'Trump dossier' on Russia links now part of special counsel's probe - sources

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Presidents are trusted not to have conflicts of interest but sadly, it's not the law:

Under Title 18 Section 208 of the U.S. code, the president and vice president are exempt from conflict-of-interest laws on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/confirmation-hearings-trump-speaks-and-vote-a-rama-analysis-and-updates/fact-check-trumps-claim-that-the-president-cant-have-a-conflict-of-interest/?utm_term=.eea0ecbf30ee

True.  The Emoluments Clause offers some hope, but the best bet is Article 2, section 4 of the Constitution:

 

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

 

What constitutes "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is unclear, but if Nixon was impeached for covering up "a third rate break-in" and Clinton for lying about a BJ, using the office of the President for personal enrichment and covering up his campaign's collusion with Russia should be more than sufficient.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

Is that against the law, have they done anything illegal?  I am only asking because I don't know.

I've got no idea. Just know Trump bashed Hillary for exactly the same thing. 

[Srikcir]

15 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

HRC supposedly sent classified emails, did Kushner? 

The issue of sending government-based emails goes beyond whether they're classified or not as confidential or higher security level, whether they were sent to people who had classified clearance or whether they could be hacked. Quite simply all government email communications must be sent through secured government internet systems.

According to former FBI Director Comey, an unclassified system was no place for government communications. Kushner et al clearly used unsecured, unclassified email systems for government communications. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/

 

 

[Si Thea01]

19 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The issue of sending government-based emails goes beyond whether they're classified or not as confidential or higher security level, whether they were sent to people who had classified clearance or whether they could be hacked. Quite simply all government email communications must be sent through secured government internet systems.

According to former FBI Director Comey, an unclassified system was no place for government communications. Kushner et al clearly used unsecured, unclassified email systems for government communications. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/

 

 

 

Thanks for that.  I must have read it wrong, I thought he used a government system for private emails but it was his private system that he used for government business, which is what HRC allegedly did, correct?

[boomerangutang]

8 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I've got no idea. Just know Trump bashed Hillary for exactly the same thing. 

Not quite 'exactly the same.'

 

Kushner has been shown; clandestinely dealing with Russian agents to circumvent US intel agencies.  He's also got questionable big-ticket deals with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Moscow. He lied to Congressional committees about several things (that we know of, thus far) including his various email accounts. He's over 1 billion in debt (to Russians?  Chinese? )

 

Any of those things attributed to Kushner, are more grave than the thing HRC was accused of.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Not quite 'exactly the same.'

 

Kushner has been shown; clandestinely dealing with Russian agents to circumvent US intel agencies.  He's also got questionable big-ticket deals with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Moscow. He lied to Congressional committees about several things (that we know of, thus far) including his various email accounts. He's over 1 billion in debt (to Russians?  Chinese? )

 

Any of those things attributed to Kushner, are more grave than the thing HRC was accused of.

Wow. More dots connecting. Stunning.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lawmakers-looming-debt-leave-jared-kushner-vulnerable-russian/story?id=47780422

“It's very peculiar that of all the people he could be talking to in a transition period where you've got lots of balls in the air, that you end up talking to a Russian banker who is under sanction and who is related to Putin and has a KGB background,” said Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. “I think the question has to be asked, was this about you trying to get financing for your troubled real estate that you have in New York City?”

[FreddieRoyle]

Interesting to note that after over a year of practically 24/7 coverage of so called "Russia-gate" on CNN it seems they have finally called off the hounds. Lost the scent, or there never was any scent to begin with? Has ever such a demonic slander operation been carried out on a POTUS in the history of the United States?

 

At risk of sounding like a broken record, the Dems would be better served examining their campaign, and trying to learn from mistakes made. There will be another election in a few years - not sure whether 4 years of this Russia gibberish will win it for them.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Interesting to note that after over a year of practically 24/7 coverage of so called "Russia-gate" on CNN it seems they have finally called off the hounds. Lost the scent, or there never was any scent to begin with? Has ever such a demonic slander operation been carried out on a POTUS in the history of the United States?

