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

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Sep 25, 2019.

  1. Golem

    Golem Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,609
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And, as usual, you would be wrong.

    Flush them out and they would say... what? You deny a dossier that has been proven accurate in everything that has been made public. You guys don't even believe Trump himself when you see him committing extortion against a foreign leader... What would make us think that you would give any credibility to hookers?

    You focus on something we don't know yet to undermine things that we actually do know.

    Could you remind me why it was we are supposed to believe you when you say that you are not a Trump supporter?
     
  2. stone6

    stone6 Newly Registered Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He couldn't charge Trump and explained why. He DID indict a number of others, some of whom pled guilty.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  3. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't vote for Trump because I knew he was not groomed for governance, because I knew his tax cuts and infrastructure ambitions would worsen the debt, and because of birtherism. I had other reasons. That doesn't mean I won't defend him or anyone else against mob hysteria fomented by people like you, AOC, Mad Maxine, et al.

    But I really don't know that there are other people on this forum who are silly enough to swallow (without a shred of evidence) the golden shower allegation. Who are you referring to?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  4. Golem

    Golem Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,609
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't applaud him. It's his obligation to point out that we need to go through the process. What I'm saying is that we need more Republicans who remember that they took an Oath of Office to defend the Constitution and not their own partisan interests. And even less a criminal President.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  5. Golem

    Golem Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,609
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What part of my answer: "Yes. Mueller did!" did you not understand?

    Don't abuse the word "honestly". I quoted exactly what you are quoting here. Claiming that you "have no idea" may be your new evasive, but it's not honest.

    If you have anything to comment on my answer, go for it! But stp saying that's not what you asked.

    Ok. So your argument that that was not what you asked having failed, your next idiotic argument is that Robert Mueller is a nut on the internet making wild claims.

    I can't even begin to express how much you have undermined your own credibility.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  6. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LOL, Your first problem is that you haven't read, or you failed to understand, the Mueller report. I'll try to help, but you seem beyond that:

    Under federal law, campaigns are barred from taking or soliciting a “thing of value” from foreign nationals in connection with an election. The ban includes monetary gifts, such as campaign contributions, or uncompensated gifts such as polling data or mailing lists.

    “Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research,” Mueller notes in his report. “A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.”


    Though Mueller noted that such information could be more important to a campaign than money, he pointed out that "courts have not defined uncompensated opposition research as a “thing of value” that could amount to a contribution under campaign finance law."


    Mueller issued a report which noted the many difficulties he would have in proving the nonsense you are spewing, including that underlined part. If he had come to the conclusion you have, the report might have said, "While Donald Trump engaged in a conspiracy to violate federal election laws by seeking a thing of value from the Russians, alas, he is immune to prosecution. "

    And finally, no, I am not referring to Mueller as the nut on the internet; that denomination goes to ... let's just say, someone else.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  7. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For anyone still following this and who isn't foaming at the mouth, I just recalled that the whole "thing of value" discussion in the Muller report arose in Muller's analysis of the legality (or not) of a meeting at Trump tower among a Russian or Russians, and Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner. President Trump was not on the special counsel's radar screen in that part of the report, so don't be fooled by hysterics claiming that President Trump skated on this only due to the technicality that you can't indict a sitting president.

    (That particular observation was made in the mealy mouthed obstruction of justice discussion kn another part of the report.)

    So the Muller report is of no help to those alleging now that Trump illegally sought a thing of value (under the election laws) from the Ukrainians.

    If it looks like a dead duck, walks like a dead duck ... well, you know.
     
  8. stone6

    stone6 Newly Registered Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mueller basically said he had, at the time of the closing of the investigation, insufficient evidence to indict anyone else for conspiracy with the Russians or related charges. On Obstruction, he listed numerous "possible charges," but also failed to complete the investigations, with the principal reason being the DoJ policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president. He specifically noted that one reason he did not pursue indictments was that, given the DoJ policy, it would be unfair to the President to publicly conclude he was indictable, without being able to indict...a violation of his due process right to a speedy trial. Instead, he documented the obstruction investigation to date and left it to the AG or to Congress to reach a final conclusion. Barr decided in the President's favor, Congress has begun its investigation.
     
  9. Golem

    Golem Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,609
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now I understand. You are a Trump supporter, but you didn't vote for him.

    It makes no difference who you voted for. And it doesn't matter who attacks Trump. The only thing that would matter to an objective observer is if they are right. So far you have evaded, misinterpreted your own post, moved the goal posts, and attacked those who accuse him... but you have not made even an effort to counter any of the allegations against him.

    "Swallow"? Besides that being outright gross in this context... you keep displaying your lack of credibility by obfuscating your own arguments.

    Nobody "swallows" anything (I can't speak for Trump). Your original words were "give any credence". This is about the third time I have had to repeat this to you. We do ascribe some credibility to a dossier that has been accurate in everything that has been able to be verified publicly.

    Besides your obvious attempts to defend Trump by obfuscating the debate, is there any other reason we should know about as to why the same things need to be repeated to you three or more times? And why you keep confusing your own arguments?[/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  10. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it is not exactly how they operate.

    Go ahead and find transcripts like that

    The godfather and the sopranos are entertainment and fiction

    They are as accurate as star trek
     
    Le Chef and stone6 like this.
  11. stone6

    stone6 Newly Registered Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oops! I meant the "like" for "SleepMonster." He had a good point on the timing. Still no clear answer on why the aid was withheld or why the aid was released.
     
  12. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, I "support" anyone in a discrete struggle against inanity, as is Russiagate, Golden showergate, and now Bidengate. I "supported" Obama in the birther defamation business. Do I go to rallies and donate money? No. I almost always oppose incumbents seeking reelection for different reasons.
     
  13. Golem

    Golem Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,609
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I could almost recite it by heart to you.

    What the hell are you doing? You don't quote your sources. You do know that that is plagiarism right? Very much against the forum rules.

    That is not from the Mueller Report! And if you're going to quote something else, the honest thing to do is indicate the source.

    But I could not care less what right wingnut fake news site you got that from. If you're going to talk about Mueller... quote Mueller!

    One more time (what is this, the fifth time?) I have to quote your question, which is the one I answered.

    You: "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?"

    And my answer (again). Yes!!!

    Mueller (page 186): "There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions,"

    Mueller (p187): "These authorities would support the view that candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply. A campaign can be assisted not only by the provision offunds, but also by the provision of derogatory information about an opponent. Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value."

    Of course prosecution would be difficult! With the President obstructing the investigation at every turn, it would have been impossible. But that does not remove the fact that this information was "a thing of value" and that the Trump campaign violated campaign finance laws.

    Now... if you can focus... I'll be glad to read your response. But if you're going to wiggle around and obfuscate even your own statements, please don't. This is not about how "difficult" it is to prosecute. Or if it has been prosecuted on the court before or not. This is about your question. Read it! And if plagiarism is going to be how you will defend your idol.... please count me out.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  14. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You swallow the golden shower story. Well, you do. Don't blame me.

    I need to correct something else. When I wrote above that "that wasn't the question, " I did not mean that you quoted me incorrectly in your response. I meant that the answer was non-responsive. And it was.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  15. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't know what "allege" means. It certainly does not mean a statement that "one might argue ...."

    Here is an example of an allegation: "On or about December 3, 2018, Joe Smith unlawfully possessed over 1 gram of cocaine, in violation of the Cal. Health and Saefty Code." Or "On or about August 1, 2017, Andrew McCabe falsely denied to an FBI agent that McCabe had leaked sensitive information concerning the Russia investigation to the New York Times."

    Then the allegation is proved or not proved. But If it never even rises to that level (a formal accusation), then it's just noise.
     
  16. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know. It's about whether anyone in an official capacity alleged that what team Trump conspired to get (information) was a thing of value under the FEC. Maybe they have, and I never, ever, denied it, but it wasn't Muller. I've done more to cite the report than youhave, he doesn't allege the crime you have in mind, he discusses
    Nice cherry picking. I see you conveniently left out the information in the report that you think I or my source at Breitbart (LOL).made up.

    Mueller specifically declined to make the allegation you are making for a number of reasons, not only problems of proof, but also because he knew that there was, notwithstanding the reasonable argument that could be made, a question which remained unanswered by the courts, namely, whether the "voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign finance law. Such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign service ban ... and raise First Amendment questions." Report at page 187.

