# Trump ousts Jeff Sessions from AG position, Mueller investigation endangered



## Xzi (Nov 8, 2018)

So of course we couldn't be allowed to unwind and stop paying attention to politics for a while after the midterm.  Sessions has been replaced by Matthew Whitaker, who hasn't been shy about announcing his desire to end the Mueller probe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b7a214-e144-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html

Rod Rosenstein no longer has any authority over the investigation, which means nationwide protests have been triggered for tomorrow at 5 PM local time.

https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response-events/search/

Watching Trump walk the tightrope here will be interesting, because Mueller no doubt has some sort of "dead man's switch" set up should he be removed, and House Democrats can call on him to testify about everything he knows.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 8, 2018)

Because that's certainly the move someone innocent would take at this point in history...


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 8, 2018)

I honestly would just like a non-troll explanation from a pundit on the right as to why they think this is a great idea.
it has not even been five minutes since the midterms and he wants to start controversy


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 8, 2018)

Is it possible that 2nd link confused Rosenstein's name with Session? 

From what I thought, the chain of command went Trump -> Session -> Rosenstein -> Mueller. As such, it seems like that link wants to gather a riot for...well, not for the wrong _reasons_, but based on incorrect information.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 8, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Is it possible that 2nd link confused Rosenstein's name with Session?
> 
> From what I thought, the chain of command went Trump -> Session -> Rosenstein -> Mueller. As such, it seems like that link wants to gather a riot for...well, not for the wrong _reasons_, but based on incorrect information.


The information is correct.  Sessions had recused himself in the Mueller investigation, Mueller was reporting to deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.  Since the new AG Matthew Whitaker is not recused, Mueller has to report to him instead unless he recuses and gives authority back to Rosenstein.  By all accounts, Whitaker is a Trump lackey who wants to starve the Mueller investigation financially, so he seems unlikely to recuse even with mass protests.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 8, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The information is correct.  Sessions had recused himself in the Mueller investigation, Mueller was reporting to deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.  Since the new AG Matthew Whitaker is not recused, Mueller has to report to him instead unless he recuses and gives authority back to Rosenstein.  By all accounts, Whitaker is a Trump lackey who wants to starve the Mueller investigation financially, so he seems unlikely to recuse even with mass protests.


I see. Thanks for clarification.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 8, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> I honestly would just like a non-troll explanation from a pundit on the right as to why they think this is a great idea.
> it has not even been five minutes since the midterms and he wants to start controversy


The Russia collusion is completely fabricated. If they did interfere it still wouldn’t have impacted the election and Trump would have still won. Muller himself has investment in Russia and should himself be investigated. It’s only fair if they want to investigate Trump and doing illegal things to do it.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 8, 2018)

"I'm innocent and to prove it I will remove everyone investigating me to make sure I can't be proven guilty." - Trump logic


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 8, 2018)

Sessions has been piss-poor as an AG from day 1, irrespective of the Mueller sideshow. The President has every right to remove ineffective employees.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 8, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Sessions has been piss-poor as an AG from day 1, irrespective of the Mueller sideshow. The President has every right to remove ineffective employees.


Any AG Trump appoints is going to be a shitshow, but that's not the reason Sessions was removed.  It was specifically to gain control over the investigation into himself.  Nixon 2.0 essentially.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 8, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Any AG Trump appoints is going to be a shitshow, but that's not the reason Sessions was removed.  It was specifically to gain control over the investigation into himself.  Nixon 2.0 essentially.



That's your assumption. It's not an unreasonable one, but its a biased one. There are other reasonable explanations. Trump has been expressing his dissatisfaction with Sessions for well over a year or myriad other instances of not doing his job, and Sessions _HAS_ been a piss-poor excuse for AG. Also, we were recently told by the media, via Mueller's people, that his report on the investigation would be dropping after the midterms and they were just waiting so as to ensure no effect on the election. It's done. So what's being hampered here?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 8, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> That's your assumption. It's not an unreasonable one, but its a biased one. Sessions HAS been a piss-poor excuse for AG. We were told by the media, via Mueller's people, that his report on the investigation would be dropping after the midterms and they were just waiting so as to ensure no effect on the election. It's done. So what's being hampered here?


