• 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!

What About Collusion?

HowardBThiname said:
Scroll back in this thread. Is your attention span truly that short?
Click to expand...

I did and I saw nothing that you referred to. Could you please reproduce it or say in which post it is suppose to be contained in?
 
HowardBThiname said:
And yet, Mueller, in the 13 Russian indictment, said any Americans involved were "unwitting," which means they did not intentionally try to collude. And, without intention, there is no collusion.

I love the way you make up the rules as you go along.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure if there is any collusion going on (I suppose that maybe we'll find out if the investigation ever wraps up). Played like a fiddle? Yes. Incredible acts of stupidity? Yes. But willful collusion? I'm not sure about that, there would need to be some harder evidence to show that one.
 
LowDown said:
Not a scintilla of evidence has come out that justifies and supports Mueller's continued activities with regard to his original mandate as special prosecutor. It's almost like that was nothing more than an excuse to get the machinery working that would be used to remove a duly and legally elected President by whatever means necessary.

It's no use saying that Mueller has a collusion indictment in the works. If he had anything we'd have seen it by now.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ts-of-mueller-action-but-what-about-collusion
Click to expand...

Did Nixon personally break into any buildings?
 
HowardBThiname said:
Do you think that hasn't already been extensively investigated?
Click to expand...

In a little more than a year? Doubtful. How many years did Starr investigate Whitewater without getting anywhere? Why are the rules different this time? Oh wait, I already know the answer to the last one.
 
HowardBThiname said:
And yet, Mueller, in the 13 Russian indictment, said any Americans involved were "unwitting," which means they did not intentionally try to collude. And, without intention, there is no collusion.

I love the way you make up the rules as you go along.
Click to expand...

Without intention there can still be crimes committed.
 
WCH said:
It was never about collusion and everyone involved knows it. It was about bringing Trump down...period.
Click to expand...

That's exactly it. The leftists/globalists would very much like to see a duly elected president overthrown and they will stop at nothing to fulfill their selfish desires. It's a grave injustice when it comes right down to it.

"The ends justify the means."
 
jnug said:
Garbage...BS...So your premise for it not being there is because YOU...the mighty you have not seen it yet. Let me know when you come down off your mountain.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite. Where is it?
 
I think Trump is trying to make american great again, you know...meet or exceed the number of Nixon indictments like in the good old days before the conservative "Establishment" ruined it.

Crimes_by_Admin.png

It's not a witch hunt...it's shooting fish in a barrel. Republicans cannot help it if they are far more likely to be criminals, it's what their voters love and cherish.

Crimes_by_Admin_Party_comp.png
 
I can understand why people are so confused about Mueller if they only get their news from right wing sources. Here is what Mueller has the authority to prosecute and investigate: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Collusion is a part of the investigation. It is not the entire investigation. It never was, and right wing sources have been lying about that since it began.
 
DamnYankee said:
That's exactly it. The leftists/globalists would very much like to see a duly elected president overthrown and they will stop at nothing to fulfill their selfish desires. It's a grave injustice when it comes right down to it.

"The ends justify the means."
Click to expand...

Rightists are willing to let a foreign hostile government influence our elections, and our president to obstruct justice, as long as it's a Republican.

Impeachment isn't overthrowing your king. It's a duly-applied constitutional process.
 
cuban smokes said:
I agree with haymarket: there has been enuff info leaked already that implicates several associates within the Trump orbit.
Does that mean that Trump is also guilty?
Maybe, maybe not. It means the investigation needs to be completed so that the (bolded) question can have a firm answer established, period.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. But I disagree with a Special Fisherman getting to lollygag along and drop his bomb where it will do the most harm to his target - right before the mid terms, regardless of the facts.

Mueller should have put up or shut up a year ago.

But he was appointed as "an agent of change" not justice. He is out to get Trump and if he can't get Trump he can try to influence the election just a Comey did.

The FBI is now nothing more than another out of control bureaucracy.
 
Mr Person said:
Did Nixon personally break into any buildings?
Click to expand...