 

At risk of sounding like a broken record, the Dems would be better served examining their campaign, and trying to learn from mistakes made. There will be another election in a few years - not sure whether 4 years of this Russia gibberish will win it for them.

The scent gets stronger and stronger every week. You must be a Republican and Trump supporter? Sad you don't want to find out the truth.

[Si Thea01]

1 minute ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Interesting to note that after over a year of practically 24/7 coverage of so called "Russia-gate" on CNN it seems they have finally called off the hounds. Lost the scent, or there never was any scent to begin with? Has ever such a demonic slander operation been carried out on a POTUS in the history of the United States?

 

At risk of sounding like a broken record, the Dems would be better served examining their campaign, and trying to learn from mistakes made. There will be another election in a few years - not sure whether 4 years of this Russia gibberish will win it for them.

I thought this also but over the last 3 days they're at it again.  Really getting sick and tired of it. Their latest is his attendance in Las Vegas, which I thought was appropriate, he was criticised for not showing enough empathy.  These people want to discredit him at every turn.  No wonder America, as many say, is divided.  This is just an observation from an outsider.

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

I thought this also but over the last 3 days they're at it again.  Really getting sick and tired of it. Their latest is his attendance in Las Vegas, which I thought was appropriate, he was criticised for not showing enough empathy.  These people want to discredit him at every turn.  No wonder America, as many say, is divided.  This is just an observation from an outsider.

Trump is the divider in chief. Chaos is his style. He creates chaos. He gets what he deserves.

 

Are you aware of his comments in Puerto Rico? Absolutely horrible.

 

As for Vegas, he's getting praise for his speech there. The news does report things quite accurately. Much to the dismay of his followers.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/trump-las-vegas-puerto-rico/index.html

[boomerangutang]

55 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Interesting to note that after over a year of practically 24/7 coverage of so called "Russia-gate" on CNN it seems they have finally called off the hounds. Lost the scent, or there never was any scent to begin with? Has ever such a demonic slander operation been carried out on a POTUS in the history of the United States?

At risk of sounding like a broken record, the Dems would be better served examining their campaign, and trying to learn from mistakes made. There will be another election in a few years - not sure whether 4 years of this Russia gibberish will win it for them.

I guess it boils down to:  Do you think it's ok for an adversarial country (in this case, Russia) to conspire with Americans to actively and effectively subvert the US electoral system ?

 

If you think that's ok, then I can understand that you wish the whole investigation should blow away in the wind.   If, however, you're like me and the majority of Americans, you don't want Russian officials successfully swaying the outcome of a nationwide election  (whew, this is a long sentence) ....then you'll want law-breakers pursued and brought to court.

 

The US Constitution states, in part; "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

 

The above is just one statute, among many, that Trump and his cohorts are accused of breaking. Note the words 'Office or Title.'  POTUS is a title, as is 'Commander in Chief.'   Did Putin and his comrades tangibly aid Trump gain those offices/titles?   That's what Mueller's team is looking into.  BTW, they're not letting up or 'calling off the hounds' as FreddieRoyle suggests. They're adding experts to their team, and are moving forward like a phalanx.

 

 

[riclag]

23 hours ago, heybruce said:

Sarcasm?

It wasn't sarcasm! I believe that the collusion thing is just another way for Conservatives, Liberals,Democrat's and Republican's to delegitimize what American's voted for in the electoral vote for President.Mr Tweeter isn't a politician and at times talks with his rear not his mouth,but he was the better candidate at the time  .There are too many powerful forces that are  united and determine to undermine change! 

[riclag]

3 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Interesting to note that after over a year of practically 24/7 coverage of so called "Russia-gate" on CNN it seems they have finally called off the hounds. Lost the scent, or there never was any scent to begin with? Has ever such a demonic slander operation been carried out on a POTUS in the history of the United States?

