Where have all of the Republicans gone?

The conspiracy is that Trump was working with Russia to rig somehow the 2016 election. That's why we had the Mueller investigation. You still seem to believe that, so that puts you in the conspiracy theory camp. If there were sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice, those would have been impeachment charges 2 years ago. Frankly it's just delusional to think that the Mueller Report "proved" Trump was committing crimes willy nilly.

It's the difference between investigating a crime and looking for one until you find a crime. What the Southern District is doing is hunting for a crime. So I do think it's very possible that if they hunt long enough, they'll find one. Of course, that goes for any other billionaire, or for that matter, anyone else.

 

The House considered adding Mueller as articles, but that's not a court of law. Better to look at the report itself than any inaction by the House.

Trump has already been identified as individual #1. (Or whatever it's called) Not a witch hunt.

 

What? "The House considered adding Mueller as articles, but that's not a court of law."

So the Trump hating House let Trump off. OK.

 

It does seem antithetical to their claim. In the whole, these are things that are unnecessary to the sharing and exchange of ideas and opinions.
Apparently they only apply the first amendment to the sharing of thoughts but not how you choose to express them or yourself. As long as you are allowed to share your opinion, view, and beliefs, I can get behind it. Expression is not entirely the same as speech but should be protected to some extent.


It would seem they need to better define their position. In any case, there are options outside of the progressive SJW Twitter at least. Gab is better at true free speech, but Republican leaders are too spineless to risk switching to it.

 

Oh please! Who referred to Ted Cruz as, "Lyin' Ted Cruz", insulted his wife's looks, and accused Cruz' father of involvement in the Kennedy assassination? Who disparaged John McCain for having been captured? Who led the Obama Birtherism nonsense? Who labeled Hillary Clinton "Crooked Hillary" and accused her of murdering Vince Foster? He got back a fraction of what he dished out. Speaking of character assassination, consider the crap that the right wing spread about Hillary Clinton over the years.

Before a single vote was cast, Trump proclaimed he could only lose if the election was rigged, which demonstrates that his beliefs about this are untethered to evidence. Now he treats every internet rumor of election fraud as established fact (confirmation bias on steroids), and attacks judges who rule against him. And in the process, his die-hard supporters believe everything he says about this - contributing to the destruction of trust in our democratic institutions. Do you think he's going to rein them in when the appeals lose and the electoral college votes? I predict he will AGAIN violate his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution". The rule of law is paramount to our democracy, and that entails respecting the outcome of the legal processes.

It's berserk to follow the evidence? Consider the facts: through Roger Stone, he worked with Wikileaks to strategically leak emails stolen by Russians. He praised Cohen for lying to Congress about Trump regarding Trump estate investment in Moscow. The infamous Trump Tower meeting entailed an eagerness to obtain more dirt from the Russians. He denied that there was any effort by Russians to interfere in the 2016 election, taking Putin's word for it over that of the National Security experts in his own administration. He called a legitimate investigation that identified actual Russian interference a "witch hunt", and made multiple attempts to stop the probe, and (worst of all) engaged in witness tampering. A reasonable person would notice that this is the sort of behavior a guilty person would engage in. It would be derelict to NOT investigate. In the end, the investigation did not conclude he engaged in criminal conspiracy. It was merely established that he took maximum advantage of the material he received from Russian efforts, and engaged in obstruction. The latter arguably rises to the level of criminality (as
over 1000 former federal prosecutors have attested). And yet Trump supporters ignore everything Trump unarguably did, and focus solely on the fact that "collusion" was not established.

But still, I would agree that it is inappropriate to assert Trump actually engaged in criminal conspiracy ("collusion" is not a defined crime). He has not been proven guilty of the crime, so we should treat him as innocent of the crime. How about we apply the same standard to Trump's accusations of Hillary and Biden? What's been established per this standard? But if we're going to use the typical standard of politics to judge Democrats, there is zero room to complain about even the harshest judgments of Trump. Whichever standard you wish to use, if applied consistently, Trump comes out the dirtiest.

Let's start with Trump dangling pardons to people to discourage their cooperation with a Dept of Justice investigation, which obstructed justice and violated his oath of office. Who's done something that egregious, supported by a similar level of evidence? Maybe you can come up with someone, and if you do - I will join you in declaring them unfit for office.

 

I do not believe Trump conspired with the Russians to rig the 2016 election. All I ever said was that there was Russian meddling and Trump did some suspicious things that warranted investigation. I accept Mueller's conclusion that there was no criminal conspiracy, but that there was inappropriate behavior.

You are free to believe that, but that seems to me looking for excuses. House Democrats considered including those charges, but chose a more streamlined case that focused on a narrower, more recent, activity. Their failure to pursue this has no bearing on Trump's vulnerability to criminal prosecution when he's out of office. Trump is worried about this, and has proclaimed that he can preemptively pardon himself.

That's not what I said. I said Mueller made a strong case for criminal obstruction of justice, and I supported this by pointing to the joint opinion of over 1000 former federal prosecutors. We can agree to disagree about this, and you can repeat your biased judgment that you think this delusional, but stating a contrary opinion is not a refutation.

