Trump didn't openly extort Zelensky. He simply made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Yes, I read about this too. Apparently it's not just Trump, but no recordings since Nixon, which I was actually really surprised to learn. In '24' the White House recorded calls!

 

Keep telling yourself that. It's what Trump expects of his supporters.

 

Going to suck for dems since Trump's request is covered by the treaty with Ukraine that Bill Clinton signed.

 

What are you talking about? I quoted him!

My God! So now it turns out that the only way to satisfy this new restriction on the term "allege" is in the context of an indictment.

How many times do I have to repeat to you your own question?

You asked: "Has anyone in a position of authority ever even alleged that derogatory, truthful information (unlike the golden shower claim, paid for ... who was it, again?) is a thing of value under the election code?"

Your attempts at obfuscating are so blatant that I even have to quote the above every time, or you'll respond "I don't know what you're talking about", as you already did before.

If you really really meant "allege" in the context of an indictment, and only in that context... what would "anyone in a position of authority" have to do with it? It would not have to be "anyone in a position of power". It would have to be a prosecutor. Clearly that is not what you meant when you wrote the question. It is clear that you thought that the allegation wasn't in the Report. I have proven that it was. And you just can't accept the fact that your question was answered.

So let's clarify what you obfuscate Clearly Mueller did not indict. And I have already given the reasons why: mostly obstruction, tied to the fact that all this was unprecedented, and the fact that he was not able to establish a monetary value to the information received But that doesn't mean he didn't allege that what the Trump campaign received was a thing of value. He didn't allege it in an indictment, because there was no indictment. But he alleged it in his report... And that is what you asked. Of course, you wouldn't accept it because you had to throw in the assumption that I hadn't read the Mueller Report, but you had. You couldn't even quote the Mueller Report, but only an opinion article about the Mueller Report, hoping that would make your case for you . I quoted again and again the Mueller Report itself... page numbers included. So it should be obvious which one of us read it and which didn't. But that doesn't keep you from, at the top of this post, denying something that is a direct quote.

You are clearly moving the goalpost to obfuscate. You obfuscate... I clarify. That fact alone should give any independent reader the most evident hint as to which one of us is right.

 

Can you elaborate on this?

 

So that would mean you believe tv and movies are real life

Because trump wants to believe they are entertainment.

 

Very few of us, even on politically engaged forums like this, have read the report. I've challenged many here and elsewhere, listing page and paragraph as you did. May as well go spit into a hurricane wind.

 

I lived in NYC for ten years. I know exactly who The Donald has always been. Do you think he was given that nickname in homage?

 

Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying "He didn't even know that it was wrong."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...nd-the-whistleblower-in-60-minutes-interview/

I think she was trying to ding Trump as being clueless, but I wonder if she didn't inadvertently throw him a lifeline here. Usually, ignorance of the law is no excuse (just assuming the "do us a favor" line was unlawful, which I see as questionable at worst), but where someone is charged with "wilfully" violating the law, it means that the malefactors did indeed know what Nancy says he did not know.

Of course, the Dems are unlikely to accept that defense if offered. Still I wonder, is an act less impeachable if done without knowledge of wrongfulness? Is lack of knowledge, if not a defense, steady a mitigating circumstance?

I think that it is.

I even wonder if she wouldn't like for Trump to wriggle out of this mess and instead be defeated in the 2020 election.

 

But that won't keep them from quoting it exactly as written by Breitbart.

 

Because "allegations" by people like yourself, who have no authority, have no legal significance, that's why. Mueller had the authority, but never made the allegation. He merely explored legal theories of prosecuting the Trump tower meeting, and he found insuperable obstacles, including the lack of sufficiently helpful judicial precedent, and that annoying First Amendment thingy that he knew the meeting participants would invoke. You don't care about that. I do, and so did Mueller.

Now, I concede that there are drunks in bathrooms who allege that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. Others "allege" that Obama was born in Kenya. Others, that JFK was killed by Sam Giancana. (There's a nice mafia reference for you, in keeping with the thread title, and about as clever, meaning... not at all.) Now, you would call all those "allegations". I call them noise.

Asking your question and quoting my question over and over again doesn't do anything to establish that you understand the question, never mind the answer. You've got a meatless bone between your teeth and I have no interest in fighting you for it.

Interesting that you want so desperately to convince me (or is it yourself?) that the "allegation" was made. Here's why:

In the first place, it doesn't matter, unless what you are calling an allegation had been indicted, litigated to a conclusion and proved beyond reasonable doubt (or not). Now, it's indisputable, and I am not going to argue about it, that Mueller did NOT indict Trump Jr., Manafort, Kushner or any other participant in the Tower meeting, much less Trump who wasn't there.

If anyone in authority ever formally "alleges" that you committed a criminal violation of the FEC, as you say Mueller did (as against whom I don't know) Trump, and then he abandons it due to legal defenses you are sure to invoke, or pursues it to trial and loses, it would be no stain on your honor. So Trump haters should take no satisfaction in what Mueller didn't do.

 

I gave you the cite to an accurate story above after you protested, which was within your rights. But it wasn't Breitbart, and you know it, though criticizing a source due to its source is, I think, a genetic fallacy. (Remember the trashy National Enquirer's ridiculous story about John Edwards? It was true.)

Anyway, your reference to Breitbart in obvious reference to me shows that you are utterly without honor. I appreciate you unmasking yourself.

 

The passages that Golem cites establish what, and against whom, in your opinion?

I am only asking about supposed FEC violations arising out of the tower meeting, specifically regarding the "thing of value" question?

While I don't respect his opinion, I may respect yours, depending on what you say.

 

I wasn't talking about you...

 

Breitbart, the "founders" of the new alt-right movement. I wander in there from time to time to check wind direction, but only if I'm going to be showering shortly anyway.

Try not to get any on ya!

 

I have reason to believe otherwise.

I don't know who else has been citing Breitbart that you could have been referring to.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily discount a report from any source, even MSNBC or The Daily Kos, based only on my distaste for its editorial content.

 

Then you read it more than I do, but don't make the mistake of assuming that the only sources you can trust are those that confirm your biases.

You don't do that, do you?

 

The Tower meeting was investigated in detail. Although Mueller found that they did, in fact, take the meeting in order to obtain something of value for Trump's campaign, meaning "dirt" on Hillary supposedly from the Russian government, Mueller was fool enough or soft enough or biased just enough to conclude that Junior and Jared and Manafort did not so deliberately and knowingly. Or, like he said, he did not think a prosecutor could make a good case out of it. IMO that's like saying "they were too stupid to know right from wrong."

Such it was with all of Volume I. Mueller and team detailed the many contacts but Mueller didn't think any of it was enough for an indictment. I strongly disagree, but that's what's in the report. You should read it.

 

Of course.

 

Trump's supporters often complain that those who are critical of Trump's performance are trying to do an end run around the 2016 election. That Trump's detractors are attempting a coup, the removal of a duly elected President. Ignoring the absurdity of that assertion for the moment, have they ever considered that Trump may be responsible for the multitude of questions regarding his competence?

Is Trump doing exactly what Putin wants him to do? That is a very good question considering the fact that the White House has been shackled during the 33 months Trump has sat in the Oval Office. Despite his party having control of both the House and Senate for the first two years of his Presidency, Trump has accomplished little or nothing. He has moved from controversy and scandal to new controversies and scandals throughout his entire administration.

He is the least popular President in modern American history, his staff has an historical turnover rate and is now filled with sycophants, and there are even questions about his mental stability.

Trump's close ties with Netanyahu while unilaterally proclaiming Jerusalem the capital of Israel has removed the U.S. from Middle East talks because the Arab republics do not trust him. Neither do Great Britain or France because Trump is unpredictable and unreliable. The U.S. has been replaced by Russia.

Trump removed the U.S. from the Paris Accord to which there are 197 signatories.

Because it was signed during the Obama administration, Trump removed the U.S. from the JCPOA which permanently barred Iran from making a nuke. He has been urging the Iranian leaders to agree to talks for a new agreement that permanently bars Iran from making a nuke. In the meantime, Iran has followed Trump's example and is in violation of the JCPOA. Our allies are trying desperately to save the agreement. Trump is threatening our allies' for their intentions.

Trump has removed the U.S. from lucrative trade agreements, TPP, NAFTA, and has not signed one major trade agreement.

Much to Putin's delight, Trump has weakened NATO with his constant jabs at our NATO partners. The recent G-7 conference went nearly as bad as last year's G-7 conference and there was no common statement of cooperation.

Trump has threatened the vibrant American economy. Because of his trade war with China, even he is concerned about a possible recession as consumer confidence is dropping along with the manufacturing index. Trump's harsh tariffs cause inflation, and inflation causes recession. To illustrate all of this, the stock market has been treading water since January 2018. On Jan. 29, 2018, the Dow stood at 26,439. Right now the Dow is at 26,917.A gain of only 478 points in 20 months. It was below Jan. 2018 figure for most of August due to Trump's tweets.

Questions about Trump's mental acuity have surfaced recently. Using a five day old NWS in predicting a hurricane's path Trump declared that Alabama "will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated." Everyone not named Trump knew the hurricane was going to turn north, missing Alabama by hundreds of miles. For a solid week Trump insisted that his faulty weather forecast was accurate.

When that died out Trump said he was totally responsible for inviting the terrorist sponsors of Al Qaeda to a meeting at Camp David five days before the 9/11 anniversary.

One day after Robert Mueller appeared before Congress to provide testimony regarding Russian intervention in our 2016 election on his behalf, Trump called the president of Ukraine to ask him to intervene in our 2020 election on his behalf!

Is Trump doing exactly what Putin wants him to do? Should he be removed from office? The reader can decide.

 

It is hoped those who should read the above post, Trump's supporters, will do so and with great concern. However, I fear they will not. Their main excuse will be they are too busy to take three minutes to read the post. The real reason, however, is when it comes to Trump, they try to avoid reality. Others will use an unsaid excuse. Since they have shown inability to defend Trump, what is the point of reading the realistic post that illustrates Trump's incompetence?

I hope I am wrong about this.

Perhaps it is time to reassess their priorities. Well, Trump's supporters don't want to think about that, either.

 

My God, you're paranoid! I was speaking in general. Breitbart is the placeholder for alt-right wingnut media I use the most.

But if it makes you happy I can clarify: your source was not Breitbart. But it wasn't Mueller either. So it's a partial clarification.

 

I don't. I find this website to be very helpful, in addition to my habit of looking at more than one source for a story.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

 

Unfortunately, you're not wrong about the responses of Trump's supporters. Whatever false narrative he gives them, they repeat until it becomes absolute gospel. Denial is an acronym: Don't Even kNow I Am Lying.

This is us:

This is the Trump base:

 

It is hoped those who should read this post, Trump's supporters, will do so and with great concern. However, I fear they will not. Their main excuse will be they are too busy to take two minutes to read the post. The real reason, however, is when it comes to Trump, they try to avoid reality. Others will use an unsaid excuse. Since they have shown inability to defend Trump, what is the point of reading a realistic post that illustrates Trump's incompetence?

I hope I am wrong about this.

Perhaps it is time to reassess their priorities. Well, Trump's supporters don't want to think about that, either.

The U.S. Attorney General, William Barr, has openly said he will investigate the investigators of the Russian intervention in our 2016 Presidential election and has said the FBI was spying.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) — Attorney General William Barr says he thinks “spying did occur” against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Trump has said that Barr can help him validate his 2016 electoral victory, and Giuliani has been trying to unearth damaging information about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in anticipation of the 2020 race.As part of his efforts, Barr in recent months has asked the president to facilitate communications with foreign officials and has made at least one trip to Italy to secure cooperation, according to a department official. https://www.ktrs.com/ag-barr-i-think-spying-did-occur-against-trump-campaign/

In an effort to investigate the group of spies known as the FBI, an organization directly under the control of Barr's DOJ, Barr enlisted the help of President Trump.

"President Trump pushed the Australian prime minister during a recent telephone call to help Attorney General William P. Barr gather information for a Justice Department inquiry that Mr. Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation, according to two American officials with knowledge of the call," the Times.

What does it say about this administration when the A.G. is openly supporting Trump, pretty much acting like President's personal lawyer with an enormous amount of juice, the entire Department of Justice?

What does it say about this administration when the A.G. openly asks the President to call a foreign leader to ask for help to validate his 2016 electoral victory, an election that took place nearly three years ago? Is Trump -- and Barr -- obsessed?

What does it say about this administration when the President openly asks the Australian leader to investigate his own government for the President's poltical benefit?

Is there something wrong about all of this? Of course.