 

At risk of sounding like a broken record, the Dems would be better served examining their campaign, and trying to learn from mistakes made. There will be another election in a few years - not sure whether 4 years of this Russia gibberish will win it for them.

Your comment was spot on .It's not only Dem's that are shooting him down it's the whole establishment. It's frustrating !

[attrayant]

I'd sure like to know where you guys were when the Bengazi hearings were dragging on year after year, each one ending in a resounding "nothing-burger", as you like to call it.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Interesting to note that after over a year of practically 24/7 coverage of so called "Russia-gate" on CNN it seems they have finally called off the hounds. Lost the scent, or there never was any scent to begin with? Has ever such a demonic slander operation been carried out on a POTUS in the history of the United States?

 

At risk of sounding like a broken record, the Dems would be better served examining their campaign, and trying to learn from mistakes made. There will be another election in a few years - not sure whether 4 years of this Russia gibberish will win it for them.

Over a year?  Are you with the FBI?  The FBI kept its investigation into Russian interference in the election and possible Trump campaign collusion a secret until after the election.  Unlike the Clinton investigation.

 

For a bit of perspective, the Whitewater investigation ran from 1994 until 1997, and it was, initially, a very simple investigation into a real estate deal with no meetings in foreign countries with hostile Russian operatives.  Of course Whitewater went well beyond investigating a real estate deal.  I'm sure the Trump administration is aware of this, and quite concerned.

 

This investigation is a lot more complicated than Whitewater, and since it is looking into a concerted effort by a foreign power to undermine US elections and democracy, it is far more important. 

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, riclag said:

It wasn't sarcasm! I believe that the collusion thing is just another way for Conservatives, Liberals,Democrat's and Republican's to delegitimize what American's voted for in the electoral vote for President.Mr Tweeter isn't a politician and at times talks with his rear not his mouth,but he was the better candidate at the time  .There are too many powerful forces that are  united and determine to undermine change! 

Russian interference in the election has been proven beyond doubt.  Fully comprehending the extent of interference and finding ways to counter it is a work in progress.  Meetings and communications between Trump campaign officials and shady Russians is highly suspicious, as is Trump's paranoid denial of the proven Russian involvement.

 

But don't worry; if there was no collusion a thorough investigation will show that.  And the investigation doesn't prevent Trump from doing his job, it's his incompetence that is preventing him from doing his job.

[riclag]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Russian interference in the election has been proven beyond doubt.  Fully comprehending the extent of interference and finding ways to counter it is a work in progress.  Meetings and communications between Trump campaign officials and shady Russians is highly suspicious, as is Trump's paranoid denial of the proven Russian involvement.

 

But don't worry; if there was no collusion a thorough investigation will show that.  And the investigation doesn't prevent Trump from doing his job, it's his incompetence that is preventing him from doing his job.

It's safe to say you hate Tweeter Man right? In your opinion is their anything  that his Administration has done right? My opinion is all of this collusion thing is petty.Just like Benghazi,except with Benghazi people died .

If the voter machines were tampered with yeah by all means get Trump impeached but....

Edited October 7, 2017 by riclag

[riclag]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Russian interference in the election has been proven beyond doubt.  Fully comprehending the extent of interference and finding ways to counter it is a work in progress.  Meetings and communications between Trump campaign officials and shady Russians is highly suspicious, as is Trump's paranoid denial of the proven Russian involvement.

 

But don't worry; if there was no collusion a thorough investigation will show that.  And the investigation doesn't prevent Trump from doing his job, it's his incompetence that is preventing him from doing his job.

It's not the incompetence it's the obstructionist that are undermining his agenda.