If it was only about Sessions, Whitaker would have immediately recused and handed authority on the Mueller investigation back to Rod Rosenstein, who initiated the investigation to begin with.  Barring that, it's blatantly obvious what Trump's motivations were here.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 8, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If it was only about Sessions, Whitaker would have immediately recused and handed authority on the Mueller investigation back to Rod Rosenstein, who initiated the investigation to begin with.  Barring that, it's blatantly obvious what Trump's motivations were here.




There are already stories running today of Pam Bondi being considered as the appointed replacement. Whitaker's just keeping the seat warm as "acting" AG - there's no way a hi-value political appointment like that goes to a nobody.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 8, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> There are already stories running today of Pam Bondi being considered as the appointed replacement. Whitaker's just keeping the seat warm as "acting" AG - there's no way a hi-value political appointment like that goes to a nobody.


I'm sure Trump considers one stooge as good as another.  He's made it clear that "loyalty" is all that matters to him, not competence or experience.  Whitaker hasn't been shy about giving Trump verbal handjobs, and he's also been clear about wanting the Mueller investigation ended.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 8, 2018)

if only the republican senate had the damn morals needed they'd impeach their own but they shit on morals if in power typical politics


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 8, 2018)

Before Trump fired sessions, people on the left were freaking out about him wanting him fired as he was a Grand Dragon of the KKK or something, and then when he is fired, they freak out again. Make up your mind, guys.

Also, don't you find it interesting that this news just broke, and yet 900 or so protests are already ready to go? Perhaps it is because billionaires like Dustin Moskovitz, the co-founder of Facebook, donated 2.5 million dollars to MoveOn, the PAC that is organizing this? A guy named Daniel Tierney gave $666,666 to MoveOn as well. SMP, a huge SuperPAC worth over 150 million gave MoveOn a nice 1.5 million dollars to work with. These are all just from 2017 to today. If we actually look at stuff before, we start seeing people like Dustin's total contribution starts jumping to 2.5 million, and we see Dustin's wife giving Move On 1.25 million, making their total contributions up to 3.75 million dollars. And you nee to remember that SMP is also funded by these billionaires. Hell, Michael Bloomberg himself gave SMP 20 million dollars this October.

And you guessed it, back in 2004, our friend George Soros gave MoveOn.org 1.46 million himself.

These protests are funded and directed by billionaires, bankers, and dishonest folk. Just a little digging and I find millions and millions of dollars being poured into these PACs from people who are worth literal billions. And you gotta remember, MoveOn is a small PAC comparably, and they're able to organize and direct these protests themselves? Imagine the pull SMP has like 8 times more money than Move On. But even SMP is fucking tiny. The idea that the whole backlash against Trump is grassroots is the dumbest and easily disprovable thing ever. You're being manipulated by billionaires and the media. You might say "But Trump is a billionaire too!" which is right, but at least he's not fucking sneaking around being subversive and keeping his actions in the shadows. Democratic Party is the party of bankers and billionaires, and I hope you realize that. The idea that they're for the people is retarded.

And before you go asking for proof, the information is publicly available. https://www.fec.gov/data/
Except for all the charity arms of these organizations, we are able to see all the donations to them. Yeah, MoveOn has a charity branch that they're tax exempt from. And these protests are both funded by MoveOn Political Action, the PAC branch, and MoveOn Civic Action, the charity branch. Good shit >:c


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 8, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> if only the republican senate had the damn morals needed they'd impeach their own but they shit on morals if in power typical politics




Only the House of Reps can initiate impeachment. The articles of impeachment are procedurally comparable to an indictment. If the articles of impeachment pass in the House, they get passed to the Senate for the trial.

When Clinton was impeached, he squeaked through because exactly zero Democrats voted to convict*. If only they had the damn morals ...

Impeachment is predominantly a political process for removal from office. When the stars align (both houses of Congress aligned against the impeached officer), it can get accomplished. Otherwise, it is pretty much baked-in that the Senate will vote on party lines unless the conduct is egregiously and undeniably criminal. I still have yet to hear someone set forth actual, specific grounds for impeachment of President Trump. I've heard a lot of vague "he's literally Hitler" type stuff - but nothing that qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office.


