Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[mojo84]

Russia has tried to influence our elections for decades. The US does the same.

[philbo]

... but I'm not interested.

And that sums up what's wrong with the silent GOP who have acquiesced and enabled the amoral activities of the current administration. If the story doesn't fit your preconceived narrative you just don't want to be bored with anything more than what you already believe to be true. To borrow from above:

If you don't see that, you are the one with his head stuck in the sand.

Bottom line, what tRump says for the next two years became a lot less important after the midterms. It seems that votes do matter, and apparently our president seems agitated he may not get his way any longer.

[rotor]

Not saying there was "collusion" but if there was what statute would have been violated? Is collusion illegal?

Trump and his surrogates have repeatedly sought to delegitimize the special counsel’s investigation by saying there was “no collusion” and calling the special counsel’s probe a “witch hunt.” By focusing on the word "collusion" one might miss the fact that the convictions of trumps former associates and indictments of more than 2 dozen russians has instead relied on statutes containing words such as “conspiracy,” “obstruction of justice” and making “false statements.”

As I asked (and I didn't ask you), is collusion illegal and you didn't answer but it was nice of you to change the subject. Jaywalking is illegal but not collusion. So we have to find another crime to go after Trump with because collusion is not illegal. The special prosecutor did uncover illegal actions by some of Trump's associates and they were collateral damage. Even if Trump had asked Putin for info to use against HRC (and I did not say he did), what Federal statute would he have violated?

[philbo]

Russia has tried to influence our elections for decades. The US does the same.

You're absolutely right. Illegals have been crossing the border for years, why care? It's only a misdemeanor. We build nukes, Russia and China build nukes, if N. Korea and Iran build nukes, why care? China steals intellectual property, but so has the US thru the years... why care? trump lies about protecting preexisting conditions, caravans and all manner of things, but all politicians lie, why care? Hillary did something years ago, but why would I be interested in that? Why care?

Your thoughtful and considered analysis is visionary in it's application. Truly applicable in any situation.

[bbhack]

... but I'm not interested.

And that sums up what's wrong with the silent GOP who have acquiesced and enabled the amoral activities of the current administration. If the story doesn't fit your preconceived narrative you just don't want to be bored with anything more than what you already believe to be true. To borrow from above:
Bottom line, what tRump says for the next two years became a lot less important after the midterms. It seems that votes do matter, and apparently our president seems agitated he may not get his way any longer.

And you address none of the points. I won.

[philbo]

Not saying there was "collusion" but if there was what statute would have been violated? Is collusion illegal?

Trump and his surrogates have repeatedly sought to delegitimize the special counsel’s investigation by saying there was “no collusion” and calling the special counsel’s probe a “witch hunt.” By focusing on the word "collusion" one might miss the fact that the convictions of trumps former associates and indictments of more than 2 dozen russians has instead relied on statutes containing words such as “conspiracy,” “obstruction of justice” and making “false statements.”

As I asked (and I didn't ask you), is collusion illegal and you didn't answer but it was nice of you to change the subject. Jaywalking is illegal but not collusion. So we have to find another crime to go after Trump with because collusion is not illegal. The special prosecutor did uncover illegal actions by some of Trump's associates and they were collateral damage. Even if Trump had asked Putin for info to use against HRC (and I did not say he did), what Federal statute would he have violated?

Never changed the subject, just pointed out that collusion was never used by anyone other than trump and his surrogates to distract from what Muellar was actually tasked to do. Attached is the original document authorizing the special counsel and what he was charged with investigating. Do you see the word "collusion"? Even once? Nope, no matter how far you stretch it. He was authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may rise directly from the investigation". The reference to 28 C.F.R. Section 600.4(a) authorizes Special Counsel Mueller to investigate and prosecute “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” So, the wild goose chase is you insisting we stick with the word "collusion" when the investigation was never hobbled with that limitation.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... Russia.pdf

As far as responding, when you post in a public forum, one should expect the public to respond. Kinda thought that was obvious, but maybe not.

[philbo]

... but I'm not interested.

And that sums up what's wrong with the silent GOP who have acquiesced and enabled the amoral activities of the current administration. If the story doesn't fit your preconceived narrative you just don't want to be bored with anything more than what you already believe to be true. To borrow from above:
Bottom line, what tRump says for the next two years became a lot less important after the midterms. It seems that votes do matter, and apparently our president seems agitated he may not get his way any longer.

And you address none of the points. I won.

A bunch of conclusory statements without any underlying reasoning or supporting facts is not a making a point. When you make a point I'll be sure to respond. Until you can do that, "I'm not interested."

[philbo]

Trump intimately involved in arranging Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal payoffs:

President Trump was personally involved in arranging hush money to a porn star and a Playboy centerfold despite his repeated denials that he was aware of the details, according to a bombshell report published Friday by The Wall Street Journal.
https://nypost.com/2018/11/09/trump-per ... -mcdougal/

[srothstein]

just pointed out that collusion was never used by anyone

I am not sure that the word collusion was only used by Trump and his associates, but I agree it was not used in the letter appointing Mueller as special counsel. But I also noted that you seem to have missed a significant point in the appointment that might make a difference. It says, as the primary purpose of the investigation:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

Now, I may not be an employee of Merriam-Webster but it seems to me that the term collusion is another way of saying "links and/or coordination". For a very interesting article on what collusion means, I suggest this one from the Columbia Journalism Review: https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/wha ... russia.php. And this article from Politico magazine is proof that someone other than Trump and his associates use the term collusion for the investigation target: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ion-215366 (and for everyone, this helps explain exactly which laws might have been broken and what other than just talking with the other side is needed).

