• 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!

Mueller's Many Mistakes

There was no conspiracy by Trump with Russia.

Mueller did NOT conclude that there was no conspiracy. The statement that Mueller issued was that he could not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired with the Russian government. He could not meet that legal standard in court. Mueller did not state if a conspiracy on some level or involving some people existed or not existed.

In fact, this is the statement from his report

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts DOES NOT MEAN there was no evidence of those facts."



There is a difference is stating there was no conspiracy and in stating that one could not establish a conspiracy in court in a legal proceeding.
 
Mueller found that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and repeatedly worked to make that happen. Mueller found that the Trump Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen through Russian efforts.

Mueller found that Trump publicly invited Russia to help him get elected.

Mueller found over 140 instances of links between the Russians and the Trump Campaign.

Both worked to get to the same goal: the election of Trump and both benefitted or though they would benefit from the success of each other.

That is the essence of cooperation.

Every country in the world has an interest in a presidential election. It's been that way since 1944.
The issue at hand isn't whether Russia thought they would benefit from a Trump presidency. It's not even so much if Russia tried to make this happen. It's whether the Trump campaign participated. That's been the raging debate since 2016. And they didn't.

The rest is all politics. And investigations and trials have no business there.
 
Mueller did NOT conclude that there was no conspiracy. The statement that Mueller issued was that he could not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired with the Russian government. He could not meet that legal standard in court. Mueller did not state if a conspiracy on some level or involving some people existed or not existed.

In fact, this is the statement from his report

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts DOES NOT MEAN there was no evidence of those facts."



There is a difference is stating there was no conspiracy and in stating that one could not establish a conspiracy in court in a legal proceeding.

And as this is the USA, it means no conspiracy.
 
Well, he's definitely under audit.

How do you know? Do you work for the IRS? Even if the sitting president gets audited every year as you claim, it would only be for 2018 at this time. It does not take the IRS years to audit anyone. So where are his returns for previous years, like 2010 through 2017? What is this spell he has on his ardent supporters that keeps them blind to his obvious bull****?
 
Because Mueller didn't find anything.

Geebus, but you Trumpsters are relentlessly in denial!

Mueller found plenty. Read the report. He simply made the decision that he did not have enough to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Steele claimed no such thing. He found a possibility and reported it. And Mueler did use it as one tool in the obstruction investigation, if for no other reason than that Trump kept mentioning it, and Comey refused to answer when asked if the FBI was still investigating the dossier's contents. It's all in Volume II.

The conspiracy investigation, detailed in Volume I, does not mention the dossier. It wasn't necessary. The FBI had recorded dozens of contacts between Trump's senior campaign officials and known Russian officials and operatives. But because Mueller did not think the evidence added up to a conspiracy, and that he did not think the evidence was enough to prove direct coordination, no conspiracy charges were filed.

It seems to me that Trumpsters are missing a very important point in their efforts to exonerate Trump: that Trump was, in fact, more than willing to receive dirt, or help, from Russia. Just because conspiracy can't be proven beyond readonable doubt does not make Trump innocent. His avid worshippers seem to think that if no crime can be proven, then Trump is exonerated, he's a "good guy." I find that mindset alarming and blind. And did he not, just days ago, tell us all that he would willingly do it again? How can any American be okay with that? I keep asking that question of Trump supporters but have yet to receive a coherent answer. Just more and more excuses for Trump's horrible behavior.

Mueller didn't use the dossier and he couldn't show a conspiracy. That's the point. There is nothing else.
There was no conspiracy.

Regarding Trump's recent comments:
The Obama Admin used against Trump in it's investigation: the dossier (Russian information); Downer (Australia) and according to Brennan, information from other foreign countries.
Why couldnt Trump do the same against the 2020 opponent?
 
Geebus, but you Trumpsters are relentlessly in denial!

Mueller found plenty. Read the report. He simply made the decision that he did not have enough to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plenty of financial crimes? Link?
 
How do you know? Do you work for the IRS? Even if the sitting president gets audited every year as you claim, it would only be for 2018 at this time. It does not take the IRS years to audit anyone. So where are his returns for previous years, like 2010 through 2017? What is this spell he has on his ardent supporters that keeps them blind to his obvious bull****?

Because I'm more informed than you are.

As president, Trump's tax returns will be audited every year
 
The dossier was not made public until January 2017, two months after the election. Steele had not reported it to the DNC or the Clinton campaign, so how could she have used it?

Lose the snark, please. I've been very civil with you.