Edit: * a little more about the Clinton impeachment. He was impeached for perjury (testified falsely under oath before a federal grand jury about his involvement with Lewinsky) and obstruction of justice. The obstruction charge was weaker, less specific. The perjury charge was pretty obvious - it was established by then that Clinton did have sexual relations with Lewinsky in the Oval Office, despite his earlier multiple denials. The Republicans had 55 seats in the Senate and so only needed 5 Democrats to agree with the obvious, proven truth that Clinton committed perjury. Zero Democrats voted to convict. Clinton did surrender his law license (to avoid being disbarred) and paid a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas state bar for committing perjury -- i.e. in a real-world test of whether he 'did it,' he didn't even contest it.

So anyway, point is whether you think Clinton should or shouldn't have been impeached, the political environment at that time was realistic for it. It reasonably could have succeeded. The Republicans had 55 members in the Senate, and needed 60 votes for conviction. And at least one of the charges sent by the House was solid. Today though, the Republicans hold a solid  majority in the Senate, so there's basically NO WAY an impeachment sent over from the House would/could succeed, unless the 'bad behavior' is absolutely, unambiguously 1) criminal, 2) universally outrageous, and 3) undeniable. So the new Democrat majority in the House can waste a bunch of time and taxpayers' dollars on trying to impeach President Trump, but that's all they'll accomplish.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 8, 2018)

so say if the sealed tax documents contain missing papers (IE tax evasion which is a federal crime and can result in jail time,even though trump cant be criminally charged, as you said if it was a serious crime they could bypass the senate?) (then again politicians are crooks anyway given power ppl become corrupt)


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 8, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> if only the republican senate had the damn morals needed they'd impeach their own but they shit on morals if in power typical politics



Neither party has any morals.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 8, 2018)

no duh


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 8, 2018)

Ah, politics, always a farce.


----------



## brickmii82 (Nov 8, 2018)

Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war ...

Edit: Adding to the Shakespeare ...

Sessions: "I recuse myself"
Trump: "Y tu Brute?!?"


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 9, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> so say if the sealed tax documents contain missing papers (IE tax evasion which is a federal crime and can result in jail time,even though trump cant be criminally charged, as you said if it was a serious crime they could bypass the senate?) (then again politicians are crooks anyway given power ppl become corrupt)




Ok, here's the thing about President Trump's history as a taxpayer - he doesn't like paying taxes. I think this is probably true of most Americans. He admittedly has used legal strategies, as most wealthy individuals do (like the Clintons, for example), which sound sketchy when the press wants to spin it that way, but are perfectly legal and the IRS apparently has no issue with any of Trump's taxpaying history. Think about it ... his tax returns have been audited many times, but he's never charged by the IRS for breaking any laws, found to have underpaid, fined, etc.

So there's probably nothing *real* there that the IRS would ever take seriously, because they've already got Trump's tax returns for every year, ever, and they've dug through his shit a number of times already. But the new Democrat majority in the House can of course allege that Trump _potentially_ evaded paying taxes somehow to justify an investigation, maybe get his tax returns (you can bet there'll be litigation if they try), and then make something of it on CNN with Don Lemon. But even if that generated scandal was voted for in the House as grounds for impeachment, it would still be tried in the Senate.


----------



## x65943 (Nov 9, 2018)

So in short

He waits literally ONE day after the election to do this

Why?

He knew this action could jeopardize republican senate seats, the only thing preventing him from being impeached for treason

So congrats if you voted R this election, "your" side waited one day to pull the carpet from under you

(Full disclosure I voted Libertarian)


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 9, 2018)

x65943 said:


> So in short
> 
> He waits literally ONE day after the election to do this
> 
> ...




... treason???

Wow. Please explain.


----------



## x65943 (Nov 9, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> ... treason???
> 
> Wow. Please explain.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting

Trump has now admitted he knew about this prior to it happening.

It's pretty open and shut treason.

Trump JR. was expected to be indicted anyday 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/donald-trump-jr-expecting-to-be-indicted-by-mueller-soon.html

Then Trump pulls this last ditch effort, it's gonna get ugly from here.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 9, 2018)

x65943 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting
> 
> Trump has now admitted he knew about this prior to it happening.
> 
> ...





No, no that's not 'treason.' The Constitution defines treason against the United States pretty explicitly: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." 


Opposition research during elections is as old as the Acropolis. Trump Jr. went to a meeting hoping to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's not treason, it's politics. 

You're gonna need to digest this ... the whole "colluded with Russia to sway the election" thing ... although there has been no actual proof this even  occurred (of course it's possible we'll learn of hard evidence from Mueller's investigation, but so far, nope) ... even if it happened, it is NOT a crime. Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor of Constitutional law, known for decades) has made this clear over and over. It might constitute a 'political sin' that would damage a person's chances of re-election if proven, but there is no law against 'colluding' with anyone to increase chances of winning an election. If you research this, you'll find angry retorts from liberals (who are really angry with Dershowitz because he too is a liberal and shouldn't say such things even if true) that even if collusion isn't a crime, IF certain things can be shown to amount to _knowing_ fraud by the Trump campaign, then some persons could go down for that. Election fraud. And they're right ... IF certain things can be shown. But it's still all speculation and people believing what they want to believe, without proof. Plenty of Republicans were guilty of that wrt: Hillary's not very smart email system and classified/top secret intelligence ... they just KNEW she was guilty (lock her up, etc), but Comey said the FBI can't prove it even if she is.


----------



## brickmii82 (Nov 9, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> No, no that's not 'treason.' The Constitution defines treason against the United States pretty explicitly: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
> 
> 
> Opposition research during elections is as old as the Acropolis. Trump Jr. went to a meeting hoping to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's not treason, it's politics.
> ...


I think the charge would be Obstruction of Justice if it comes out that he organized/went to/communicated/etc the meeting. But even then, he'd have to actually be questioned for that to even hold up. Iirc Mueller never questioned him. Or did he? I got burnt out on this shit awhile ago and stopped paying attention.


----------



## x65943 (Nov 9, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> No, no that's not 'treason.' The Constitution defines treason against the United States pretty explicitly: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
> 
> 
> Opposition research during elections is as old as the Acropolis. Trump Jr. went to a meeting hoping to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's not treason, it's politics.
> ...


Ι think the biggest takeaway is this.

The law is kind of gray. What does it mean to "give an enemy aid"?

Bottom line is if the right people were in power he could be charged with this, if the opposite were in power he couldn't.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 9, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> No, no that's not 'treason.' The Constitution defines treason against the United States pretty explicitly: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
> 
> 
> Opposition research during elections is as old as the Acropolis. Trump Jr. went to a meeting hoping to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's not treason, it's politics.
> ...


Months of investigation and millions of taxpayers dollars wasted and the most they got was Hillary and Muller connections to Russia. The only person that doesn’t seem to have connections to Russia is Trump. A hillarious twist.

They are self projection the illegal stuff and manipulation they are doing on to Trump.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2018)

*Grabs a lawn chair and popcorn* 

Keep continuing, don't mind me. I'm just curious as to how Trump being impeached and that somehow the one to take over would somehow be better, by all means.


----------



## x65943 (Nov 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> *Grabs a lawn chair and popcorn*
> 
> Keep continuing, don't mind me. I'm just curious as to how Trump being impeached and that somehow the one to take over would somehow be better, by all means.


Pence would be way better. First of all he is not gonna make us look like idiots in the world stage.


----------



## 3DPiper (Nov 9, 2018)

> "I'm innocent and to prove it I will remove everyone investigating me to make sure I can't be proven guilty." - Trump logic



And yet- he hasn't removed anyone on the Muller investigation.. Trump continually says there is no evidence, and so far they have found no evidence.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Pence would be way better. First of all he is not gonna make us look like idiots in the world stage.



Okay, that I can agree with


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> *Grabs a lawn chair and popcorn*
> 
> Keep continuing, don't mind me. I'm just curious as to how Trump being impeached and that somehow the one to take over would somehow be better, by all means.