No. And he was never proven to have done anything criminal.

Which goes to show that what Democrats are hanging their hats on is the idea that you can kick up enough dust to get a Republican to resign even while not showing he did anything wrong. (They dearly love their memories of the Nixon years, they do.)

I predict that they will have a lot more trouble doing this to Trump, though. Trump is a thousand times more resilient than Nixon. In a sense he's been dealing with this sort of thing all of his professional life. 18 months of kicking up dust in an hysterical and unprecedented fashion and the Democrats and the media haven't even slowed Trump down.
 
MrPeanut said:
I can understand why people are so confused about Mueller if they only get their news from right wing sources. Here is what Mueller has the authority to prosecute and investigate: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Collusion is a part of the investigation. It is not the entire investigation. It never was, and right wing sources have been lying about that since it began.
Click to expand...

And if it is such a big deal why hasn't Mueller done anything about it? Mueller is strategically leaking, but not about collusion. Why? There is nothing there central to his case, so now he is wandering far and wide looking for more Scooter Libby's guilty of process crimes - the poor bastards that contracted a ten month old E mails and face 30 years in jail "unless they tell a story".
 
rocket88 said:
In a little more than a year? Doubtful. How many years did Starr investigate Whitewater without getting anywhere? Why are the rules different this time? Oh wait, I already know the answer to the last one.
Click to expand...

The rules aren't different. But, a year is plenty of time to investigate a specific person for a specific infraction.
 
chuckiechan said:
And if it is such a big deal why hasn't Mueller done anything about it? Mueller is strategically leaking, but not about collusion. Why? There is nothing there central to his case, so now he is wandering far and wide looking for more Scooter Libby's guilty of process crimes - the poor bastards that contracted a ten month old E mails and face 30 years in jail "unless they tell a story".
Click to expand...

We don't know what Mueller knows. I understand the negative impact an investigation can have politically. Look at Hillary Clinton. That doesn't mean that it is responsible of news sources to make up a bunch of crap to discredit all of this. We are on the outside making guesses about the investigation with extremely little information. News sources love it because they make money off all of this guesswork. We don't have to fall for it. Same goes for left-wing sources that think Russia is behind everything.
 
rocket88 said:
In a little more than a year? Doubtful. How many years did Starr investigate Whitewater without getting anywhere? Why are the rules different this time? Oh wait, I already know the answer to the last one.
Click to expand...

Starr did get somewhere. He got President Clinton on perjury and obstruction of justice, such offenses credible enough for a federal judge to hold Pres. Clinton in contempt of court, enough for the Supreme Court to bar him from arguing from the high court, and enough for the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar him at least temporarily--I don't know for sure whether he petitioned to be reinstated after his five years suspension but I don't believe he was.

All that of course was beyond the original mandate of the special counsel, but it is different from the current situation in that the primary crime they got him on was while he was in the office of President. President Trump has essentially been exonerated on the question of collusion, and what they're trying to get him on now happened before he was elected or announced as a candidate. Since the people who voted for him certainly knew he was no angel, was a notorious womanizer, etc. etc., and they voted for him anyway, his past is now moot and should be off limits to a special counsel.

For the record, I thought it inappropriate to appoint a special counsel to investigate something that might have been illegal before President Clinton was elected. The FBI, Treasury, etc. of course can do whatever investigation is warranted before any statutes of limitations run out, but the people certainly knew about Whitewater when he was elected and therefore it was not an important issue for them and there is no justification for spending millions of unbudgeted taxpayer dollars in an attempt to destroy him.
 
LowDown said:
It's no use saying that Mueller has a collusion indictment in the works. If he had anything we'd have seen it by now.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would a prosecutor reveal his case BEFORE he's done with the investigation?
 
GDViking said:
I'm sure it has.

I'm just as sure charges are pending...
Click to expand...

Starr Investigation of Clinton: Over 4 years

Watergate Investigation: 23 months

So if history is any predictor, we may barely be at halftime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom