All about Trump

[76woodenspooners]

In this context the emboldened means - could not demonstrate. Why? Becuz insufficient evidence. See also burden of proof.

Yes indeed, there was insufficient evidence, they could not satisfy the burden of proof ...

... which is why obstruction of justice comes into play.

Is the reason why they could not establish “... conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government ...” because justice was obstructed? E.g. Witnesses / evidence tampered with?

(It’s a sign of the times when MSM are banging on and on and on about obstruction, whilst making little effort to join the dots on why obstruction is important beyond it simply being a felony ...

... sometimes I wonder if MSM are deliberately propping Trump up with their behaviour)

The real purpose of the Mueller investigation was to protect the previous Administration, ...

Hang on, Mueller was appointed, and his terms of reference set by a Trump appointee?? (Rosenstein)

... which had kept its skirts lifted up in expectation of Hillary ascending the throne: i.e. damage control c/f Obama subverting the US Constitution's separation of powers doctrine [not that he was the only POTUS to do this]; Hillary selling US uranium to the Russians; Bengahzi; Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, etc.

How does any of that have anything to do with what Mueller was doing?

What relevance does “because democratic Presidents and candidates did bad stuff” have in investigating whether the Russians attempted to interfere in the 2016 election (universally acknowledged as true by all the intelligence agencies) and whether there was conspiracy + coordination with the Trump campaign?

Don’t ignore that Republicans have been getting away with stuff too. E.g. Mueller let Kushner off on a blatant breach of the Logan act.

And in this respect it has been, so far, successful, in that the only way you get to hear about these acts of treason is through non-MSM sources: ...

If MSM are truly trying to undermine Trump, they’re doing a poor job of it.

I reckon if MSM simply played Trump with a straight bat (cheering him when he does good, whacking him when does bad) he’d be far further down in the polls. But that would be boring and not good for ratings (business).

 

[Maggie5]

If anyone watches any live streaming on CNN or MSNBC, I wonder what they will do if Trump doesn't win in 2020?

What will they talk about unless the next President is just as bad.

Fox will be okay as they will still talk about the good Trump and the bad next President (assuming it is a Democrat).

Best thing is to take MSM both here and there with a grain of salt, watch as much live interviews/or read twitter feed, then make your own mind up methinks.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Fox will be okay as they will still talk about the good Trump and the bad next President (assuming it is a Democrat).

I‘d put current odds at ...

Trump 25% (Economy stabilises, North Korea comes in from the cold, Democrats put up left wing candidate)
Other Republican 30% (Trump steps down, or is beaten in primary when economy tanks, or dies, or is incapacitated,)
Democrat 45% (Trump wins primary, economy soft/tanking)

I reckon Harris will win the Democratic primary.

Biden - is too old and isn’t making any serious attempt to win it - he’s just going around like the Fonze “Hey, Hey, Hey <thumbs-up> vote for me <smile>”

Bernie - has become too niche

Buttigieg - very strong candidate, presents well, articulate, not sure that the US is ready to vote for an openly gay candidate though.

Warren - very strong amongst her supporters, just not sure the party would unite behind her.

Kloberchar, Gillibrand - not making impact

Booker - too reactive

O’Rourke - could be seen as potentially delivering Texas which improves his odds, not sure too many are taking him seriously but.

Williamson - could actually win it with the help of the Russians

Yang - not even pretending to be a serious candidate.

 

[Maggie5]

I‘d put current odds at ...

Trump 25% (Economy stabilises, North Korea comes in from the cold, Democrats put up left wing candidate)
Other Republican 30% (Trump steps down, or is beaten in primary when economy tanks, or dies, or is incapacitated,)
Democrat 45% (Trump wins primary, economy soft/tanking)

I reckon Harris will win the Democratic primary.

Biden - is too old and isn’t making any serious attempt to win it - he’s just going around like the Fonze “Hey, Hey, Hey <thumbs-up> vote for me <smile>”

Bernie - has become too niche

Buttigieg - very strong candidate, presents well, articulate, not sure that the US is ready to vote for an openly gay candidate though.

Warren - very strong amongst her supporters, just not sure the party would unite behind her.

Kloberchar, Gillibrand - not making impact

Booker - too reactive

O’Rourke - could be seen as potentially delivering Texas which improves his odds, not sure too many are taking him seriously but.