Maxine Waters already said they're gonna impeach Trump and throw him out, then they're gonna impeach Pence and throw him out. Kinda tells ya how sincere their complaints are.


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Okay, that I can agree with


Don't worry, we'll Mike "AC/DC for the LGBT" Pence in 2024.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 9, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Maxine Waters already said they're gonna impeach Trump and throw him out, then they're gonna impeach Pence and throw him out. Kinda tells ya how sincere their complaints are.



Who the hell is Maxine Waters? Well good luck with that, you crazy nut job; screw her complaints and her half-assed goals. She'd make a great candidate for 2020, because no one would vote for a weirdo.


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Maxine Waters already said they're gonna impeach Trump and throw him out, then they're gonna impeach Pence and throw him out. Kinda tells ya how sincere their complaints are.


How? Didn't the Senate become even more red after the election?


----------



## x65943 (Nov 9, 2018)

Viri said:


> How? Didn't the Senate become even more red after the election?


Yes, and since you need 2/3 majority to convict - like half of Republican senators would have to flip.


----------



## Viri (Nov 9, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Yes, and since you need 2/3 majority to convict - like half of Republican senators would have to flip.


Well, then she's insane. The GOP couldn't impeach Clinton, despite having a majority. Trump would have to dig up the corpse of Regan and have sex with it on live TV. Even then, I doubt they'd vote for impeachment.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 9, 2018)

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 32 people and three companies — that we know of.
but sure "dems are projecting"


----------



## Xzi (Nov 9, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Months of investigation and millions of taxpayers dollars wasted and the most they got was Hillary and Muller connections to Russia. The only person that doesn’t seem to have connections to Russia is Trump. A hillarious twist.


The Mueller investigation paid for itself and then some when all of Manafort's assets were seized.  Nearly every person indicted so far has direct connections to Trump.

In any case, firing the guy investigating you is always going to make you look (more) guilty.  It's a dipshit move, which is why only Nixon and now Trump have done it.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 9, 2018)

American politics somehow make Australian pols look good, and that's saying something.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 9, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The Mueller investigation paid for itself and then some when all of Manafort's assets were seized.  Nearly every person indicted so far has direct connections to Trump.
> 
> In any case, firing the guy investigating you is always going to make you look (more) guilty.  It's a dipshit move, which is why only Nixon and now Trump have done it.


An indictment is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. It doesn’t mean that the person is guilty of a crime.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 9, 2018)

Viri said:


> Well, then she's insane. The GOP couldn't impeach Clinton, despite having a majority. Trump would have to dig up the corpse of Regan and have sex with it on live TV. Even then, I doubt they'd vote for impeachment.


Again you would need 67 votes, at the time the split was 55 R - 45 D in the senate
they needed 12 dems to flip which wasn't going to happen


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 9, 2018)

SG854 said:


> An indictment is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. It doesn’t mean that the person is guilty of a crime.


ok, ill bite. list of folks going to prison:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-trump-charges.html


----------



## Xzi (Nov 9, 2018)

SG854 said:


> An indictment is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. It doesn’t mean that the person is guilty of a crime.


37 indictments and 7 convictions.  Additionally, Trump has already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in at least one crime by Cohen when he plead guilty.

Back on topic: turns out Whitaker's appointment as AG was illegal to begin with.  The only person that can be 'rubber stamped' to that position has to be deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein in this case.  Otherwise the Senate needs to have a say or needs to be in recess.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/matthew-whitaker-jeff-sessions-replacement-illegal.html


----------



## SG854 (Nov 9, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> ok, ill bite. list of folks going to prison:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-trump-charges.html


I can tell you right off the bat that the 13 Russians Nationals one doesn’t mean much. 

So the crimes they are accused of is identity theft, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and not registering as foreign agents (which a couple were busted for on that list you linked me). And if they want to indict people for not registering with the FARA act then Muller should indict Christopher Steele, the guy that created the fake dossier, and without the fake dossier there would have been no surveillance warrant.  

There was no proof that 13 nationals in the indictment altered the 2016 election. They probably broke the law, but that doesn’t mean they had anything to do with Trump or election collusion. 