[selftaopath]

Here's another act of war by Russia that 45 or his defenders will not acknowledge.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/news/a28519/russia-is-trying-to-hack-the-phones-of-us-soldiers/?src=nl&mag=pop&list=nl_pnl_news&date=100617

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

It's safe to say you hate Tweeter Man right? In your opinion is their anything  that his Administration has done right? My opinion is all of this collusion thing is petty.Just like Benghazi,except with Benghazi people died .

If the voter machines were tampered with yeah by all means get Trump impeached but....

I think Trump is a completely clueless, corrupt, unqualified fool.  I don't hate Trump so much as fear the damage he can do to this country and the world.

 

There is nothing petty about colluding with a hostile foreign power to swing an election.  Especially when the foreign power isn't above blackmailing foreign governments and the officials they have the goods on.

 

Edit:  In terms of doing anything right, the administrations inability to do much of anything but continue Obama policies is the only thing I can think of.

Edited October 7, 2017 by heybruce

[heybruce]

32 minutes ago, riclag said:

It's not the incompetence it's the obstructionist that are undermining his agenda.

Trump's agenda?  He expected Congress to deliver a health care bill to him that would live up to all his impossible campaign promises, which he could then sign and take credit for.  He expected the same thing on infrastructure and tax reform.  He expected bluster to cause other nations to submit to his trade and defense demands. 

 

None of this happened, and now he has nothing.  His only hope for any accomplishment is working with Congress, but his lack of detailed plans, ignorance about how government and the economy works, and all the bridges he as burned make working with Congress a challenge.

 

Finally, as I've been stating since long before the election, he is absolutely unfit to be the man who can launch nuclear weapons.  Many people are still in denial about this, but if Trump gives the order to launch, nuclear missiles will be in the air in minutes.  Nothing short of a high-level military mutiny will prevent the order from being executed, and nothing can stop these missiles once launched from delivering their payloads. 

 

So yes, his blatantly obvious and appalling incompetence for the position he is in does concern me.  The sooner Congress acknowledges that he is not only incompetent but a dangerous threat and use this to impeach him, the better off the country and the world will be.

Edited October 7, 2017 by heybruce

[riclag]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I think Trump is a completely clueless, corrupt, unqualified fool.  I don't hate Trump so much as fear the damage he can do to this country and the world.

 

There is nothing petty about colluding with a hostile foreign power to swing an election.  Especially when the foreign power isn't above blackmailing foreign governments.

 Sorry I didn't see your response . My mistake

Edited October 7, 2017 by riclag

[selftaopath]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump's agenda?  He expected Congress to deliver a health care bill to him that would live up to all his impossible campaign promises, which he could then sign and take credit for.  He expected the same thing on infrastructure and tax reform.  He expected bluster to cause other nations to submit to his trade and defense demands. 

 

None of this happened, and now he has nothing.  His only hope for any accomplishment is working with Congress, but his lack of detailed plans, ignorance about how government and the economy works, and all the bridges he as burned make working with Congress a challenge.

 

Finally, as I've been stating since long before the election, he is absolutely unfit to be the man who can launch nuclear weapons.  Many people are still in denial about this, but if Trump gives the order to launch, nuclear missiles will be in the air in minutes.  Nothing short of a high-level military mutiny will prevent the order from being executed, and nothing can stop these missiles once launched from delivering their payloads. 

 

So yes, his blatantly obvious and appalling incompetence for the position he is in does concern me.  The sooner Congress acknowledges that he is not only incompetent but a dangerous threat and use this to impeach him, the better off the country and the world will be.

Thanks Bruce. I will admit I hate 45.  IMO he has absolutely no redeeming qualities. Republicans putting country above their spineless party is not going to happen. Democracy is under siege by this madman/his defenders and Russia.

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

It wasn't sarcasm! I believe that the collusion thing is just another way for Conservatives, Liberals,Democrat's and Republican's to delegitimize what American's voted for in the electoral vote for President.Mr Tweeter isn't a politician and at times talks with his rear not his mouth,but he was the better candidate at the time  .There are too many powerful forces that are  united and determine to undermine change! 

