• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A P fact check-Trump says Collus sion is disproved;it's not

shrubnose

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
residen
While speaking in defense of his mental capabilities President Donald Trump said the Question of collusion between his 2016 campaign andRussians is gone,another premature death announcement.

Read more here: Channel - SFGate

What dou think?I think this is bad for Trump.
 
shrubnose said:
residen
While speaking in defense of his mental capabilities President Donald Trump said the Question of collusion between his 2016 campaign andRussians is gone,another premature death announcement.

Read more here: Channel - SFGate

What dou think?I think this is bad for Trump.
Click to expand...

Not if he turns out to be right, as seems very likely now, that Mueller finding nothing is forced into obstruction of justice,

AKA PLAN B
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
residen
While speaking in defense of his mental capabilities President Donald Trump said the Question of collusion between his 2016 campaign andRussians is gone,another premature death announcement.

Read more here: Channel - SFGate

What dou think?I think this is bad for Trump.
Click to expand...

Link isn't working....
 
shrubnose said:
residen
While speaking in defense of his mental capabilities President Donald Trump said the Question of collusion between his 2016 campaign andRussians is gone,another premature death announcement.

Read more here: Channel - SFGate

What dou think?I think this is bad for Trump.
Click to expand...

Even the rabid Trump hating FBI agent Strzok admitted there was nothing to the collusion thing in a text to his Trump hating girl friend. Only the irrational still believe there is something there.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Not if he turns out to be right, as seems very likely now, that Mueller finding nothing is forced into obstruction of justice,

AKA PLAN B
Click to expand...

Which is a serious offence and Trump will have only himself to blame.

But good to know you will still support a President who is shown to have broken the law.
 
The bottom line is: Trump has the legal right to fire Meuller and Comey and the only thing he has to worry about is the political fallout. As far as obstruction of justice, who is the witness? James Comeywho has already perjured himself in the Clinton testimony.

Then we have the problem of getting inside the presidents head as to exactly what he meant when he talked to Comey. Comey can say what he thought he meant, but without a witness Comey is only as good as his reputation as a perjurer and the nations most crooked cop for playing charades with the Clinton server and the email investigation.
 
shrubnose said:
residen
While speaking in defense of his mental capabilities President Donald Trump said the Question of collusion between his 2016 campaign andRussians is gone,another premature death announcement.

Read more here: Channel - SFGate

What dou think?I think this is bad for Trump.
Click to expand...

Its not bad simply because Trump supporters are not capable of independent thought. They will believe what they are told.
 
chuckiechan said:
The bottom line is: Trump has the legal right to fire Meuller and Comey and the only thing he has to worry about is the political fallout. As far as obstruction of justice, who is the witness? James Comeywho has already perjured himself in the Clinton testimony.

Then we have the problem of getting inside the presidents head as to exactly what he meant when he talked to Comey. Comey can say what he thought he meant, but without a witness Comey is only as good as his reputation as a perjurer and the nations most crooked cop for playing charades with the Clinton server and the email investigation.
Click to expand...

Then why is it that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (S.C.) - who is one of the senior Republican senators - is saying that if Trump fired Mueller, it would be the end of Trump's presidency?

President Donald Trump would bring the downfall of his presidency if he fired Special Counsel Robert Mueller like he had planned to do last year, Senator Lindsey Graham said Sunday.

“It’s pretty clear to me that everybody in the White House knows that it’d be the end of President Trump’s presidency if he fired Mr. Mueller,” Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, told ABC News’ This Week.

Graham is the author of one of two bills that have been proposed to prevent a president from firing a special counsel. On Sunday, he was one of two prominent Republicans who broke from their party’s leadership and said such a law might be necessary for their own president. Their comments came after a report last week that Trump had ordered in June 2017 for Mueller to be fired from the investigation into the Trump campaign’s suspected Russia ties.

Oh, wait - let me guess - that's fake news too!
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Then why is it that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (S.C.) - who is one of the senior Republican senators - is saying that if Trump fired Mueller, it would be the end of Trump's presidency?

President Donald Trump would bring the downfall of his presidency if he fired Special Counsel Robert Mueller like he had planned to do last year, Senator Lindsey Graham said Sunday.

“It’s pretty clear to me that everybody in the White House knows that it’d be the end of President Trump’s presidency if he fired Mr. Mueller,” Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, told ABC News’ This Week.