They were just people making a bunch of bad memes of pro black anti black, pro/anti Muslims, anti guns, pro/anti blm and blah blah blah, they were covering both sides of the topic yet they were indicted for over throwing our government with facebook memes.

I actually have been out of it for this Russia thing so I wouldn’t tell you about the other guys that were busted, I’ll have to research more on that myself. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t mean much. If it does then i’ll be on your side and criticize Trump.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 9, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I can tell you right off the bat that the 13 Russians Nationals one doesn’t mean much.
> 
> So the crimes they are accused of is identity theft, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and not registering as foreign agents (which a couple were busted for on that list you linked me). And if they want to indict people for not registering with the FARA act then Muller should indict Christopher Steele, the guy that created the fake dossier, and without the fake dossier there would have been no surveillance warrant.
> 
> ...


you are making the mistake here that i am criticizing him. if he has nothing to hide let Mueller do his job. as for proof that the 13 nationals altered the results, well that is why i would like Mueller to find out the extent of what happened. you can also say it does not mean much, but a lot of the others that plead guilty were guys who worked for the campaign or were connected to it in one way or another. if you surround yourself by crooks, dont be surprised if people have questions.

since you earlier replied with youtube videos to hold your argument i can do it as well (the following video post is tongue in cheek dont take it seriously)


----------



## SG854 (Nov 11, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> you are making the mistake here that i am criticizing him. if he has nothing to hide let Mueller do his job. as for proof that the 13 nationals altered the results, well that is why i would like Mueller to find out the extent of what happened. you can also say it does not mean much, but a lot of the others that plead guilty were guys who worked for the campaign or were connected to it in one way or another. if you surround yourself by crooks, dont be surprised if people have questions.
> 
> since you earlier replied with youtube videos to hold your argument i can do it as well (the following video post is tongue in cheek dont take it seriously)



So I looked more into the link you gave me and non of them show that they are linked to Trump. 32 indictments and not one linked to Trump.

24 of them are Russians living in Russia. Only 6 are U.S. citizens. 76 charges with 9 guilty pleas for crimes that had nothing to do with the Trump or the election.

I need proof before I can say Russians are connected to Trump, until then it’s just a conspiracy theory.

Here’s is my video link from the Wall Street Journal about the 12 Russian intelligence officers and he clearly states that did not find a link to Trump for now. TBH don’t think they’ll ever find a link since this investigation was started with manipulation from Christopher Steele from the beginning, without any evidence for Trump Russia collusion to even start it so investigation shouldn’t have ever happened at all and just a waste of time and money.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 11, 2018)

again though back to my point. if it has nothing to do with him, why should he care? why make it a spectacle every time Muellers name is brought up and more importantly if people are meddling and he is so clean it should no issue to let the our justice system do its thing.
he has not been accused of jack so why make himself look suspicious by doing a disservice?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 11, 2018)

SG854 said:


> So I looked more into the link you gave me and non of them show that they are linked to Trump. 32 indictments and not one linked to Trump.


So you're telling us that neither Trump's personal lawyer nor his campaign manager have any links to Trump.  Oookay then...


----------



## SG854 (Nov 12, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> again though back to my point. if it has nothing to do with him, why should he care? why make it a spectacle every time Muellers name is brought up and more importantly if people are meddling and he is so clean it should no issue to let the our justice system do its thing.
> he has not been accused of jack so why make himself look suspicious by doing a disservice?


I’m not saying not investigate Trump, I’m saying they are probably not going to find much since the whole thing reeks of manipulation from the begining.

And Foreign Countries influence elections all the time. It’s common. United States alone tried to influnce other countries elections at least 80 times since world war 2. Russia 36 times.

Russia may have likely influence the election, so, what of it. You can also argue Israel also tried to influence the 2016 election. Clinton’s top 6 super pac donors were all Jewish, being involved in pro Israel efforts, donating 37 million dollars. Is anyone going to bother investigating this?

Hilary herself is caught on tape endorsing rigging the Palestinian election, which is super hypocritical of her complaining how Russia rigged the election against her. Are people going to ignore this fact being thrown out there?