Cheating is cheating, and by any other name would be cheating. It so happens, cheating is allowed in US campaigning.  So is lying.  So is taking 20 million $$'s from the NRA to endanger Americans, .....all things Trump has done.  And that's just the tippy tip of the Dangerous Dufus iceberg. 

 

5 hours ago, riclag said:

Your comment was spot on .It's not only Dem's that are shooting him down it's the whole establishment. It's frustrating !

Brace yourself to get a lot more frustrated.  You ain't seen the half of it, yet.  If you've got staph infection (which is what I equate to Trumpsters being in the WH. Or call it 'staff infection') ....then you probably want to do whatever you can to get the pathogens out of your body (out of the body-politic, out of the halls of power).

 

4 hours ago, riclag said:

It's safe to say you hate Tweeter Man right? In your opinion is their anything  that his Administration has done right? My opinion is all of this collusion thing is petty.Just like Benghazi,except with Benghazi people died .

If the voter machines were tampered with yeah by all means get Trump impeached but....

I don't know if you're asking me, but frankly, there's nothing he's done right.  Oh wait.  A month ago, while watching TV news in his bathrobe and drinking cola and eating 3 scoops of ice cream, he shouted out loud; "people f&%#*ing hate me!!!!"  He got that right.

[Si Thea01]

21 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Trump is the divider in chief. Chaos is his style. He creates chaos. He gets what he deserves.

 

Are you aware of his comments in Puerto Rico? Absolutely horrible.

 

As for Vegas, he's getting praise for his speech there. The news does report things quite accurately. Much to the dismay of his followers.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/trump-las-vegas-puerto-rico/index.html

No, didn't hear that so can't really comment.  The only reason I brought up the lack of empathy bit was because CNN had to bring in their usual panel who glorify in giving it to him. You can see the glee in the face as they try to outdo each other.   If they could get away with patting each other on the back or giving each other a standing ovation, I think they would.

 

Some may be reporting accurately but unfortunately, I only get one source, and they lever it 5 to 1 against on most occasions or when they are running short they get it 4 to 0 or 2 to 0 against.  At least on here those who have opposing opinions can get a say, even if they are howled down by a few.  So not totally biased.  As for him being a divider, he may  be, he may not be, only time will tell.  IMO.    

[craigt3365]

34 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

No, didn't hear that so can't really comment.  The only reason I brought up the lack of empathy bit was because CNN had to bring in their usual panel who glorify in giving it to him. You can see the glee in the face as they try to outdo each other.   If they could get away with patting each other on the back or giving each other a standing ovation, I think they would.

 

Some may be reporting accurately but unfortunately, I only get one source, and they lever it 5 to 1 against on most occasions or when they are running short they get it 4 to 0 or 2 to 0 against.  At least on here those who have opposing opinions can get a say, even if they are howled down by a few.  So not totally biased.  As for him being a divider, he may  be, he may not be, only time will tell.  IMO.    

You should read up on his comments in Puerto Rico. Trump brings this upon himself. Don't blame the media. Blame Trump. read this.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/01/politics/trump-tweets-puerto-rico/index.html

 

[Si Thea01]

27 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You should read up on his comments in Puerto Rico. Trump brings this upon himself. Don't blame the media. Blame Trump. read this.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/01/politics/trump-tweets-puerto-rico/index.html

 

I will.  Unfortunately, I have to blame a certain media outlet, and it is because of what I see and hear.  The others, as I said, I can't comment on because I have not read or heard any of their reporting.  I don't know if you watch them, CNN, but I do and I have heard some of Mr Trump's speeches and IMO they have taken what he said completely out of context and at some stages, omitted words, added words or twisted the whole thing around so that it puts him in a bad light.  I will be fair, it does not happen all the time but I would say about 90 percent of it.

