If Mueller Indicts Putin before Visit

[Howard the Duck]

Yep. Still wondering what your point is.

So, you are good with offering legal counsel, due process, and equal protection to our migrant friends at the border?

 

[Kal'Stang]

So, you are good with offering legal counsel, due process, and equal protection to our migrant friends at the border?

Yes. What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[JackA]

:roll: Funny how arguing on behalf of the entire world somehow gets translated into me not liking that Haymarket said unflattering things about Putin. Rather lame attempt there JackA.

Sorry. I didn't know how I missed it but I failed to realize you were arguing "on behalf of the entire world".

 

[Hedgology]

Putin can avoid the entire problem by simply not entering the USA.

He could; or he could enter the United States and just ignore Muller entirely.

 

[haymarket]

That would instantly discredit Mueller. Also, it wouldn't accomplish anything legally. It would look extremely political.

Why would it discredit Mueller? If the underlings who followed the orders were indicted , what is wrong with indicting the person who gave those orders to begin with and is ultimately responsible?

 

[haymarket]

He could; or he could enter the United States and just ignore Muller entirely.

Most excellent. I would like very much to see that happen and see if the law would be enforced.

 

[Hedgology]

Most excellent. I would like very much to see that happen and see if the law would be enforced.

Why don't you put that scenario in the fan fiction you just wrote in the OP?

 

[haymarket]

Why don't you put that scenario in the fan fiction you just wrote in the OP?

Great idea!!!!!!

And I have the perfect ending that is just amazing.

 

[holbritter]

We are not going to indict a world leader over something all world leaders do.

 

[FreeWits]

Why would it discredit Mueller? If the underlings who followed the orders were indicted , what is wrong with indicting the person who gave those orders to begin with and is ultimately responsible?

As I said, he would look extremely partisan, and he'd be taking the word of Vladimir Putin and then misusing it to claim this means there was some sort of coordination, which it doesn't necessarily mean.

 

[haymarket]

As I said, he would look extremely partisan, and he'd be taking the word of Vladimir Putin and then misusing it to claim this means there was some sort of coordination, which it doesn't necessarily mean.

I disagree. It would look like Mueller is defending America from the man who ordered its attack upon our election system. That does NOT make him a partisan. It makes him a patriot.

 

[FreeWits]

I disagree. It would look like Mueller is defending America from the man who ordered its attack upon our election system. That does NOT make him a partisan. It makes him a patriot.

This is nothing new, and Putin is not the only one. Is Mueller going to go after our allies who interfere in our election system as well? 90% of the Clinton Foundation funding was foreign funding, and after Hillary lost the foreign funding completely dried up. And btw, the USA admitted at the Aspen Security Forum that we trained political operatives in Russia. That's how it goes. We attack Russia and interfere in their elections, and they respond. Then we respond back, and they respond back against us. I don't even think it's legal to go after a foreign leader in the USA legal system, but I'm not completely sure on that.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Putin has nukes and an army. What would the US do if some country arrested the President of the US? (no matter who it is) Do you really think the US would stand for that? Or do you think we'd send forces over to try and extract the POTUS? Which would then lead to an all out war. Don't let your blind hatred of Trump get us into a war that the whole world will lose.

Depends on which president it is.
If they arrest Trump, I'd say "Go ahead and keep him, he's yours anyway."
And then Vladimir Putin would do for Trump exactly what he did for Steven Seagal, award him Russian citizenship.

And the world would inherit two new Bond villains,


and Pence would run out the clock until 2020 under Democratic majorities in both chambers.
Sounds like a win-win to me

 

[haymarket]

This is nothing new, and Putin is not the only one. Is Mueller going to go after our allies who interfere in our election system as well? 90% of the Clinton Foundation funding was foreign funding, and after Hillary lost the foreign funding completely dried up. And btw, the USA admitted at the Aspen Security Forum that we trained political operatives in Russia. That's how it goes. We attack Russia and interfere in their elections, and they respond. Then we respond back, and they respond back against us. I don't even think it's legal to go after a foreign leader in the USA legal system, but I'm not completely sure on that.

A true American patriot would never utter such blasphemy.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That's how it goes. We attack Russia and interfere in their elections, and they respond. Then we respond back, and they respond back against us. I don't even think it's legal to go after a foreign leader in the USA legal system, but I'm not completely sure on that.

Good people don't defend a bad man.
And by the way, I don't know where you live but I LIVE HERE, in the United States, so I don't give two ****s about whether we did such and such to so and so. I live HERE, and that is all I care about.
Sell your situational ethics somewhere else.

 

[FreeWits]

Good people don't defend a bad man.
And by the way, I don't know where you live but I LIVE HERE, in the United States, so I don't give two ****s about whether we did such and such to so and so. I live HERE, and that is all I care about.
Sell your situational ethics somewhere else.

I live in the USA. I'm American, and I have lived in the USA all my life. I didn't mention "situational ethics", I mentioned context. Anybody discussing in good faith would care about the full context of a situation.

 

[Linc]

Putin has nukes and an army. What would the US do if some country arrested the President of the US? (no matter who it is) Do you really think the US would stand for that? Or do you think we'd send forces over to try and extract the POTUS? Which would then lead to an all out war. Don't let your blind hatred of Trump get us into a war that the whole world will lose.