It also seems to me that your not mentioning the first clause in your denials of the accusation being collusion is very misleading. I do not know if it was a deliberate attempt to mislead or not, and I try to not attribute to evil those actions which are properly attributed to incompetence. But I will point out that incompetence hurts your credibility as much as evil intent would. While admitting my bias based on my belief that the investigation is just more politics as usual, I must say that you do not seem to be winning this debate at this time. You have scored on some points, but you have been scored against on more of them, IMO. Considering the subject of this forum, your having won some points is more surprising to me than your having lost more.

[bbhack]

... but I'm not interested.

And that sums up what's wrong with the silent GOP who have acquiesced and enabled the amoral activities of the current administration. If the story doesn't fit your preconceived narrative you just don't want to be bored with anything more than what you already believe to be true. To borrow from above:
Bottom line, what tRump says for the next two years became a lot less important after the midterms. It seems that votes do matter, and apparently our president seems agitated he may not get his way any longer.

And you address none of the points. I won.

A bunch of conclusory statements without any underlying reasoning or supporting facts is not a making a point. When you make a point I'll be sure to respond. Until you can do that, "I'm not interested."

OK. How about a question? Do you believe that the new Acting AG will be friendly to the #SpyGate conspirators? Multiple choice: Brennan, Comey, Yates, Clinton, Obama, Page, Strzok, McCabe, Clapper, Ohr1, Ohr2, Power. That's enough for now.

[rotor]

Not saying there was "collusion" but if there was what statute would have been violated? Is collusion illegal?

Trump and his surrogates have repeatedly sought to delegitimize the special counsel’s investigation by saying there was “no collusion” and calling the special counsel’s probe a “witch hunt.” By focusing on the word "collusion" one might miss the fact that the convictions of trumps former associates and indictments of more than 2 dozen russians has instead relied on statutes containing words such as “conspiracy,” “obstruction of justice” and making “false statements.”

As I asked (and I didn't ask you), is collusion illegal and you didn't answer but it was nice of you to change the subject. Jaywalking is illegal but not collusion. So we have to find another crime to go after Trump with because collusion is not illegal. The special prosecutor did uncover illegal actions by some of Trump's associates and they were collateral damage. Even if Trump had asked Putin for info to use against HRC (and I did not say he did), what Federal statute would he have violated?

Never changed the subject, just pointed out that collusion was never used by anyone other than trump and his surrogates to distract from what Muellar was actually tasked to do. Attached is the original document authorizing the special counsel and what he was charged with investigating. Do you see the word "collusion"? Even once? Nope, no matter how far you stretch it. He was authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may rise directly from the investigation". The reference to 28 C.F.R. Section 600.4(a) authorizes Special Counsel Mueller to investigate and prosecute “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” So, the wild goose chase is you insisting we stick with the word "collusion" when the investigation was never hobbled with that limitation.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... Russia.pdf

As far as responding, when you post in a public forum, one should expect the public to respond. Kinda thought that was obvious, but maybe not.

And again, even if Trump or his people asked the Russians if they had any dirt on HRC (call it collusion or not) what Federal crime was committed?

[Abraham]

I'm so lucky, I don't care what liberal/socialist/commies opine...and so very glad we have an ignore feature, but sadly it doesn't work when they're comments are copied, so I hurry my reading past them...

[Gator Guy]

The midterm elections are over. The people have spoken. Maybe now the Senate can get down to the business of confirming the remaining nominations without further delay.

[G26ster]

I'm so lucky, I don't care what liberal/socialist/commies opine...and so very glad we have an ignore feature, but sadly it doesn't work when they're comments are copied, so I hurry my reading past them...

Right on Abraham! Also, for the life of me I don't know why folks insist on quoting multiples of previous posts for a one line comment. If you want to reply to a particular statement, for heaven's sake, how hard is it to strip out the portions of the multiple posts that have little or nothing to do with your comment.

[dale blanker]

And again, even if Trump or his people asked the Russians if they had any dirt on HRC (call it collusion or not) what Federal crime was committed?

It appears that the main question for Mueller's investigation was about obstruction of justice, the question being triggered by the President's comments to Comey, Comey's firing, and the President's comments afterward. Was there obstruction? Was hiding collusion the motivator to obstruct? Are there other factors, political or business or personal, to motivate the President to obstruct?

Stephen Schulhofer, a law professor at New York University, said the act of collusion can be either benign or criminal, depending on the circumstance.

“One of the most commonly used provisions of the U.S. Code, 18 USC §371, makes it a federal crime for two or more people to conspire ‘to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose,'” Schulhofer told us via email. “Agreeing (colluding) with someone for a perfectly lawful purpose, like arranging a game of golf or tennis, is not a crime. But colluding with the Russians, i.e. agreeing to cooperate, encourage or assist them in any way in pursuing anything they were doing that was illegal, is most certainly a crime.”

Do you remember?