World, Writing, Wealth discussion

8 views
World & Current Events > Robert Mueller: 'Ramrod straight' ex-FBI boss to lead Russia inquiry

Comments Showing 1-16 of 16 (16 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Alex (new)

Alex (asato) Things aren't looking to hot for President Trump now.

What will the independent investigation uncover?

Robert Mueller: 'Ramrod straight' ex-FBI boss to lead Russia inquiry
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-ca...

Trump: FBI inquiry is 'greatest witch hunt' in history
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-ca...


message 2: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) I would say they would largely confirm what has already been uncovered for months now - that Trump's team has been in regular contact with Putin and Russian business interests, arranging to end the sanctions on the country. I would also venture that they will prove the extent to which Trump has been in bed with Russia since the 1990s, and that this does constitute compromising information that the Russians could use to blackmail him.

But hey, that's boring! I for one hope there's proof Trump and his team were talking to the Russians about the DNC hack. Would a little voter tampering be too much to hope for too?


message 3: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9212 comments My view is simple - I hope Mueller will establish properly what actually happened and what did not. The cards will fall where they will.


message 4: by Matthew (last edited May 19, 2017 08:52PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Is it that, or is it that you don't see anything wrong with Trump colluding with Russia? That seems to me to be the real thrust of what you've been saying all this time.


message 5: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9212 comments The real thrust of what I have been saying all along is, "show me the facts", or failing that, show somebody in authority the facts. Mueller is likely to be the sort of person best able to do that. In short, evidence, not accusations, and then pursue the evidence according to the law.


message 6: by Matthew (last edited May 19, 2017 09:20PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Yes, you've said repeatedly to show you the facts in one breath, then said "what's the big deal" in the next. And I've shown you repeatedly how Trump's team was in contact with the Russians during the election (which they lied about), how they made illegal promises before they were in office, how the Russians meddled with the election, and how Trump has a long history of ties to Putin. These aren't accusations, they've been documented backwards and forwards!

And yet, you still don't seem to get it and keep asking for the "facts". Emphasizing facts is pretty thin when you aren't aware of them and don't even understand the significance of them.


message 7: by Alex (last edited May 19, 2017 09:23PM) (new)

Alex (asato) With subpoenas in the works, it shan't be long before the truth is divulged, methinks.
What's more, it now appears this investigation has expanded to involve an individual who currently holds a senior post within the White House, not just an ex-aide (Michael Flynn) or campaign official (Paul Manafort). If that's the case, it's only a matter of time before subpoenas are issued and the entire administration adopts a bunker mentality.

(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-cana...)



message 8: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9212 comments I think Mueller will get to the bottom of it. What "it" involves remains to be seen.

Matthew, we are not going to agree, i can see that. But to clarify what I believe a fact is, it is a statement that allows an observation to be placed in a set. Now, any observation can usually be placed in a number of sets, the set being defined by the rule that defines set membership. With the wild statements going about now, many so-called "facts" could qualify for membership of several sets. I want to know in which set it truly belongs.


message 9: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13076 comments Ian wrote: "I want to know in which set it truly belongs...."

Me 2. The meaning of meetings and contacts can range from perfectly wonderful to a treason. Eager 2 c where it falls...


message 10: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2101 comments Alex G wrote: "Things aren't looking to hot for President Trump now.

What will the independent investigation uncover?

Robert Mueller: 'Ramrod straight' ex-FBI boss to lead Russia inquiry
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ne..."

Frankly Trump is foolish not to let this play out. Our justice system has such a high standard, and we don't have a great record of holding our top politicians accountable that if he stayed calm and let the original suspicions and accusations play out, the whole thing would have concluded with a finding that he and his people did nothing legally wrong. Instead, he decided to fire Comey in the middle of it, and that by itself has the potential of landing him in hot water with the investigation.

But if we're looking for the legal process to remove him from office, let's be realistic that it won't happen unless we get direct video or audio of him openly plotting something evil. Don't forget, it took the White House tapes to finally bring Nixon down. When Clinton lied to Congress under oath, that wasn't enough for the Democrats to support impeachment.

Then we have issues like the Justice Department's Fast and Furious program where they put guns into the hands of criminals in order to track them. Two of the guns were linked to the death of a US border patrol agent. Eric Holder lied to Congress over what he knew and when, and not only did President Obama refuse to hold him accountable and fire him (sort of like how Trump fired Tillerson at the start of his scandal), but he actively blocked the investigation by claiming executive privileged over the Justice Department investigates so that Congress couldn't get a look at them.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/a...

Not to beat a dead horse, but with Hillary Clinton's server scandal, we knew she had the server, we knew it was illegal (just like we know Tillerson's contact with the Russians before Trump's inauguration was illegal), she admitted it and claimed she would take responsibility, and in the end Comey came back and said there was no case.