There continues to be no moral or false equivalence between safeguarding our Nation from traitorous Republicans and the hysterical nonsense from the alt-right over fear of war.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I live in the USA. I'm American, and I have lived in the USA all my life. I didn't mention "situational ethics", I mentioned context. Anybody discussing in good faith would care about the full context of a situation.

Everyone is well aware that we have our own cloak and dagger operations, so in essence reminding everyone is like reminding them that water is wet.

 

[FreeWits]

Everyone is well aware that we have our own cloak and dagger operations, so in essence reminding everyone is like reminding them that water is wet.

Well, our own actions against Russia certainly gives some context to Russia's actions against us. It is clearly less bad for them to attack us back if we are attacking them then if they just randomly attacked us. Also, if we continue to always try to get the last punch in, it is easy to see how this will never end, and how the situation is destined to devolve. Is that what you really want? It's easy to say we should keep hitting Russia back when we give no context for why they may be doing what they are doing, but that is also irresponsible.

 

[apdst]

Good people don't defend a bad man.
And by the way, I don't know where you live but I LIVE HERE, in the United States, so I don't give two ****s about whether we did such and such to so and so. I live HERE, and that is all I care about.
Sell your situational ethics somewhere else.

You don't care about anything the Russians did. You're mad because President Trump won the election. If Clinton had won, you wouldn't say the first damn thing about the Russians.

 

[Excon]

It appears that Trump has just given a hand with four aces to Robert Mueller. Trump has announced that an invitation to the White House has been extended to Putin for a possible Fall visit. The timing of that with the November midterm elections is obvious.

What happens if Mueller acts on the public confession of Putin that he did act to help Trump get elected and did direct his agencies to help him by indicting him right along with the two dozen underlings that have already been indicted by the Grand Jury?

Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asked on Monday,


and the immediate Putin answer to both parts of the question


Notice that he did not simply say "yes I did" but replied twice that he did because the question had two parts. YES, Putin admitted that he wanted to help Trump win the election, and YES Putin admitted that he directed Russian officials to help in that effort.

After all, if Putin admits he gave the orders, is he not also criminally culpable?

And what then happens if they announce a Putin state visit for mid October and Mueller gets a Grand Jury indictment of Putin the week before? Does Putin risk arrest when he comes to America? Would hundreds of thousands of citizens - perhaps even millions take to the street demanding such action?

Would both Trump and Putin risk such a thing?

Or would Putin be protected against such an action?

Hilarious.

No he did not yes to both, and no, it's not going to happen.
You have been around long enough to know that "Yes, yes." is an oft used reply to a singular question.
And even though the person asking the questions (Jeff Mason) would like clarification, he doesn't absurdly think he was responding to both.

 

[haymarket]

Hilarious.

No he did not yes to both, and no, it's not going to happen.
You have been around long enough to know that "Yes, yes." is an oft used reply to a singular question.
And even though the person asking the questions (Jeff Mason) would like clarification, he doesn't absurdly think he was responding to both.

Putin was asked two questions and he responded with two answers. The record shows this beyond doubt.


Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asked on Monday,

“President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?”

and the immediate Putin answer to both parts of the question

“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.”

 

[Excon]

Putin was asked two questions and he responded with two answers. The record shows this beyond doubt.

Wrong as usual. He responded to the first question with the two, and continued addressing that one question.

Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asked on Monday,


and the immediate Putin answer to both parts of the question

You have no valid point to what I provided you in response to that.

Jeff Mason doesn't even think he heard the second question.
But do continue with your absurd beliefs. iLOL

 

[haymarket]

Wrong as usual. He responded to the first question with the two, and continued addressing that one question.


You have no valid point to what I provided you in response to that.

Jeff Mason doesn't even think he heard the second question.
But do continue with your absurd beliefs. iLOL

Two questions. Two answers.
At least that is how it happened in the real world.

 

[LowDown]

It appears that Trump has just given a hand with four aces to Robert Mueller. Trump has announced that an invitation to the White House has been extended to Putin for a possible Fall visit. The timing of that with the November midterm elections is obvious.

What happens if Mueller acts on the public confession of Putin that he did act to help Trump get elected and did direct his agencies to help him by indicting him right along with the two dozen underlings that have already been indicted by the Grand Jury?

Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asked on Monday,


and the immediate Putin answer to both parts of the question


Notice that he did not simply say "yes I did" but replied twice that he did because the question had two parts. YES, Putin admitted that he wanted to help Trump win the election, and YES Putin admitted that he directed Russian officials to help in that effort.

After all, if Putin admits he gave the orders, is he not also criminally culpable?

And what then happens if they announce a Putin state visit for mid October and Mueller gets a Grand Jury indictment of Putin the week before? Does Putin risk arrest when he comes to America? Would hundreds of thousands of citizens - perhaps even millions take to the street demanding such action?

Would both Trump and Putin risk such a thing?

Or would Putin be protected against such an action?

Putin is a foreign dignitary and president of a foreign country and therefore subject to diplomatic immunity. Any such action against him would be an act of war. You want war with Russia? If I'm not mistaken they have more nuclear weapons than we do.