Review of the Russian collusion narrative

[JimL]

Heck, Bill Clinton marched senior level cabinet members out to defend his "I did not have seckshule relations" lie. Democrats are much more loyal to each other than the Republicans. I don't think there's near the infighting among Democrats (at least publicly) as there is among Republicans.

They were simply voicing their opinions, trusting the word of the President that he had nothing to do with relations with Monica Lewinski. It's not like they were there, and could testify as to the validity of the charge or not. Sheesh! We're not talking about opinions, we're talking about Congress actually attempting to underme the investigative process.

[Cow Poke]

They were simply voicing their opinions, trusting the word of the President that he had nothing to do with relations with Monica Lewinski.

Yeah, he even managed to snooker his own people. He allowed them to foist his big fat lies.

It's not like they were there, and could testify as to the validity of the charge or not. Sheesh! We're not talking about opinions, we're talking about Congress actually attempting to underme the investigative process.

Can you please define this 'underme' process?

[Mountain Man]

I'm not sure what undermining Jimmy is talking about. If anything, Mueller has been given too free of a hand, and his investigation has spun far beyond its original mandate. It would be reasonable and appropriate, I think, to reign him in, look at what he has so far, and if there's no evidence to date that the Trump campaign did anything illegal then bring the matter to a close.

[JimL]

Yeah, he even managed to snooker his own people. He allowed them to foist his big fat lies.

So what. Your contention was that Clintons cabinet people were intentionally lying for him as a cover up. Untrue.

Can you please define this 'underme' process?

Apparently you only watch Fox News so you have no idea. Instead of investigating the matter like they are supposed to be doing, they, the republican congress, is lying, puting out false information, and not releasing the transcripts. Thats why D. Feinstein released them on her own, against the wishes of the republican chair the other day so that the people could see the republican lies and obstruction. They are also trying to avert attention away from Muellers investigation and get people to focus on H. Clinton instead, with constant talk of shutting down the special prosecutor. They are calling for R. Steele, as if he is the enemy, to be investigated for his roll in informing the U.S. intelligence of what he learned about Russian activities and our elections, etc etc.

[One Bad Pig]

So what. Your contention was that Clintons cabinet people were intentionally lying for him as a cover up. Untrue.

False; his contention was that Clintons[sic] cabinet people believed his lies and unwittingly reiterated them. Try reading for comprehension, Jim.

[Cow Poke]

False his contention was that Clintons[sic] cabinet people believed his lies and unwittingly reiterated them. Try reading for comprehension, Jim.

Exactly, and if Clinton had any decency, he would have found a way to tell them to hold off, but he allowed them to make fools of themselves in an attempt to save his own sorry skin.

[Cow Poke]

Apparently you only watch Fox News so you have no idea.

Actually, I rarely watch Fox News. The rest of your post is just as dumb.

[rogue06]

I see you accusing Democrats of lying through their teeth, but I don't see any specifics.

Well that's pretty ironic coming from you.

To be specific you had Democrats who testified before Starr come out and claim that Starr kept asking questions about Clinton's sex life to the point of being obsessed with it. As the "Starr Report" revealed later on he never asked questions about Clinton's sex life. The Democrats were lying through their teeth.

[rogue06]

False; his contention was that Clintons[sic] cabinet people believed his lies and unwittingly reiterated them. Try reading for comprehension, Jim.

Why should he start now?

[Teallaura]

Well for one thing Tea, I agree, it would be the wrong thing to do, it's not what the 25th was meant for, and with a republican congress it wouldn't work anyway. Its also unlikely that he'll be impeached by a republican congress, unless enough of them are forced into it by public opinion. High crimes and misdemeaners are whatever congress determines them to be, so ultimately, being a majority, it's up to the republicans, and they tend to protect their leader regardless, unless the public pressure forces them to do otherwise.

Change 'republican' to 'party in power' and I agree completely.

[Starlight]

Let's assume for a moment the outcome of Mueller's investigations is what most commentators have been saying for a while / also what the recent Fire and Fury book suggests:

1. There was no major collusion with the Russians to rig the election.
2. Trump and Kushner's financial dealings going back decades are/were seriously illegal. Both of them have made the bulk of their income from money laundering.
3. Firing Comey was a deliberate and intentional act of obstruction of justice on the part of both Trump and Kushner, inspired by #2.

What will happen then? Does Trump's position as president make him above paying any criminal price for two decades of money laundering? Some people have been claiming a sitting president can't be indicted. Yet clearly Ken Starr thought that there was some merit in investigating Whitewater - a decades old Clinton real-estate deal. If old deals are worth investigating for the Clintons, would decades of money laundering be enough for some serious repercussions for Trump?

[JimL]

False; his contention was that Clintons[sic] cabinet people believed his lies and unwittingly reiterated them. Try reading for comprehension, Jim.

Wrong. He said that Clinton marched them out to defend his lies as if they knew otherwise, and because being democrats they are much more willing to do that than republicans are.

[lilpixieofterror]

Let's assume for a moment the outcome of Mueller's investigations is what most commentators have been saying for a while / also what the recent Fire and Fury book suggests:

1. There was no major collusion with the Russians to rig the election.
2. Trump and Kushner's financial dealings going back decades are/were seriously illegal. Both of them have made the bulk of their income from money laundering.
3. Firing Comey was a deliberate and intentional act of obstruction of justice on the part of both Trump and Kushner, inspired by #2.

What will happen then? Does Trump's position as president make him above paying any criminal price for two decades of money laundering? Some people have been claiming a sitting president can't be indicted. Yet clearly Ken Starr thought that there was some merit in investigating Whitewater - a decades old Clinton real-estate deal. If old deals are worth investigating for the Clintons, would decades of money laundering be enough for some serious repercussions for Trump?

[lilpixieofterror]

Wrong. He said that Clinton marched them out to defend his lies as if they knew otherwise, and because being democrats they are much more willing to do that than republicans are.

That must be why the press and democrats worked overtime smearing those that accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassememt and rape.

[JimL]

Exactly, and if Clinton had any decency, he would have found a way to tell them to hold off, but he allowed them to make fools of themselves in an attempt to save his own sorry skin.

If Republicans had any decency then they wouldn't be constantly wasting tax payer money on actual political witch hunts like Whitewater and Benghazi and the undermining of honest investigations like the Russians attempt to undermine our democratic system of governance.