I know the liberals are crying and screaming for blood, but let's be real, there's a good chance the only accountability to be had will be at the voting booth. Just like voters seemed to exact that accountability from Clinton last year, Trump too will lose in 2020 by larger margins, the more the more he resists and gives off the appearance of guilt.


message 11: by Alex (new)

Alex (asato) J.J. wrote: "But if we're looking for the legal process to remove him from office, let's be realistic that it won't happen unless we get direct video or audio of him openly plotting something evil. Don't forget, it took the White House tapes to finally bring Nixon down. When Clinton lied to Congress under oath, that wasn't enough for the Democrats to support impeachment."

i agree that it would take something almost indefensible to indict the President even if he was impeached in the House.

of course, if the investigation and its fallout extends into 2019, the 2018 mid-term congressional elections could turn that all around.


message 12: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9212 comments Yes, but the 2018 elections also might count against those chasing Trump. He had voter support, despite what he presented, and I think it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a few of his attackers in Congress might get the chop


message 13: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Alex G wrote: "With subpoenas in the works, it shan't be long before the truth is divulged, methinks.What's more, it now appears this investigation has expanded to involve an individual who currently holds a seni..."

The "person of interest" you mean? Turns out, its Kushner, Trump's son-in-law. Not sure which musical sequence to cue. Is this a sad trombone moment, or the doom anthem?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/5/...


message 14: by Matthew (last edited May 20, 2017 07:16PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Ian wrote: "I think Mueller will get to the bottom of it. What "it" involves remains to be seen.

Matthew, we are not going to agree, i can see that. But to clarify what I believe a fact is, it is a statement ..."


Yes, I am aware of what your definition of a fact is, we share that same definition. That's the not the point. The point is, facts have been presented by this investigation since the beginning. But you have made repeated statements that have shown that you don't seem to appreciate the significance of the facts shown.

For example, the FACT that Flynn communicated to the Russians that the Trump administration would remove the sanctions placed on them by the Obama admin in retaliation for the DNC hack. This is not a normal political promises, as you've said. It's an illegal promise, which Trump claimed he had no knowledge of but admitted he would have ordered Flynn to do had he not.

And then there was the FACT that Sessions met with a known Russian spy during the course of the election (which he lied about) and Trump's business ties to Russian business syndicates tied to Putin. These are a FACT which he and his son (and son-in-law) admitted to in the past, but he since lied about. All of this is fact and its not in dispute.

Nothing about what has been investigated has been "wild speculation" - with the possible exception of the "golden shower" stuff. But that's why I leave that out. ;)


message 15: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9212 comments Matthew, nobody is disputing Trump has business ties in Russia. My point is, that is not illegal. Had he not won the election, who would care?

"Flynn communicated to the Russians that the Trump administration would remove the sanctions placed on them by the Obama admin in retaliation for the DNC hack." The truth of that stands on someone claiming to have recorded the conversation, and the text supporting it, or Flynn agreeing that was what happened. I am unaware they have been verified, so it is not yet a fact, but if it is, then the significance is still somewhat murky.

The DNC hack occurred about six months prior to the election. Obama did nothing. Why not? That was the time to do so. Trump promised better relations with Russia in the campaign and won the election. Under such circumstances, Obama should have accepted that he was going out, and left this issue for his successor, but no, he directly tried to shaft Trump's policy that the people had supported. Is it wrong for the coming in administration to say, "We shall keep our promises?" Is it wrong to keep an election promise? If so, what is democracy about? It may have been technically wrong in terms of the Logan Act, and now with the fuss the Congress is making, it may be difficult for Trump to keep his promise. Well done, democracy, USA version. Of course there may yet be a cleanout in 2018.


message 16: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2101 comments Alex G wrote: "J.J. wrote: "But if we're looking for the legal process to remove him from office, let's be realistic that it won't happen unless we get direct video or audio of him openly plotting something evil...."

I wouldn't venture to guess which way the midterms or the '20 election would go. We can be patient and understanding with our leaders as we were with Bush after getting us stuck in in Iraq and Afghanistan in the '04 election, or we can be bitter and vindictive as we were with his father in the '92 election.

Of course when anyone talks of the '20 election they're assuming Trump will be on the ticket. My brother speculates Trump won't even run - it's possible, sensing defeat, he declares he's accomplished everything he set out to (true or not) and that he doesn't feel the need to run for a second term. I'm inclined to think there's a good chance the party is fed up with him and he suffers defeat in the primary.

While it's always a safe bet to plan on running against the incumbent, the Democrats have a danger in setting themselves up for that showdown, because if they end up running against a different Republican also running on change, then the Dems lose the anti-Trump platform, and they have to hope their nominee has the strength to stand on their own record.


back to top