Mueller investigation conludes that Trump is guilty!

[JimL]

Bill Clinton was impeached for the felony crime of lying under oath (perjury) when he claimed, under oath, that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you have proof that Trump lied under oath about adulterous relationships, the comparison is irrelevant.

No, Trump didn't lie under oath, but he did lie just the same and we all know it. But that's not the crime that he is legally guilty of, the crime he is legally guilty of is using campaign funds to cover up the truth. Not much of a difference really, but both illegal, both crimes, both impeachable offences.

[Tassman]

Bill Clinton was impeached for the felony crime of lying under oath (perjury) when he claimed, under oath, that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you have proof that Trump lied under oath about adulterous relationships, the comparison is irrelevant.

Trump has lied, he lies all the time, but he hasn't lied under oath, because he hasn't been questioned under oath. Yet! OTOH Donald Trump Jr. and other close associates of the president have lied under oath and they are at risk of prosecution. Mueller has made clear that he is willing to criminally charge people for lying to Congress under oath.

[Mountain Man]

No, Trump didn't lie under oath, but he did lie just the same and we all know it. But that's not the crime that he is legally guilty of, the crime he is legally guilty of is using campaign funds to cover up the truth. Not much of a difference really, but both illegal, both crimes, both impeachable offences.

If Trump violated campaign finance laws (and most legal experts agree that he didn't despite Cohen's sketchy guilty plea), it happened prior to his becoming president, so he can't be impeached for it.

[Sparko]

So still no evidence of a Russian collusion to fix the election by Trump then?

[oxmixmudd]

So still no evidence of a Russian collusion to fix the election by Trump then?

That simply is not true. As best I can tell what there is not yet a smoking gun that without a doubt makes Trump consciously and provably culpable in driving, planning, directing the collusion that occurred. I know that for many of you that may well be sufficient to 'exonerate' Trump. But that just isn't even close to reality.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

That simply is not true. As best I can tell what there is not yet a smoking gun that without a doubt makes Trump consciously and provably culpable in driving, planning, directing the collusion that occurred. I know that for many of you that may well be sufficient to 'exonerate' Trump. But that just isn't even close to reality.

As best I can tell what there is not yet a smoking gun that without a doubt makes Hillary consciously and provably culpable in driving, planning, directing the trafficking of classified information on an unsecured private server that occurred. I know that for many of you that may well be sufficient to 'exonerate' Hillary. But that just isn't even close to reality.

[Mountain Man]

In other news, it seems that Obama attempted to openly bribe Reverend Wright to lay low until after the election.

https://nypost.com/2012/05/13/the-br...ilence-wright/

Are there any liberals who think he should have been impeached?

[oxmixmudd]

As best I can tell what there is not yet a smoking gun that without a doubt makes Hillary consciously and provably culpable in driving, planning, directing the trafficking of classified information on an unsecured private server that occurred. I know that for many of you that may well be sufficient to 'exonerate' Hillary. But that just isn't even close to reality.

I really doesn't matter if that is true or false*. Hillary's investigation is over, and it is thus irrelevant to the content of my reply to Sparko. There IS evidence of collusion between members of Trumps campaign and the Russians. It is clear the Russians were in fact in a tit-for-tat arrangement with at least some of the people close to Trump to help in whatever ways they could to get Trump elected. This would in any other era and with any other candidate than Trump be an intolerable and inexcusable situation.

Jim

*I was personally shocked at the lack of consequences to Hillary for her flagrant negligence as regards the email server. Nevertheless, I doesn't make me suddenly decide we should dismiss Trump being in bed with the Russians in his attempt to defeat Hillary in the election. And while Hillary's actions constitute negligence, they do not represent collusion with a foreign government over interests detrimental to our democracy.

[JimL]

In other news, it seems that Obama attempted to openly bribe Reverend Wright to lay low until after the election.

https://nypost.com/2012/05/13/the-br...ilence-wright/

Are there any liberals who think he should have been impeached?

Edward Klein is a hack and the NY Post is a rag. There is absolutely no evidence that any of that story is true and you can bet your bottom dollar that if there was republicans would have gone after Obama for it.

https://theweek.com/articles/475581/...eremiah-wright

[oxmixmudd]

In other news, it seems that Obama attempted to openly bribe Reverend Wright to lay low until after the election.

https://nypost.com/2012/05/13/the-br...ilence-wright/

Are there any liberals who think he should have been impeached?

Really. So not to put too fine a point on it, You would stoop so low as to try to justify Trump's collusion with the Russians? Or Trump's payoff to Stormy Daniels?

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Edward Klein is a hack and the NY Post is a rag. There is absolutely no evidence that any of that story is true and you can bet your bottom dollar that if there was republicans would have gone after Obama for it.

https://theweek.com/articles/475581/...eremiah-wright

You love the genetic fallacy, don't you? Your link contains not a shred of evidence refuting the New York Post's story.

[Mountain Man]

It is clear the Russians were in fact in a tit-for-tat arrangement with at least some of the people close to Trump to help in whatever ways they could to get Trump elected.

A nice theory except for one, insignificant problem: there's no evidence for it.

Even the virulently anti-Trump members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have said there is not a shred of evidence that Russia preferred one candidate or party over the other.

Senator Mark Warner: "This is one where there is no Democratic or Republican answer since clearly the goal of our adversaries was not to favor one party over the other. It was to wreak havoc and split divisions."

Senator Richard Burr: "I can say as it relates to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that we have no hard evidence of collusion."

[Mountain Man]

Really. So not to put too fine a point on it, You would stoop so low as to try to justify Trump's collusion with the Russians? Or Trump's payoff to Stormy Daniels?

I "justify it" only in the sense that 1) There is no evidence that Trump illegally conspired with Russia to swing the election; and 2) Trump making a non-disclosure arrangement with Stormy Daniels violated no laws.

[oxmixmudd]

I "justify it" only in the sense that 1) There is no evidence that Trump illegally conspired with Russia to swing the election; and 2) Trump making a non-disclosure arrangement with Stormy Daniels violated no laws.

1) The collusion thing will be denied by you till and unless there is a smoking gun tying Trump directly to the actions of his minions. The fact remains that there are a many around trump that have been proven to have conspired with the Russians. And that number, and there closeness to Trump, is growing.
2) There are many that believe you are incorrect about the legality of the Stormy Daniels payoff. And I am not so foolish as to ignore the fact there are many different professional opinions on that issue right now.

The reality is, again, that your response is irrelevant as regards my post. Your Obama reference is nothing more than an attempt to justify giving Trump a pass on his own actions.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

A nice theory except for one, insignificant problem: there's no evidence for it.

Even the virulently anti-Trump members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have said there is not a shred of evidence that Russia preferred one candidate or party over the other.

Senator Mark Warner: "This is one where there is no Democratic or Republican answer since clearly the goal of our adversaries was not to favor one party over the other. It was to wreak havoc and split divisions."

Senator Richard Burr: "I can say as it relates to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that we have no hard evidence of collusion."

That is a very idiotic thing to say. Because Putin himself validated that he preferred Trump as a candidate, and our intelligence shows that Russia acted with efforts to push public opinion towards Trump and away from Clinton. So all I can get from this is that you are willing to promote fables over reality in your quest to support all things Trump.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...on-2016-722486

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.a13e6c1cd841

Jim