    Forgive the ellipses, there. I cut out Mueller's reference to the proof he found of the golden showers because it would embarrass me.

    Now, all that said, I do not allege that Trump violated or did not violate campaign finance law. They are so Byzantine and with so much judicial gloss that many candidates (even Saint Obama, if memory serves) unwittingly violate them with regularity. I do allege that the section of the Mueller report at pp. 186-187 that we are both referencing is about Trump Jr., Manafort, and ... can't remember the others, but it sure as heck wasn't the President. I imagine anyone who believes in the golden showers also believes Trump was the puppet master behind the meeting and therefore guilty as a coconspirator. But I don't. And I see no evidence that the Mueller team did either.

    Now, I'll give you the last word on all this, so long as you don't cheap shot or throw a personal insult, as this is your thread and all, but imagine Mueller is giving a press conference and the question is, "Yes or no, Mr. Mueller, do you or does your report allege that the President violated campaign finance law in the course of or during or as a result of the June 9 Trump tower meeting?"

    I think he would say "no" for all the reasons I have given. What say you?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  17. Golem

    Golem Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,609
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So after all the B.S. we find out that you are a Trump loyalist after all. I don't know why all the running around. It was pretty obvious.

    Ok. Now that that's cleared up. Let's move on...
     
  18. Golem

    Golem Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,609
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can an answer with "Yes" and a name be "unresponsive" to a question that starts with "Has anyone...."?
     
  19. Golem

    Golem Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,609
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It most certainly means a statement for which "There are reasonable arguments..."

    Trump should have you in high regard. You obfuscate, cherry pick, move goalposts, ... anything to defend your idol.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  20. Golem

    Golem Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,609
    Likes Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was, in fact Mueller. And the difficulty was in valuating how much to value it on

    Mueller (page 188) The Office would also encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l).​

    So your source is Breitbart. I should have guessed. What you brought was an opinion. Not a supporting document. It was the opinion of... who know who (you still haven't said) at that puny fake news blog. I debate your opinions. Not the opinions of some pseudo-journalist who is not here.

    The fact that he declined to prosecute does not mean that he did not make the allegation. Which was what you asked. And there were many reasons. I already gave two of them on previous posts and one more above. Also because it would have been impossible to prosecute anybody involved while Trump is President.

    But that's not what you asked.
     
  21. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No!!! Have you no sense of humor at all? I asked you not to cheap shot me and you just couldn't resist. That's okay. I expected it.

    Anyway the source was the Center for Responsive Politics (aka The KKK Monthly ... that's a joke).

    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...ng-campaign-finance-charges-over-trump-tower/

    My apologies to this forum and to theirs for the lack of earlier attribution.

    Also there isn't really any proof of the Golden Showers in the Mueller report. That was a joke, too.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  22. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, no, it doesn't "mean" that. But it's a fact that he did not, if you give the term "allegation" its legal meaning. He explored and discussed potential grounds for prosecution of the Trump Tower meeting participants, of which Trump was not even one. Serious prosecutors do not play fast and loose with the term "allegation." They either indict and allege points A, B, and C if all elements of the offense, including intent, are readily provable, or they decline prosecution. Here, they were not, and so he did decline.
    We haven't even gotten into the fact that he couldn't allege the violation of the election laws because of a lack of readily provable knowledge and intent.

    If I shoot a guy and claim it was unintentional, the prosecutor will not "allege" that I murdered him and then say "but darn it, we just can't prove the requisite intent to commit murder." He'd be crazy as well as irresponsible to make an allegation under those circumstances. That was another problem he had and it precluded any allegation of election law violations.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2019
  23. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,315
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what is the problem? Are you suggesting that there exists a VERBATIM transcript somewhere that is being kept hidden?
     
  24. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    17,315
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How is it an abuse of power for a leader to ask another leader to investigate corruption in their country?
     
  25. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, they are. And Feinstein is demanding it. But I read somewhere that they no longer tape conversations at the White House, and that's why they have notes/summaries. Not sure if that's just under Trump, but I don't recall any transcripts of conversations, really of any president, after Nixon.

    Who would want to talk to the White House about any sensitive matter knowing he was being taped?
     
    chris155au likes this.

Share This Page