Williamson - could actually win it with the help of the Russians

Yang - not even pretending to be a serious candidate.

I liked Harris from the start since seeing her during House questioning but the scuttlebutt is all ready out about her and how she has slept her way to the top.

Agree with you on the rest and also have been impressed by Buttigieg.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I liked Harris from the start since seeing her during House questioning but the scuttlebutt is all ready out about her and how she has slept her way to the top.

IMO as long as Harris can convince voters that she has the capability to have gotten where she has on merit (and I think she can) then she’ll be OK.

Besides, I think sex scandals tend to help candidates more than hurt them ... unless they’re a puritanical candidate ... and although the body of evidence on that is with men, I don’t see it as hurting Harris.

 

[Thatsmyname]

Trump and Putin just got gored by a Tusk

 

[76woodenspooners]

Trump and Putin just got gored by a Tusk

Fair chance Trump will respond by trying to pull the US out of the G7.

 

[Thatsmyname]

"I have stayed in a number of his residences. At no stage during the limited time I spent with him did I see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction." Prince Andrew

Phew! well that's a relief

 

[76woodenspooners]

"I have stayed in a number of his residences. At no stage during the limited time I spent with him did I see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction." Prince Andrew

Phew! well that's a relief

That video just backs up his story that he spent time at Epstein’s residences?

 

[Thatsmyname]

That video just backs up his story that he spent time at Epstein’s residences?

Sure, if you ignore the 3 age innappropriate girls coming out, one seen to the door by the Prince himself as he furtively looks outside to see if anyone is looking... totes innocent

 

[76woodenspooners]

Sure, if you ignore the 3 age innappropriate girls coming out, one seen to the door by the Prince himself as he furtively looks outside to see if anyone is looking... totes innocent

Um, seeing three girls emerge from a residence - even if they are the type who you might ID if you were serving alcohol to - is hardly evidence of paedophilia. They could very well be EA’s / PA’s / housekeepers / cooks. Whilst paedophilia is a terrible crime, it’s also a terrible accusation - and one that people shouldn’t be implicated in (Prince Andrew) without due process. A spycam video of three girls exiting a residence - who don’t appear to be under any duress - doesn’t even remotely cut it.

 

[Thatsmyname]

Um, seeing three girls emerge from a residence - even if they are the type who you might ID if you were serving alcohol to - is hardly evidence of paedophilia. They could very well be EA’s / PA’s / housekeepers / cooks. Whilst paedophilia is a terrible crime, it’s also a terrible accusation - and one that people shouldn’t be implicated in (Prince Andrew) without due process. A spycam video of three girls exiting a residence - who don’t appear to be under any duress - doesn’t even remotely cut it.

Seriously dude, it's common knowledge, you don't go to all the parties, you don't hang out with those types for no reason

And you especially don't lie that you never knew what he was up to or what type of person he was when that video is taken after he was released from prison the first time

If you go back to your mates place after he got released from prison for rape and underage sex I'm pretty sure you know who he is by then, as if a Prince would risk the association (his handlers would have warned him) unless he was driven to it

 

[76woodenspooners]

Seriously dude, it's common knowledge, you don't go to all the parties, you don't hang out with those types for no reason

And you especially don't lie that you never knew what he was up to or what type of person he was when that video is taken after he was released from prison the first time

If you go back to your mates place after he got released from prison for underage sex I'm pretty sure you know who he is by then, as if a Prince would risk the association (as if his handlers hadn't told him) unless he was driven

Scandalous? Sure

Illegal? No

Undermine his claim that he didn’t know what Epstein was up to? Not at all.

 

[Thatsmyname]

Scandalous? Sure

Illegal? No

Undermine his claim that he didn’t know what Epstein was up to? Not at all.

You're arguing for the defence, and I'm not sure why

 

[76woodenspooners]

You're arguing for the defence, and I'm not sure why

Not really. I agree with you that it’s scandalous in a Daily Mail tabloid spy-video way. Kinda like how Prince Andrew’s ex wife was photographed getting her toes sucked.

As for illegal? My critical judgement on that is a lot higher - not as high as court burden of proof, but certainly higher than a video of three unknown women doing nothing remarkable.

