- Jul 2, 2003
- 153,158
- 20,073
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, he was the sitting president at the time.His first term had not. But he was a predidential candidate for the 2012 race at the time.
His first term had not. But he was a predidential candidate for the 2012 race at the time.
So you are separating Trump himself from members of his campaign working on his behalf?
There is proof of collusion between his campaign and Russia. Intent matters.
Yes. Yes he didYes, a candidate that just also happened to be the elected president of the United States, filling out his first elected term to the Office of the President of the United States. And after he was reelected to the Office of the President of the United States, he did have more flexibility, during his second elected term.
Mkay. So I'll just stick to my first paragraph:
One thing that puzzles me about this thread is that as actual information unfolds from this investigation, it looks as if it is people on the left that seem to have the most to fear here. I'm kind of surprised because nobody in any high position should be able to come out of an investigation like this squeaky clean. But time will tell where this takes us.
I understand that Manafort has been nailed for things he did four years before the 2016 election. So, yeah.
Edit: Not "nailed", but the things they are calling him to the carpet on - alledged crimes - happened in that time frame. i.e. it's not about Trump.
The question is self explanatory
No, if there was proof, there would be charges. And there are no charges, so no proof has been shown as of yet.
Comey said no proof, media has it wrong, Trump not a focus of the investigation
DiAnne Feinstein no proof
Justice department no proof
House intelligence committee no proof
There is? Link please.
Been presented already. The guilty statement of Papadopoulos and the meeting of Junior, Kushner and Manafort with the Russian lawyer.
Maybe. But this thing reminds me a little of the George Zimmerman trial. I'd followed that case pretty closely and was shocked that they bothered to press charges, much less actually take it to trial. My secret weapon was a site called Theconservativetreehouse.com, who nailed that thing from the beginning. The result of the trial was exactly what I had expected, and said, on my two favorite political sites.I think you are wishfully thinking.
You are becoming confused between ‘collusion’ and ‘conspiracy’...
Been presented already. The guilty statement of Papadopoulos and the meeting of Junior, Kushner and Manafort with the Russian lawyer.
There is evidence there were contacts between trump campaign and russians. And since collusion is not a crime, you need to have evidence of a crime, such as conspiracy to do something that is actually illegal.
Each side here is overreacting to anything that comes out each day and there will be plenty more revealed in the coming months. IMO, there will be enough revealed to embarass both sides of this soap opera and will ultimately reveal, just how dirty politics is, from both parties.
That, and a lot of (willful) misinformation. One example is the claim that all of the emails from wikileaks.org were from the "hack" when in reality only the October ones were. The March era ones were obtained from a FOIA request earlier that year. Nor has it been established that Russia was behind the "hacking." This has just been presented as fact and assumed true, much like Iraq having WMDs. As far as Papadopoulos is concerned, the rest of the staff rejected his ideas and this was known since August. The only actual news was the guilty plea for lying about it at first.
I'm guessing that the hardliners are slurping up Rachel Maddow's or Keith Olbermann's crazy crap like the Gospel Truth again. Between this and the dossier, both sides are going to come out smelling like the sewers, but the Truly Faithful will say their own side smells like roses.
i.e. at least one side has the raw facts on their side. The other doesn't.Well, i think the hardliners are hearing what they want to hear on both ends.
You have trump supporters saying; look, manafort is indicted for stuff that has nothing to do with campaign and the low level guy just lied and none of that shows any conspiracy from campaign. On the surface, that is true, but more than likely, there is more to come.
On the other end, you have the left saying this proves collusion, which is a meaningless term.
All the elements are now in place...are there any Trump followers who now still insist that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and agents of the Russian government?
That’s collusion 101....connivance, complicity, plotting, secrecy.....
- The guilty statement by Papadopoulos shows that Trump and his people knew of Russia’s hacking well before the American people did.
- The same statement also reveals that an offer was made to share the material hacked.
- That offer was accepted when Junior et al agreed to meet with the Russian lawyer to ‘get the dirt’ on Clinton.
No, not at all. Looking for charges that have to do with an illegal action done on behalf of Trump, his team or him personally.
The guilty statement of Popadpiulos is regarding the illegal act of him lying to law enforcement. That is his crime, his lying to law enforcement is not a charge against anyone but him.
The 31 page indictment against Manafort was for actions taking place two years before Trump ran. Has nothing to do with the campaign.
Fifth request: what law was broken in that one time meeting?
Do you really believe all the hype about this.
There is no collusion on Trump.
What he called up Putin on his cell phone & asked them to do abra cadabra & somehow issue a magic spell that would rewrite the name I wrote in for my write in candidate which was then slipped into the voting machine. You really believe that?
If anyone colluded it was Hillary doing the money laundering into her foundation. Donna Brazille's book seems to show that pattern with the Clintons.
Please note...for the third time...I am not suggesting illegality at this point. Collusion is not an illegal act in itself. However, it does show the lie that Trump & Co have been pushing that they had no contact with the Russians in an attempt to get dirt on Clinton. They lied (surprise, surprise...) and I am suggesting they will pay a political price for that lying, unless their supporters are more naive than I estimate...
Any criminally illegal activities that they may have been involved with will surface later....
Mueller is only interested in laws being broken. He could care less about those doing things which appear unethical, virtually all politicians would be in trouble then. Mueller is running a criminal investigation, not an ethics investigation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?