This whole thing started because they want to try to bust Trump and try to get Hillary in. Lots of people have this selective focus on Trump and ignoring other politicians.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 12, 2018)

SG854 said:


> This whole thing started because they want to try to bust Trump and try to get Hillary in. Lots of people have this selective focus on Trump and ignoring other politicians.


Ever stop to think that maybe there's a focus on Trump because he's not like any other past or present politician?  Do you think Hillary would have won the election after having a party bus tape revealed where she says, "grab 'em by the dick?"  Have other presidents attacked gold star families and skipped WW1 remembrance services because there was a little rain outside?

The list of questions could go on infinitely, but I think you get the point.  Trump doesn't know how to govern, lead, or unite us as a country.  He's a conman first and foremost, and so far it's looking like his administration will have passed _one_ piece of legislation in a four year term.  That's a failure by any standard, but obviously you're never going to hear Trump or his supporters own up to that reality.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Ever stop to think that maybe there's a focus on Trump because he's not like any other past or present politician?  Do you think Hillary would have won the election after having a party bus tape revealed where she says, "grab 'em by the dick?"  Have other presidents attacked gold star families and skipped WW1 remembrance services because there was a little rain outside?
> 
> The list of questions could go on infinitely, but I think you get the point.  Trump doesn't know how to govern, lead, or unite us as a country.  He's a conman first and foremost, and so far it's looking like his administration will have passed _one_ piece of legislation in a four year term.  That's a failure by any standard, but obviously you're never going to hear Trump or his supporters own up to that reality.


Those are actual things to complain about Trump. Just not this Russia thing. He even flat out said he pays people to do stuff for him.

That’s the thing about Trump, he says things in an Autistic way without any filter. Remember when both the Democratic Party and Republicans were against him during the election. He was always anti establishment from the beginning, because he was part of the establishment he knew what goes on and was acting as whistleblower.

He just says things that people avoided because they’re uncomfortable topics that people don’t have the answer to or because of some corrupt thing they did. Both parties hated him for that.

And Trump was never the man to lead or say anything smart and be a deep thinker. Him becoming president and exposing the ridiculousness of the political circus is his role.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 12, 2018)

SG854 said:


> He just says things that people avoided because they’re uncomfortable topics that people don’t have the answer to or because of some corrupt thing they did. Both parties hated him for that.
> 
> And Trump was never the man to lead or say anything smart and be a deep thinker. Him becoming president and exposing the ridiculousness of the political circus is his role.


Until he came on the scene, there was nothing that had ever been as ridiculous in the political circus as Trump.  He didn't expose anything new to the political world, he just came up with a bunch of asinine three-word catchphrases and didn't follow through on the promises implicit in any of them.  The swamp is fuller than ever, the wall isn't built or in progress, we have an anti-science climate change denier at the head of the EPA, and a criminal under FBI investigation as acting AG.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Nov 12, 2018)

Trump might have been elected to "drain the swamp," but frankly, the swamp has never been swampier. He's only exacerbated the joke that is politics.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Do you think Hillary would have won the election after having a party bus tape revealed where she says, "grab 'em by the dick?"  .



You didn't have to change the quote.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 17, 2019)

Like always the recent reports about Trumps Connections to Russia are fake News. And it’s just News outlets creating click baits to make money. Their evidence turns out to be nothing. The usual. Always happens. They act like they got something but it’s nothing. It’s a non stop cycle. At this point you would think people would start to get it.

The dossier has been discredited many times. We know it was paid by Hillary Clinton for this fake investigation. Assange was never a secret agent of Russia, and they are trying to crucify him.

We are seriously suppose to believe that Trump is a secret Russian spy for Putin. That Putin made him president to secretly infiltrate U.S. politics for Russia’s evil plan. It’s a complete joke. People that believe that should be laughed at. There’s is just too much evidence against that. It’s obvious.

This dumb investigation has gone too long. Either get rid of Trump or don’t. Just get rid of him already, they supposedly have solid evidence against him. So what are they waiting for? Impeach him already, we are sick of all this waiting. At this rate he’s going to finish his 4 years before any impeachment happens. Either do it or not. They don’t because they have no ties to Russia against him. People should just drop this Russia thing and focus on the other stupid things Trump does. There’s plenty of that.