 

[Thatsmyname]

Not really. I agree with you that it’s scandalous in a Daily Mail tabloid spy-video way. Kinda like how Prince Andrew’s ex wife was photographed getting her toes sucked.

Yeah kinda like that... if it was a 14 year old boy I guess

I get your rather bizarre defence attorney stance but if we asked if the Prince was engaged in underage sex or not, and you have a gun to your head and you have to guess the correct answer or get your brains blown out... well, we both know your answer

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Yeah kinda like that... if it was a 14 year old boy I guess

I get your rather bizarre defence attorney stance but if we asked if the Prince was engaged in underage sex or not, and you have a gun to your head and you have to guess the correct answer or get your brains blown out... well, we both know your answer

Interesting new legal process.

 

[Thatsmyname]

Interesting new legal process.

Would revolutionize the system, and you'd hear a lot more truth to boot

And just quietly I'd love that job

 

[Thatsmyname]

"Thanks Jeff"

Prince Andrew’s Epstein statement is baffling

Prince Andrew released an extensive statement overnight addressing his intensely scrutinised friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

www.news.com.au

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Would revolutionize the system, and you'd hear a lot more truth to boot

And just quietly I'd love that job

Would be a great job.

Dictator/Judge Jury Executioner, where do I apply?

 

[Thatsmyname]

Would be a great job.

Dictator/Judge Jury Executioner, where do I apply?

America evidently

 

[deltablues]

Yes indeed, there was insufficient evidence, they could not satisfy the burden of proof ...

... which is why obstruction of justice comes into play.

Is the reason why they could not establish “... conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government ...” because justice was obstructed? E.g. Witnesses / evidence tampered with?

(It’s a sign of the times when MSM are banging on and on and on about obstruction, whilst making little effort to join the dots on why obstruction is important beyond it simply being a felony ...

... sometimes I wonder if MSM are deliberately propping Trump up with their behaviour)



Hang on, Mueller was appointed, and his terms of reference set by a Trump appointee?? (Rosenstein)



How does any of that have anything to do with what Mueller was doing?

What relevance does “because democratic Presidents and candidates did bad stuff” have in investigating whether the Russians attempted to interfere in the 2016 election (universally acknowledged as true by all the intelligence agencies) and whether there was conspiracy + coordination with the Trump campaign?

Don’t ignore that Republicans have been getting away with stuff too. E.g. Mueller let Kushner off on a blatant breach of the Logan act.



If MSM are truly trying to undermine Trump, they’re doing a poor job of it.

I reckon if MSM simply played Trump with a straight bat (cheering him when he does good, whacking him when does bad) he’d be far further down in the polls. But that would be boring and not good for ratings (business).

The 'obstruction of justice' allegation was a Hail Mary triggered by the firing of FBI Director James Comey and politically is relevant to impeachment [see Bill Clinton].

But in all of the circumstances surrounding Comey and his cohorts - and as Nancy Pelosi has conceded - good luck with that. Why? The BOP for obstruction is the criminal standard- beyond reasonable doubt. Against a sitting President... Then Congress will intervene.

But in any event, the Mueller investigation was on the record a major disappointment to its Dem sponsors, and also an abuse of power and due process. The MSM and its pontificating pundits reacted with appalled silence, swiftly followed by petulant outrage.

PS My main interest in this conspiracy [not just Mueller] to oust a sitting President [Left or Right] is from a Constitutional law aspect. Without the Constitution and separation of powers we have no rule of law. The players and all the sturm und drang/click bait hyperbole do not much interest me in that regard.

 

[Kappa]

Yeah kinda like that... if it was a 14 year old boy I guess

I get your rather bizarre defence attorney stance but if we asked if the Prince was engaged in underage sex or not, and you have a gun to your head and you have to guess the correct answer or get your brains blown out... well, we both know your answer

Lmao you love this stupid non-nonsensical argument.

 

[Thatsmyname]

It's almost incomprehensible that Trump has supporters, they must be either witless troglodytes or share his racist sexist criminal view of the world

 

[Kappa]

It's almost incomprehensible that Trump has supporters, they must be either witless troglodytes or share his racist sexist criminal view of the world

You should hold a gun to their heads and ask them if they're paedophiles.