d recognize that he was wrong and his sources completely unreliable. But whatever.

Such is the insecure mind that lacks critical thinking skills. “Everyone else must be wrong, they’re the outliers, I’m still right regardless of what the facts say!”

Trump truly, is the president for these paranoid deplorables.

 

[silesian]

I dunno, but the Dems were metacrying about it because they wanted to protect poor Hillary. Hypocrisy is what it is. They project their feelings about Hillary on people who support Trump.

Attaboy. Using your new vocabulary word I just taught you!!

 

[silesian]

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

Yeah but the whole thing is kinda slimy even if legal.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

So it appears that @Catchall believes the intelligence community and law enforcement are lying or the DNC has a leaker with a time machine.

Again, the nonsense spewed on 4chan and Breitbart is pretty scary stuff.

I don't read Breitbart or 4Chan. I surely don't trust CNN either though. I've worked with them enough in the past to know how controlled they are.

This is an excerpt from The Nation, August 2017, which is not considered a conservative publication by any means ----
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

• Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.

 

[colton]

I was at a laser test with 4 super magnification telescopes and all that jazz. You can see the reflector kind of. But I trust the instrumentation told us the truth. It's pretty cool actually.

You're just part of the conspiracy! But that's OK, you're in good company--Mythbusters Adam and Jamie are as well:

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

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.

The House holds hearings and then the impeachment trial takes place in the Senate. You're correct that an impeachment is different from a criminal procedure. The legal standards that must be met may or may not be as high. It goes to a vote. The Senate has already said that they won't impeach Trump on the basis of the Mueller investigation/report. The Dems are looking elsewhere to build a case, namely trying to sift through Trump's financial records and White House communications. They don't know exactly what they're looking for yet.

Right now, the Dems want to make a case in the court of public opinion so as to have an impact in the 2020 election cycle.

 

[TheStormofWar]

I don't read Breitbart or 4Chan. I surely don't trust CNN either though. I've worked with them enough in the past to know how controlled they are.

This is an excerpt from The Nation, August 2017, which is not considered a conservative publication by any means ----
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

• Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.

I can cite at least 10 well respected security companies and publicly released intelligence reports from BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS that point to the DNC email hack as a likely result of Russian APTs. In addition, the source they partially cited in this doesn't seem valid to me. As such, I take this with a grain of salt. Majority analysis puts this as an APT acting on behalf of a nation-state, likely Russia. Mueller's own indictments against several parties also conclude and state that Russia wanted Trump in office because "it was in their best interest" (ref: Manafort second indictment).

 

[TheStormofWar]

The House holds hearings and then the impeachment trial takes place in the Senate. You're correct that an impeachment is different from a criminal procedure. The legal standards that must be met may or may not be as high. It goes to a vote. The Senate has already said that they won't impeach Trump on the basis of the Mueller investigation/report. The Dems are looking elsewhere to build a case, namely trying to sift through Trump's financial records and White House communications. They don't know exactly what they're looking for yet.

Right now, the Dems want to make a case in the court of public opinion so as to have an impact in the 2020 election cycle.

Exactly why I called it DOA and the system broken. The Clinton Impeachment taught me one thing: The POTUS would have to be filmed committing a murder and whizzing on the corpse to make their most frothing supporters flinch. Even then, it's a crapshoot at best. Personally, I don't really care if Billy Boy lied about receiving fallatio or not, or even if he lied about it. But it taught me that politics is a dirty pool by nature and the entire system is broken.