*Mother Jones reported on the issue on October 31, 2016.[10] When the Mother Jones story broke, John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign, said he was "stunned by the news that the FBI had launched a full-blown investigation into Trump, especially one that was informed by research underwritten by the Clinton campaign."*

Trump–Russia dossier - Wikipedia
 
Well, he's definitely under audit.

He's definitely been audited. There's no evidence any audit is ongoing, i.e. that he is "under audit" as we speak.

And one reason Congress expanded the authority of Congress to obtain returns of the President and others is Nixon was also "audited" by IRS and they cleared him, issued a statement about how awesome a job POTUS did on his return. And controversies came up, and JCT got his return, and what do you know? Nixon had understated his income and owed about $500,000 in additional taxes!

Point being IRS that reports to POTUS and whose head is appointed by POTUS aren't always effective auditors of their boss's returns. Hence the tradition to release them, so the public can see for themselves that POTUS is not a crook.
 
He's definitely been audited. There's no evidence any audit is ongoing, i.e. that he is "under audit" as we speak.

And one reason Congress expanded the authority of Congress to obtain returns of the President and others is Nixon was also "audited" by IRS and they cleared him, issued a statement about how awesome a job POTUS did on his return. And controversies came up, and JCT got his return, and what do you know? Nixon had understated his income and owed about $500,000 in additional taxes!

Point being IRS that reports to POTUS and whose head is appointed by POTUS aren't always effective auditors of their boss's returns. Hence the tradition to release them, so the public can see for themselves that POTUS is not a crook.

Yes there is. I've already proven that.
 
Yes there is. I've already proven that.

No you haven't proved anything of the sort. Your link says that they are audited every year, and "Their audits also must be handled relatively quickly. "The returns require expeditious handling at all levels to ensure prompt completion of the examinations," according to the manual."

But if you know that he's being audited as we speak, which returns for what years are still being audited? Thanks in advance for this information. I've been unable to find details about his audit history online, because IRS does not disclose those things, so I appreciate your insider information.
 
The issue at hand isn't whether Russia thought they would benefit from a Trump presidency.

Yes it is. If you were a patriotic American first instead of an adoring Trumpkin, you would feel the opposite.
 
And as this is the USA, it means no conspiracy.

Perhaps to a person of low IQ who does not know the difference between a provable standard in court and what is reality.

Or - as it better fits your case - a confirmed Trumpkin who only cares about his idol for pure political reasons and not the country nor its people.
 
Steele claimed no such thing. He found a possibility and reported it. And Mueler did use it as one tool in the obstruction investigation, if for no other reason than that Trump kept mentioning it, and Comey refused to answer when asked if the FBI was still investigating the dossier's contents. It's all in Volume II.

The conspiracy investigation, detailed in Volume I, does not mention the dossier. It wasn't necessary. The FBI had recorded dozens of contacts between Trump's senior campaign officials and known Russian officials and operatives. But because Mueller did not think the evidence added up to a conspiracy, and that he did not think the evidence was enough to prove direct coordination, no conspiracy charges were filed.

It seems to me that Trumpsters are missing a very important point in their efforts to exonerate Trump: that Trump was, in fact, more than willing to receive dirt, or help, from Russia. Just because conspiracy can't be proven beyond readonable doubt does not make Trump innocent. His avid worshippers seem to think that if no crime can be proven, then Trump is exonerated, he's a "good guy." I find that mindset alarming and blind. And did he not, just days ago, tell us all that he would willingly do it again? How can any American be okay with that? I keep asking that question of Trump supporters but have yet to receive a coherent answer. Just more and more excuses for Trump's horrible behavior.

The exaggerations and hypocrisy in theses statements is the reason you aren't winning the hearts and minds of people that read it. Example:
Why is it when someone doesn't agree with this stuff they must be Trump worshipers and Trumpsters?
Why is it when Trump is willing to receive dirt on Clinton from Russian officials you loose your mind but when the DNC pays Christopher Steele to actually go to Russia and dig up dirt on Trump or send their minions to the Ukraine to dig up dirt on Manafort its business as usual.

You do know that getting dirt on Candidates from Foreign nationals is legal? Right? You do know their are hundreds of organizations in this country that provide those services to campaigns and have been for years. Right? Why is it all of a sudden getting dirt from foreign nationals is collusion or conspiracy?

And did he not, just days ago, tell us all that he would willingly do it again?

No, he didn't. More exaggerations. He said "I think I'd take it and if I thought there was something wrong, I'd go to the FBI.
Nothing in that statement is illegal, immoral, horrifying, alarming, or conspiracy to rig an election. What is does show is the absolute desperation of the media and Liberals and how willing they are to loose their minds over nothing.