 

Sometimes they are generous and have a couple of pro-Trump contributors, but when they trip up the anchors or some of the others and show that what they have said is not quite true, they have either cut them off in the middle, saying they have to go to a break or gone to the extent of dismissing a couple of pro Trump contributors.   I have never seen this happen to those who oppose Mr. Trump. Hardly a fair and open discussion and that is why I am getting sick and tired of the lopsidedness.  Many say he deserves this and that but I was always taught, not matter what, be fair and hear each argument as it is presented. Not to be a sheep when it comes to putting ones opinion forward.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

I will.  Unfortunately, I have to blame a certain media outlet, and it is because of what I see and hear.  The others, as I said, I can't comment on because I have not read or heard any of their reporting.  I don't know if you watch them, CNN, but I do and I have heard some of Mr Trump's speeches and IMO they have taken what he said completely out of context and at some stages, omitted words, added words or twisted the whole thing around so that it puts him in a bad light.  I will be fair, it does not happen all the time but I would say about 90 percent of it.

 

Sometimes they are generous and have a couple of pro-Trump contributors, but when they trip up the anchors or some of the others and show that what they have said is not quite true, they have either cut them off in the middle, saying they have to go to a break or gone to the extent of dismissing a couple of pro Trump contributors.   I have never seen this happen to those who oppose Mr. Trump. Hardly a fair and open discussion and that is why I am getting sick and tired of the lopsidedness.  Many say he deserves this and that but I was always taught, not matter what, be fair and hear each argument as it is presented. Not to be a sheep when it comes to putting ones opinion forward.

You'll have to post an example of where they cut words out to make him look bad. Sometimes, they do just show a short section of a speech. That's normal and done all the time. But to purposefully do it to change the meaning? Not with the bigger media outlets.

 

Please show an example. Please.

[Si Thea01]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

You'll have to post an example of where they cut words out to make him look bad. Sometimes, they do just show a short section of a speech. That's normal and done all the time. But to purposefully do it to change the meaning? Not with the bigger media outlets.

 

Please show an example. Please.

Not getting into an argument but I have to disagree with the short sections, if I was referring to those, I would have said so. I am talking about panel discussions and they don't short them, believe me.  Now how, given the numerous panels and talks they've had in the past two years, do you expect me to locate specifics?  And please Craig, I do not have to post anything, it is not a requirement for one's contribution.

 

Not being rude but can either accept what I say or dismiss it, it's up to you, as I have no intention of searching for hours in order to sustain what I've stated.  If you are as knowledgeable as your posts suggest than you would know very well what I have stated is true, not made up, gets me nowhere to fabricate anything. 

[Si Thea01]

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

Trump's agenda?  He expected Congress to deliver a health care bill to him that would live up to all his impossible campaign promises, which he could then sign and take credit for.  He expected the same thing on infrastructure and tax reform.  He expected bluster to cause other nations to submit to his trade and defense demands. 

 

None of this happened, and now he has nothing.  His only hope for any accomplishment is working with Congress, but his lack of detailed plans, ignorance about how government and the economy works, and all the bridges he as burned make working with Congress a challenge.

 

Finally, as I've been stating since long before the election, he is absolutely unfit to be the man who can launch nuclear weapons.  Many people are still in denial about this, but if Trump gives the order to launch, nuclear missiles will be in the air in minutes.  Nothing short of a high-level military mutiny will prevent the order from being executed, and nothing can stop these missiles once launched from delivering their payloads. 

 

So yes, his blatantly obvious and appalling incompetence for the position he is in does concern me.  The sooner Congress acknowledges that he is not only incompetent but a dangerous threat and use this to impeach him, the better off the country and the world will be.

I think I can see where you stand but as an outsider, if he were to be impeached and gotten rid of, who would you have replace him?  And would you be happy with that choice? Just asking as there are so many calls to impeach the man and get rid of him but no one has said who they would have replace him and that they would be satisfied with that choice.  Of course this is all hypothetical but I'd bet there would be just as many grumblers.