 

Do you have any idea how many presidents have had affairs? Start with Thomas Jefferson. It's damn near universal- and it's hardly something uncommon in the American society.
The fact you didn't like him is irrelevant. When the people elected him he became everyone's president, and entitled to the respect of the office and every chance to do the job. You have a right to judge him on the performance of the job- you do not have the right to disqualify him for that because you don't like his marital history, or what he did 10 years ago- Any more than your boss has that right over you.

"Petty" is not much of a quality that applies here as a basis for judgement.

 

Do you buy everything the talking heads babble at CNN without question, and use the conclusions they tell you to have because it's easier than thinking for yourself?

You seem to think that politics is a game nice people play and Trump wasn't nice enough. Gee whiz....
You probably already own many famous bridges and national monuments already, but I know people who have some nice ones you can pick up cheap if you're still shopping.

 

A person can be of good character and give into urges they shouldn't. I didn't dislike Clinton because he got an office BJ, I disliked him starting when he announced. There's just something about him.

I never said Trump wasn't my president. I gave him a chance, as I do all presidents. My liberal friends were screaming impeach and Russia in early November. I never gave into any of that nonsense.

After a couple of years, it became obvious that he didn't love Americans. He may love the idea of America, but for it to be a complete love, you have to also care about Americans.

He clearly does not.

I could go on and on - suffice it to say, I can't wait until January 20, when I can start ignoring him again, as I have since 1980.

 

No. There's plenty of info out there. Read about it.

 

No, and that's an odd thing to say in response to the facts I related.

LOL! You complained Trump was treated unfairly by undeserved character assassination! I showed he dished out more than he got, to show how silly your complaint was.

Regarding "playing nice" - you are free to defend Trump's nasty attacks as irrelevant trash talk, if you accept that words have consequences. Trump fires up his base this way, but it also fires up those of us opposed to him. Stop complaining about the reaction it has on the other side. Pelosi sometimes talks trash on Republicans, and clearly this fires up her opposition as well.

I can set aside some trash talk, but some lines should not be crossed. Trump has crossed them. I notice you had nothing to say about the serious issues I raised. It seems you choose to lump it all together as nothing more than unsavory political rhetoric. Still waiting for you to identify Democrats who have engaged in something as egregious as obstruction of justice by dangling pardons.

My impression is that you haven't read the Mueller report, so you think my charges are the product of CNN fan fiction. Spend some time with chapter 2 before you again make the claim that it's just a little old personality issue.

 

House Democrats didn't choose a "more streamlined case;" The punted when it comes to the Mueller Report and when they did eventually impeach, it was about nothing to do with the Russians or the Mueller Report.

I don't think my judgement is biased if there are never charges from the Mueller Report. Trump will be out of office soon and we'll see if they show up then. My bet is no.

 

Sure there is.

 

The fact that you are still asserting a false premise (Mueller was forbidden from charging Trump) one that I refuted, establishes your bias. I have a better case for lack of bias, because my position is supported by over 1000 former federal prosecutors of both parties. Furthermore, I've actually read Mueller's report and considered the case. You have mentioned no facts in the case, and are entirely basing your opinion on the fact that Trump was not charged. I'd like to know if you use that standard when examining the behavior of Democrats. Let me hear you assert that Hillary is completely innocent of all crimes, since she wasn't charged.

 

Excellent! This is a perfect description of Trump! It could very well be the preamble of a best seller titled "Donald J Trump Itinerary of a failed real estate mogul and an accomplished crook" You won't have any problem finding a publisher: Simon & Schuster and Random House are already looking for your phone number.

 

To tell you about Parler.

 

Stay uninformed. No skin of my back.

 

I appreciate the candid response. I disagree about Trump loving the American people- because the country is what the people make it. But it's clear you understand that there are vast differences in people; that some are more like a plague on society than benefactors. The more of us are the latter, the fewer of us are the former- the stronger the nation becomes.

I believe all people have potential- to be happy successful in their own way, and good people who can manage their own lives. That's potential; what they could do- not the reality of what they choose to do and become, and that is their individual choice. In terms of who I care about, who I admire, who I am proud of- it's not the slackers, the people who spend their lives looking for the easy button or the people blaming our society for their lack of ambition or wealth. These are the spoilers that damage the work of the builders; I have no use for them at all.

Trump's leaving will not alter the ratio of these two kinds of people from what it is today. However, I firmly believe the incoming administration will- and the effect will be very negative.
Aside from the childish tantrums and despicable conduct over Trump's term- all of the garbage America has suffered over the last year has been directly or indirectly encouraged and enabled by the democratic politicians and followers. The radicals behind this feel they conduct is vindicated and approved by those now in power- and none of them are going to stand down nor settle for things as they are. When it comes to the point Biden stands in their way, he will be the new enemy- and he lacks the ability to cope with that. He's already filling the positions around him with people he owes political debts to, and he owes a great deal to a lot of unprincipled people. Trump would walk in and drain the swamp-but Biden is filling his with those he needs to pay or placate by giving them power and voice.