If you don't think every candidate does these types of opposition research and looks for dirt from foreign nationals then you are just not well informed. When you are just as willing to apply the same standards to Democrat candidates as you are Republican candidates you might get someone to listen:

Example:

Hillarys private computers and emails have classified material in her basement but we aren't going to charge her because Comey says he wouldn't be able to find a prosecutor that would charge her.
Exonerated

Hunter Biden has a $1 billion private equity deal with the Chinese government’s Bank of China. Old Joe says We should not consider China a threat.
Business as usual

Hunter Biden is named a director to Ukraine’s largest private gas producer where Old Joe threatened to withhold $1 BILLION in U.S. aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a prosecutor looking into his sons company.
Nothing to see here.

The DNC and Clinton’s campaign pay Fusion GPS and Steele to compile a dossier of uncorroborated raw intelligence provided by foreign agents and Russian operatives alleging Trump conspired with Russia to hijack the presidential election and then used by the FBI as the main evidence seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant targeting the Trump campaign.
Well that doesn't mean anything

CNN ratings tank after the Mueller report to the lowest viewership in cable news networks to the point that their own Liberal media (NYT) won't even allow their reporters on the show anymore because of so much fake news.
Viewership doesn't mean anything

When Liberals start holding their own accountable under the same conditions they do Trump, give me a call. Until then its just more of the same old exaggerations, fake news, hypocrisy, double standards, selective outrage, for orange man bad.
 
Yes it is. If you were a patriotic American first instead of an adoring Trumpkin, you would feel the opposite.

That is a political argument. There is no need to criminalise political disputes. Who do you think Putin supported in 2012 when Obama ridiculed the notion that Russia represented the great challenge to the USA?
 
That is a political argument. There is no need to criminalise political disputes. Who do you think Putin supported in 2012 when Obama ridiculed the notion that Russia represented the great challenge to the USA?

There is no evidence Putin or Russia did anything to interfere in the 2012 election like they did for Trump in 2016.
 
Last edited:
Mueller didn't use the dossier and he couldn't show a conspiracy. That's the point. There is nothing else.
There was no conspiracy.

Regarding Trump's recent comments:
The Obama Admin used against Trump in it's investigation: the dossier (Russian information); Downer (Australia) and according to Brennan, information from other foreign countries.
Why couldnt Trump do the same against the 2020 opponent?

1. Again, Mueller did not state that there was no conspiracy (or collusion, as Trump keeps calling it), he said that the evidence of conspiracy was not, in his opinion, enough to get a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Of course the FBI under Obama/Comey used Steele's information. That was their job, ffs. There is no law against law enforcement using such information in an investigation. None of it was used by the DNC or the Clinton campaign against Trump during the campaign. Do you get the difference? Even Comey, who thought nothing of making public statements about Hillary's email investigation, said anything about the Trump campaign being under investigation. At voting time, we the people did not know that.

:thinking
 

I wasn't doubting that factoid. Which part of "Even if the sitting president gets audited every year as you claim, it would only be for 2018 at this time. It does not take the IRS years to audit anyone." did you not understand? And you didn't answer my question, where are his returns for previous years? There's also that little factoid that Trumpsters refuse to acknowledge, that the IRS has no rule against a politician or anyone else disclosing their returns even while they are under audit for those very years.

:failpail:
 
*Mother Jones reported on the issue on October 31, 2016.[10] When the Mother Jones story broke, John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign, said he was "stunned by the news that the FBI had launched a full-blown investigation into Trump, especially one that was informed by research underwritten by the Clinton campaign."*

Trump–Russia dossier - Wikipedia

At the time of the election, we the people had not been informed by anyone that the Trump campaign was under investigation. So, again, how did Clinton use this against Trump during the campaign? Please cite a reference.
 
I wasn't doubting that factoid. Which part of "Even if the sitting president gets audited every year as you claim, it would only be for 2018 at this time. It does not take the IRS years to audit anyone." did you not understand? And you didn't answer my question, where are his returns for previous years? There's also that little factoid that Trumpsters refuse to acknowledge, that the IRS has no rule against a politician or anyone else disclosing their returns even while they are under audit for those very years.

:failpail:

Probably at the IRS. What do you expect to find? In the previous years returns? Emoluments violations?
 
At the time of the election, we the people had not been informed by anyone that the Trump campaign was under investigation. So, again, how did Clinton use this against Trump during the campaign? Please cite a reference.

October 31, 2016 is before the election.
 
Back
Top Bottom