This video says it best on this Russia Trump thing.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 17, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Like always the recent reports about Trumps Connections to Russia are fake News.


How many indictments and convictions for people close to Trump does it take before it becomes real?  I guess you'd need to live in reality before acknowledging something as real was possible, though.



SG854 said:


> This dumb investigation has gone too long.


And it'll keep going as long as it needs to.  It paid for itself already, so there's really no downside to that.



SG854 said:


> The dossier has been discredited many times.


Another point in the dossier was just proven true yesterday when we found out Trump was trying to pull us out of NATO.  Not a single point from it has been proven as false thus far.



SG854 said:


> So what are they waiting for? Impeach him already


If I had to guess, they're waiting for the tempter tantrum to end so government can re-open.  Also the Mueller report, although plenty of other investigations are happening simultaneously now too.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 18, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Like always the recent reports about Trumps Connections to Russia are fake News. And it’s just News outlets creating click baits to make money. Their evidence turns out to be nothing. The usual. Always happens. They act like they got something but it’s nothing. It’s a non stop cycle. At this point you would think people would start to get it.
> 
> The dossier has been discredited many times. We know it was paid by Hillary Clinton for this fake investigation. Assange was never a secret agent of Russia, and they are trying to crucify him.
> 
> ...



Wow...I really don't know where you get your world view from, but it's very opposite of mine.

* look...why would virtually all the world newspapers around the world suddenly decide to throw away their credentials and reputation they've earned throughout centuries in order to oppose one politician? Isn't it more likely that the allegations are, y'know...actually a real thing?
* sorry, but the evidence has turned out quite a lot. Did you miss the part where Trump's personal lawyer got sentenced to jail? Or Flynn? I could search and point out more, but I admit that if you don't believe any news source, I'm not going to bother.
* I'm not seeing anyone telling you that you should believe Trump is a Russian spy. There was an _investigation_ on him. An investigation means that they don't know, but that it poses a risk. Which is certainly true, as Trump certainly has a motive to help out Russia (he's building a Trump tower in Moscow). And in case you missed it: Trump played Putin's handpuppet in Helsinki. He blatantly ignores what secret service tells him and even endangers the lives of his own agents in the fields.
From what I read in the papers, it isn't so much that Trump is _actively _working for Russia as that he's too ignorant to see that his actions more or less come down to the same thing. Basically: he's too dumb to see that he's getting played (or perhaps worded better: he doesn't surround himself with people with enough political experience).
* "We know it was paid by Hillary Clinton for this fake investigation". No, we don't. It's just you who chose to believe that.
* I agree that this whole thing has gone on for way too long, but it's not that simple. It doesn't take a genius that Trump will keep twittering that he's innocent all the way until he's convicted and in jail (and if he gets his hands on a phone: even then some), and neither that many people will downright refuse to believe anyone else. Therefore, justice needs to work properly. One procedural mistake, and his attorney will get him out and there'll be EVEN MORE biassed twittered accounts. I too want Mueller to hurry up and present his findings. But really what is illegal? It's not illegal for Russians to tell lies on facebook (at best, it'd be lies in Russia). So...yeah. It takes a while. Sorry?


----------



## SG854 (Jan 18, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Wow...I really don't know where you get your world view from, but it's very opposite of mine.
> 
> * look...why would virtually all the world newspapers around the world suddenly decide to throw away their credentials and reputation they've earned throughout centuries in order to oppose one politician? Isn't it more likely that the allegations are, y'know...actually a real thing?
> * sorry, but the evidence has turned out quite a lot. Did you miss the part where Trump's personal lawyer got sentenced to jail? Or Flynn? I could search and point out more, but I admit that if you don't believe any news source, I'm not going to bother.
> ...


From what I read the people that were busted we’re for reasons that had no connections to Russia but for other reasons. 

Hillary did pay for the dossier. I thought that was an established by now.

Well whatever, I don’t care about the stupid details anymore, either hurry up and bust him or don’t. What’s the point of the investigation then if he’s going to finish his presidency. By the time they are done he going to finish his 4 yrs. They can bust him after with there evidence, but what’s the point. The damage and infection is already done.


----------