Graham is the author of one of two bills that have been proposed to prevent a president from firing a special counsel. On Sunday, he was one of two prominent Republicans who broke from their party’s leadership and said such a law might be necessary for their own president. Their comments came after a report last week that Trump had ordered in June 2017 for Mueller to be fired from the investigation into the Trump campaign’s suspected Russia ties.

Oh, wait - let me guess - that's fake news too!
Click to expand...

"Lindsey Graham says..." is rarely a serious argument.
 
shrubnose said:
residen
While speaking in defense of his mental capabilities President Donald Trump said the Question of collusion between his 2016 campaign andRussians is gone,another premature death announcement.

Read more here: Channel - SFGate

What dou think?I think this is bad for Trump.
Click to expand...

What so far no evidence and even if there was collusion is not a crime unless you are talking antitrust laws.
Geez.

So let's see the proof or evidence ol yea there isn't one.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Not if he turns out to be right, as seems very likely now, that Mueller finding nothing is forced into obstruction of justice,

AKA PLAN B
Click to expand...

No evidence of obstruction either.
Just people grasping at straws.
 
Kreton said:
Its not bad simply because Trump supporters are not capable of independent thought. They will believe what they are told.
Click to expand...

Cool then you have evidence that he has broken the law?
You should turn that over to the FBI.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
"Lindsey Graham says..." is rarely a serious argument.
Click to expand...

Oh, what STELLAR logic! When it comes to how politics and the law work in DC, between Hawkeye10's word and that of a senior sitting U.S. senator, we're supposed to simply dismiss the senator's words...'cause Hawkeye know SO much more than that senator about how DC works!
 
ludin said:
No evidence of obstruction either.
Just people grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

They have Trumps words, which they can define to suit their purposes, and given that the ends justify the means now, given the low regard of justice now, given that feelings matter more than truth now.....you are WAY overly optimistic.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Oh, what STELLAR logic! When it comes to how politics and the law work in DC, between Hawkeye10's word and that of a senior sitting U.S. senator, we're supposed to simply dismiss the senator's words...'cause Hawkeye know SO much more than that senator about how DC works!
Click to expand...

I told you how it works. Trump can fire both or one of them and take the political fall out. If you can't understand that, there is nothing more to be said.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Not if he turns out to be right, as seems very likely now, that Mueller finding nothing is forced into obstruction of justice,

AKA PLAN B
Click to expand...

Actually, Mueller finding nothing would not show that there was no collusion. It would only show that Mueller had been unable to find any evidence of collusion.
 
Fishking said:
Even the rabid Trump hating FBI agent Strzok admitted there was nothing to the collusion thing in a text to his Trump hating girl friend. Only the irrational still believe there is something there.
Click to expand...

AT that time...Hating is your word. People can disapprove without hating. Evidently you cannot.
 
Fishking said:
Even the rabid Trump hating FBI agent Strzok admitted there was nothing to the collusion thing in a text to his Trump hating girl friend. Only the irrational still believe there is something there.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...did he? Do you have a link?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Actually, Mueller finding nothing would not show that there was no collusion. It would only show that Mueller had been unable to find any evidence of collusion.
Click to expand...
innocent until proven guilty ring a bell?

no evidence no crime.
 
ludin said:
innocent until proven guilty ring a bell?

no evidence no crime.
Click to expand...

The first part is correct, the second part, not so much. A crime may in fact be committed, for which the criminal leaves no traceable or discoverable evidence. I would agree that if Mueller finds no evidence of collusion, there would be no reason for most people--and possibly all people--to believe collusion existed.
 
shrubnose said:
residen
While speaking in defense of his mental capabilities President Donald Trump said the Question of collusion between his 2016 campaign andRussians is gone,another premature death announcement.

Read more here: Channel - SFGate

What dou think?I think this is bad for Trump.
Click to expand...

I haven't paid this much attention at all. From the get go, the day after the election it seems to be the Democrats were out to destroy Trump. Perhaps if that wasn't the case, I might be more interested. But it seemed to me and still does, this is a very partisan affair. A means to get back at Trump for defeating Hillary. Although Hillary's defeat was her own fault. She ran an very inept campaign, failed to energize her supporters, was in my opinion lazy, she probably took the election for granted. Feeling being next in line was enough. Her strategy of running up the score so she could receive more electoral votes than Obama did failed. Hillary lost it, Trump didn't win it.

This Russian thing from my point of view had all the footprints of an excuse for losing, not being willing to worked hard enough. If the democrats want to win the next election, they better take a good hard look at their candidate and learn from her mistakes.

With this Russian thing, if Mueller finds something there, then I'll pay attention to it. If not, it seems like sour grapes to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom