Mueller Indicts 13 - page 3

U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al Those indicted supported many candidates except Hillary Clinton - including Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Jill Stein. However, even though they opposed... Read More

  1. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Well, for one, we are going to build a great, magnificent wall, to deter illegal aliens from interfering in our elections. We will instate a tougher vetting process for those coming into the U.S. We will enact voter ID laws, so that only citizens of each county are voting, once. The GEOTUS is doing a lot to protect the U.S. elections.

    But I'm willing to bet you don't support any of those efforts.
    I don't know where you're getting that 'the wall' is actually happening, particularly with Mexico paying for it as promised. What appears more likely is a continuation of adding physical barriers along the border, likely at about the same rate that Obama was adding new barrier.

    Trump has not proposed anything new to the vetting process, other than keeping people out based broadly on race or religion. The only change he's proposed is calling the same vetting process that Obama used "extreme" vetting, literally a change in name only.

    There have only been a few cases of illegal aliens attempting to vote, there is no evidence illegal aliens votes are being counted to any meaningful degree, which is why Trump disbanded his voter fraud commission; they just couldn't come up with the storyline they wanted to.

    There's no evidence voter ID laws reduce the potential for voter fraud, and they do nothing to prevent someone from attempting to vote more than once, it's the process by which elections are overseen that catches and prevents fraud.
    Last edit by MunoRN on Feb 17
  2. by   Lil Nel
    I think Mueller has very cleverly backed Trump into a corner. We shall see how he emerges from this from this, but as this analysis points out, he will have to do something.

    But honestly, when will he have the time? Did you hear/read about the second porn star to allegedly have an affair with the Bum? These porn stars are falling out of the Trump clown car almost as fast as Russians!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.51a6c5767cb7
  3. by   toomuchbaloney
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Why do you say Trump apologists? I'm not apologizing for Trump, because there is nothing to apologize for. He is making America great, and after 18 months, the investigation still has nothing on him.

    But Trump supporters are the conspiracy theorists...
    Please provide your evidence that "the investigation has nothing on him". As far as I know they're has been no public declaration of that belief. In the absence of a statement to that effect from Mueller's team, I'm going to just call this assumption stated as fact. Or fake news.
  4. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    Please provide your evidence that "the investigation has nothing on him". As far as I know they're has been no public declaration of that belief. In the absence of a statement to that effect from Mueller's team, I'm going to just call this assumption stated as fact. Or fake news.
    I think it is a talking point touted by DJT.
  5. by   elkpark
    Quote from Lil Nel
    I think Mueller has very cleverly backed Trump into a corner. We shall see how he emerges from this from this, but as this analysis points out, he will have to do something.

    But honestly, when will he have the time? Did you hear/read about the second porn star to allegedly have an affair with the Bum? These porn stars are falling out of the Trump clown car almost as fast as Russians!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.51a6c5767cb7
    Bannon claims, in Wolff's book, that there were a lot more than the ones we know about ...

    Bannon: Trump's lawyer 'took care' of 'a hundred' women during campaign - BI
  6. by   BCgradnurse
    Quote from Lil Nel
    I think it is a talking point touted by DJT.
    Or by his Russian handlers.
  7. by   heron
    Hey, itsybitsy! Advanced English pop quiz:

    Are these sentences the same or different? Explain your answer.

    There is no proof of collusion by Trump.
    There is proof of no collusion by Trump.
    Last edit by heron on Feb 18
  8. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from elkpark
    What have you been smoking? The original investigation was into Russian interference in the election. The allegations of possible collusion by members of the Trump administration only arose as that investigation unfolded, and names of people in and around the campaign kept cropping up.

    You're inventing your own personal storyline as you go (sort of like your idol).
    Oh really? Please, tell me when it started.

    Because it seems you have inconsistencies within your own circle, as MuroRN believes it was always about the "campaign staff as whole", the purpose of the investigation.

    Quote from MunoRN
    it was always about campaign staff as a whole, from the order that opened that particular investigation: "any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.."

    Again, the purpose of the investigation was to look into the Trump campaign as a whole, and based on what we already know there was more than enough reason to investigate the situation due to the actions of various specific individuals in the campaign.
  9. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    I'm not sure where you're getting that the investigation was ever limited to Trump's individual actions related to interference, it was always about campaign staff as a whole, from the order that opened that particular investigation: "any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.."
    I'm pointing out how it's largely reported as. I think it SHOULD be about individuals, and drag Trump into it if they find incriminating information on him, specifically. I don't think it should have been the Trump campaign, because it is very misleading to many people, and some use it to their advantage to act as if Trump is at all involved, when that's not evident.

    Quote from MunoRN
    His stated views have been inconsistent, but it's not correct that Trump never disputed Russia's attempted to interfere was accurate, instead he referred to Russian interference (separate from the question of collusion) as a hoax: "The Russia hoax continues, now it's ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?" This has come through in his actions, since he has refused to enact sanctions against Russia for interference.
    I think it's about interpretation. I feel like Trump said that because it was another headline of, "Look, more evidence Trump colluded!" which is what I think trump was referring to. He feels as though that's something for someone to point to him that he did something, when he didn't - hence a hoax. I think this because the second bit about Hillary, is that other people, the MSM, had MUCH MORE propaganda for Clinton, opposing Trump, and no one bats an eye. It's the same thing on both sides, but no one accuses Clinton of attempting to meddle in elections by having the MSM interfere, with their propaganda. Obviously that's not colluding, because it's American's (that we know of), but the constant slander in untrue stories and "breaking news" about not-so-much breaking news. He isn't accusing Clinton of something illegal, but showing the hypocrisy, that for him, Russian interference means collusion, but for Clinton, MSM constant slander, just means favorability.

    Quote from MunoRN
    Again, the purpose of the investigation was to look into the Trump campaign as a whole, and based on what we already know there was more than enough reason to investigate the situation due to the actions of various specific individuals in the campaign. I don't think there's any standard that so long as some members of a campaign aren't attempting to cooperate with Russia that we should just ignore the whole thing all together.
    Sure, don't ignore it. Investigate that until it's nothing. My issue is reporting and regurgitating that Trump is involved. No one knows that, and has no reasons to besides what members of his campaign have done - again, not what Trump has. And what his campaign members have done, none of them have been indicted for doing anything having to do with Russia, their charges are lying or money laundering. So really, again nothing that would show that the campaign members even colluded. Not saying you believe this, but this is the argument. That Trump WILL be guilty of colluding with Russia because his campaign members lied to the FBI and there were 13 Russians who bought ads, some in favor of Trump. It really is exhausting explaining this.

    Also, who openly pursued cooperation with the Russian government?
  10. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    I don't know where you're getting that 'the wall' is actually happening, particularly with Mexico paying for it as promised. What appears more likely is a continuation of adding physical barriers along the border, likely at about the same rate that Obama was adding new barrier.

    Trump has not proposed anything new to the vetting process, other than keeping people out based broadly on race or religion. The only change he's proposed is calling the same vetting process that Obama used "extreme" vetting, literally a change in name only.

    There have only been a few cases of illegal aliens attempting to vote, there is no evidence illegal aliens votes are being counted to any meaningful degree, which is why Trump disbanded his voter fraud commission; they just couldn't come up with the storyline they wanted to.

    There's no evidence voter ID laws reduce the potential for voter fraud, and they do nothing to prevent someone from attempting to vote more than once, it's the process by which elections are overseen that catches and prevents fraud.
    All of these things need to be voted on by Congress. These are things Trump WANTS and what a large majority of his base WANTS. Just because they haven't been done, doesn't mean they aren't wanted by many people, or that they won't be done. Have you seen the wall prototypes? Oh, that wall is going up.

    I think the vetting process is after the wall deal. I presume that's what's to come after we have secured our Southern border, as then we can focus on people traveling through customs, as we DO have a process for that already. We just want to make it better.

    People can't even figure out how many people are REALLY in this country illegally. How do you expect them to know who is voting and where? The voter fraud commission was disbanded because states refused to give their voter information. That WOULD help in identifying areas of voter fraud.

    It's not about voting more than once, it's who is voting. A single person could vote more than once, under different names. If you ever have time or interest, check out information on how many deceased people are still registered to vote. It's a real thing, since many people don't think to update that when a loved one dies, as it's not a priority, and most people don't even know they stay registered after death.
  11. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    Please provide your evidence that "the investigation has nothing on him". As far as I know they're has been no public declaration of that belief. In the absence of a statement to that effect from Mueller's team, I'm going to just call this assumption stated as fact. Or fake news.
    Oh, has there been a public declaration of the belief that Trump colluded?
  12. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from heron
    Hey, itsybitsy! Advanced English pop quiz:

    Are these sentences the same or different? Explain your answer.

    There is no proof of collusion by Trump.
    There is proof of no collusion by Trump.
    Well I guess I'll play your silly game, since that's all you all really have anymore...

    Mhm, I think they are the different, but the outcomes are, realistically, the same.

    The first sentence, "no proof of collusion", suggests that nothing has come to light to charge Trump with collusion, so you cannot indict him.

    The second sentence, "proof of no collusion", suggests that there IS evidence to clear Trump's name. However, I don't think you can prove something of undoing. Just because you proved he didn't colluded on one aspect, doesn't mean that there isn't another aspect where he did collude, that they haven't found. But by that logic, all investigations would never end. You cannot endlessly investigate when you consistently find nothing. So as the first sentence, nothing has come to light to charge Trump with collusion, so you cannot indict him.

    Which is why, in previous threads, I have asked how long an investigation should go on despite not finding anything to indict on. There is no good answer for that, as that is just what our investigatory arms will have to decide, but some suggested 3 years, as the investigation on Bill Clinton took about that same amount of time.
  13. by   heron
    Perhaps i should have specified public proof ... you have no more idea than I have what evidence Mueller actually has. So...only the first senence is actually true. So far, the investigation has produced multiple indictments, so I wouldn't exactly call it fruitless.

    Meanwhile, we now have pretty compelling proof that the fake news of Russian involvment in the 2016 election isn't fake, after all.

    As for the silly game, claiming that both statements mean the same thing, as Trump has done, is what's silly.

    This is far from over ...

close