You simply can't create a winning team by loading it with such people. Nor can you manage and control a winning team if you are a weak and negotiable leader that compromises on the wrong things.

It's possible this view is wrong. I think the odds of that are about 3%. If I'm wrong, it would be a pleasure to admit it- because I'm not trying to be mean or vindictive, I'm being realistic and addressing the ability to do the job, not a dislike of Joe's personality.

If I may... consider this analogy.
If you were a builder and you wanted to construct a strong brick house, you would need two things. Strong bricks, strong mortar.
Bricks.... are moldable lumps of clay, without strength or shape or consistent values until they are fired in the furnace, brought to maturity.
Mortar is a cement mix that is used to bond the bricks together- and it too must be made in a process that turns sand and portland into a durable adhesive material.
IF you fail to use the fired, matured bricks and build your house with mud blocks, it fails.
If you fail to make and use high quality mortar- it fails.

Now understand the relevance to a nation' the house we build.
The people of America are the bricks.
The relationships that bond us to together is the mortar. Not just the laws, but our social values, our self respect and respect for each other.
The best mortar cannot bind bad bricks- and the best bricks cannot be bound by bad mortar. It takes quality in both, or you fail.

So you and I must decide if we will be solid, strong bricks that help the house endure- or mud that dissolves in the rain and erodes with the wind.
You and I must decide if we will build good relationships that serve all they touch and endure, or we will contrive ways to use and destroy the other, who are our own countrymen, for personal gain.

The idea we will use mud blocks in our house, or use corrupted mortar because it serves a personal objective for the moment- is truly a stupid choice.

If you can understand this concept- then look at the behavior of some of the people we have put in congress and some of those that are being given positions in the Biden administration. Look at the breakdowns in society we are already seeing where people of this nature already have localized power. Tell yourself how we have "improved" America by putting them in office. Tell yourself how the future will be brighter....

 

As usual, you are wrong. I wonder if you will ever tire of it.

 

Wow! What a scathing rebuttal! I identified numerous problems with your assertions, and you respond with an insult. Very Trumpian of you. It's sad, because in your earlier posts you sounded fairly reasonable. It appears you only apply that call for reasonableness to Democrats. You can't even recognize the difference between mere partisan bluster and actual criminal acts, or between biased reporting and established facts. It is established fact that Trump obstructed justice. You could possibly debate that he did not have corrupt intent, but the case for that seems quite weak. Regardless, you can't go there because you're in denial.

 

"Wrong" is an insult? Hardly, it's an observation. You are entitled to be wrong. All you have to do to be wrong is take any issue, pick the facts you like and ignore those you don't, and tell yourself what you want to hear.

Did Trump obstruct justice? OR- did he obstruct the calculated injustice being rationalized by the democrats? Dodging punches below the belt must be obstruction too.

 

The investigation was done by experienced agents, led by Republican Robert Mueller, under the direction of Republican Rod Rosenstein. There were sound legal grounds for investigating; crimes were identified and people were charged. There is no excuse for Trump interfering in the investigation, even if he's 100% innocent of wrongdoing regarding conspiracy with Russia - which I assume he is. His duty was to ensure a legal investigation was performed, not to try and subvert it.

Furthermore, are you oblivious to the appearance? Trump, his friends, and family were being investigated-- and he interfered. How can that NOT make him look like he's hiding something or protecting people? Consider Roger Stone: convicted of perjury, and then Trump commutes his sentence. Stone never talked, never admitted to working directly with Wikileaks - but it was proven that he did.

It's bizarre that you would defend Trump's interference. There is no legal basis for justifying this. Clearly, the best course of action would have been to let the investigation run its course. This is the worst kind of partisanship- excusing behavior that is both inappropriate and criminal.

 

The worst kind of partisanship is funding the creation of the phoney dossier, then getting a special investigator to find some way to turn it into a criminal case- and never getting around to prosecuting the people who did that. But you don't see that because the offense was designed to destroy Trump, and that's ok with you. End justifies the means... So long as it's not you that is being targeted. I fully understand the motives here- just coming up short on how respectable people can support them and pretend that making a conclusion and objective before an investigation is somehow.... respectable, and not more like a vendetta.

 

Hillary was not charged by organizations and individuals who supported her and were on her side. Trump was not impeached on the Mueller Report by a Congress that hated him and had been calling him a traitor (among other things). Let's not forget that the standard for impeachment is much lower than a regular criminal indictment. They could have impeached him for anything that they thought they could make a case for, yet took a pass. So I'll wait patiently for the Justice Department indictments to roll in after the inauguration.

 

That's misdirection. The investigation was lawful, and Trump obstructed it.

If there were crimes involved in the lead up to the investigation, I want the people who committed those crimes to be prosecuted. I don't care what party they belonged to. None of this excuses Trump's intervention.

No innocent man likes being investigated, but that doesn't justify their tampering with witnesses. It's still criminal, and Mueller explains this in his report.