Jump to content

Crusher

banned
  • Posts

    873
  • Joined

Everything posted by Crusher

  1. Really? Why do you believe that?
  2. I didn't think so. Pretty even handed in what lead to this clusterfuck in 2016. To each his own.
  3. I know the question wasn't for me but I would like to answer. I'll break the questions out one at a time and answer. Is Trump throwing sand in the gears of the investigation? : Yes. I believe so. He has fought back from what he believed was a witch-hunt. He didn't conspire with the Russians and the Mueller Report has backed him up. Did Putins Kremlin actively coordinate efforts to support Trump's election?: No. To actively support Trumps campaign, no I don't believe that. I do believe the Russians were actively involved in the 2016 election to create chaos . They hacked the DNC and the GOP. I think they found more goodies in the DNC that they could effectively use. I still think the dossier was Russian disinformation that was put out to cover their ass so to speak. https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html Did Trump and/or his campaign know that the Kremlin was helping? Did he welcome that help? : I don't think Trump or his campaign were involved but they were glad that the US people got a look up Hillary's skirt so to speak. I think it had a huge influence. For me it confirmed what I thought but, for voters on the fence I think it definitely changed votes. Did he ask for help?: No, definitely not. That was the crux of the Mueller investigation and if he had come back with an affirmative answer to that question I would be the first one to scream for Trumps head. Not going to hand off the United States of America to some Orange Manchurian Candidate while I'm alive. Did he attempt to capitalize on that help?: Answered above. Hell yes. Would Hillary have taken advantage of Russian intel that disparaged Trump? Hell yes.
  4. Hard to tell them apart but, I don't think that is Rachell? But, to the point, WOW talk about the definition of projection.
  5. Really? Even if that secondary proceeding didn't exist at the time. Depending when the alleged conversation took place you're saying that Trump could have possibly obstructed an investigation that was over and obstructed an investigation that didn't exist yet? All this is speculation based on the timing. I believe you are a lawyer based on past posts, so I will take your word for it but seems a bit sketchy to me.
  6. I'm not sure. Trying to nail down the time line. Had McGahn been called to testify before Nadler's Committee at the time of the alleged conversation? Either way what McGahn believes and what he can prove are two very different things. Especially considering he has already been interviewed under threat of perjury by Mueller's team.
  7. I agree. But, asking McGahn to say he believes the outcome of the Mueller report is not the same as asking him to lie or withhold some relevant information that could change that outcome after the fact.. McGahn was examined by the Mueller Team. If he was withholding evidence he would also be guilty of obstruction himself. Not to mention perjury. So, if he goes before Nadler's committee and starts dropping bombshells he will have some 'splaining to do afterward.
  8. That part reminds me , I'm hungry... Think I will have some jumbo shrimp. Then definitely maybe watch the Rockets. But my knee hurts so I may have to rub some Icy Hot on it.
  9. Just asking because not a lawyer and shit... In what ways can a person obstruct an investigation that has been closed? I could see it if they were tampering with a new witness that hadn't already testified who could bring new evidence that could change the judgement rendered but, asking an already examined witness to agree with what the AG has concluded? Would that meet the threshold? Or, if McGahn was on the fence and changing his story? If they knew he had damning evidence and were tampering with him I could definitely see obstruction. But, that is not what the WSJ is saying in the article. Not really sure why Trump cares what McGahn thinks anyway? It was not his job to render a decision on obstruction after Mueller pussed out.. Just better optics on the whole if everyone is on board I guess.
  10. Crusher

    Comedy

    You caught the tater...
  11. Man you are awesome!!!
  12. These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?
  13. Real question. How has your life changed since Trump took the office of the President.
  14. I didn't bring up the past... Tom Did..
  15. Never said anything in the like. Your just an idiot if that is what you have gleaned from posts tonight. Yep. I will take Bill Barr and Trump over Obama and Holder and the Fast and Furious. At least Trump hasn't managed to get one of own Border Patrol Agents killed by one of his own guns???!!
  16. No, I'm gonna trust Barr and the whole DOJ that says there is no evidence of collusion. And from that I will assume that Trump is not a agent of Russia. Also, since I believe the whole thing was a political hack job I will go with the AG assessment that the President has the right fire any one he wants under Article 2 of the Constitution . Since Trump is President and has the right to select his own choice of an Attorney General ... He is perfectly within his rights so far. I don't remember anyone being upset when JFK selected his little brother as his AG. But they were dems.… Elections have consequences.
  17. Ohhh. you're in trouble now.
  18. That is what it would look like if I couldn't read. Or write. So...on to the point... Obviously two human beings are reading the same words and not getting the same meaning. I can get that. I do not have anything to gain from supporting Trump. Hell I didn't even vote for him. I don't particularly like him. But you don't just get to boot a President out of office because you don't like him. That is what I have seen from day one. Lots of protests. Lots of noise. And now a possible conspiracy against Trump? 4 years is a short period of time. The Dems didn't try and use that time to learn. To get to know their constituents better. No they just chose to attack anything Trump. They missed a chance. The pendulum swings. Usually equally back and forth. Back and forth. When someone sticks their finger out in an effort to stop that pendulum? Shit gets bad.
  19. You have been asleep for two years...
  20. Another possibility — one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation. That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump’s presidency as well. Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. “Russia has huge experience in spreading false information,” he said.
  21. But the release on Thursday of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months — that while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove. Mr. Mueller’s report contained over a dozen passing references to the document’s claims but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out.
  22. You have lost and you don't even see it. You don't know how it happened. You don't know why it happened. I actually feel sorry for you. Your world of Trump being the bad guy is fixing to come crashing down. You believed so hard in your little bitty heart that we will get Trump. The big ole meanie. Truth will out and set you free.
  23. Do I have to post the NYT article again?
×
×
  • Create New...