The Trump Presidency...

Yeah, right

so where's the piss video then?
Entertaining Vladimir's inner circle until some leverage is really needed.

Why?
 
Entertaining Vladimir's inner circle until some leverage is really needed.

Why?
Yeah, right - 'leverage' - You mean like how the pussy grabbing video destroyed his electoral chances?

From past experience, If this video existed Trump would have ******* leaked it himself, because it would virtually guarantee him reelection.

Not just that - but this video is held by a corrupt government thats so frigging inept it couldn't help burning two of its own undercover agents in a chemical weapons assassination on British soil - bear in mind that they could have just slashed his wrists and made it look like a suicide like the CIA & Mossad would. and they've got these idiots holding a video that would, undoubtedly, be worth millions of pounds - likely the most watched video in the world since Paris Hilton, nd NOBODY has been tempted to take the money?

Bollocks
 
Yeah, right - 'leverage' - You mean like how the pussy grabbing video destroyed his electoral chances?

From past experience, If this video existed Trump would have ******* leaked it himself, because it would virtually guarantee him reelection.

Not just that - but this video is held by a corrupt government thats so frigging inept it couldn't help burning two of its own undercover agents in a chemical weapons assassination on British soil - bear in mind that they could have just slashed his wrists and made it look like a suicide like the CIA & Mossad would. and they've got these idiots holding a video that would, undoubtedly, be worth millions of pounds - likely the most watched video in the world since Paris Hilton, nd NOBODY has been tempted to take the money?

Bollocks
Different government agencies exhibit differing levels of competence. The GRU may have more enthusiasm than nous, but that doesn't mean the same could be said of all the Russian organs of state.

If the pissing video exists, (and AFAIK, its existence has only ever been rumoured) the video that matters is the one everyone has seen of the Helsinki summit, and Trump's uncharacteristic meekness and deference to Vladimir.

And I think you greatly overestimate Trump's willingness to own his past misdeeds. Or why else spend so much money on Stormy and others like her, refuse to release his tax returns, obstruct justice as detailed in Mueller's report, etc etc etc?
 
Yeah, right

so where's the piss video then?
Lack of evidence does not equate to definitive proof.
There is an accusation that Trump hired some Russian tarts (Well known to exist) to soil the bed Obama used.

Weird, but given Trump's(Ill mannered lout skirt chasing crook with a fake tan) known loathing of Obama (well mannered monogamous man with built in suntan) and all his works, not totally incredible.

More importantly, that weird behaviour was on record with Russian intelligence ( known for hotel espionage tricks for decades). for blackmail purposes.
So, did it happen?.
Don't know.
COULD it have happened?
Possibly. All the ingredients are there.

Has it been proved that Trump could NOT have done something outrageously crass because, for instance, he wasn't in Russia at the time?
No.
Has Trump done outrageously crass things before.
Yes. And boasts of it.
 
Your tin foil hat has slipped over your eyes.
Mueller went to great lengths to stress that he COULD NOT and WOULD NOT go beyond his very narrow remit.

Mueller had a narrow remit? That's a cracker. Manafort and Cohen are in jail for what to do with campaign of President Trump? The Mueller Special Counsel was authorised to investigate:

  • “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”
  • any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”
  • “any other matters within the scope” of the statute governing special counsels
At the outset, Mueller and his staff were given the power to interview witnesses, issue subpoenas and, if the evidence warranted it, work with the FBI to bring criminal charges.

Narrow remit. Good one!




Even if he found Trump's membership card for the Communist Party, as a sitting President he could not indict him. That was always the problem, because even with a cast iron case, he could not arrest and charge the President. What he could do, was to report to Congress on what he found.
He did find significant Russian involvement, and a great deal of Russian involvement in Trumps entourage.
He found significant evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump himself.
He EXPLICITELY did NOT clear Trump.

Your contention is cobblers.

The FBI were, if anything, a Republican biased organisation, and the one significant intervention they made was the catastrophic late reopening of the Clinton email case which I would argue gave the election to Trump.

The FBI "small group" that investigated the Clinton Emails, which gave her a pass were the the same "small group" that instigated 'Crossfire Hurricane."

Remind me again?
Why did Robert Mueller sack Peter Strzok - Republican bias?

What colour is the sky in your world?

Investigating Carter Page, Flynn and Manafort et al for Russian crimes is entirely within the Feds remit. They are the American governments law enforcement arm for dealing with international crime. (Since the entire Russian government is an organised crime network, anyone dealing with them is by default a bit suspect.)
Page, Flynn, Cohen, Manafort and Trump himself were all sucking on the Russian Mafia money tit.

Your claim - made with with zero evidence.

Remind me again? After Two and a half years of investigations, which prisons should I go to visit Flynn and Carter-Page?


Was Steele "virulently biased" against Trump? Seems highly unlikely. He is a very experienced and respected Int man from an allied foreign country where Trump was simply seen as a toxic rich American buffoon.

Actually not that respected. Kathleen Kavelac thought he was a moron. She put out the first warning that he was hopelessly compromised due to his hyper-partisanship.

So much so that he admitted that he was “desperate” to stop Trump becoming US president.

This has been widely reported in the MSM since February 2018. I'm surprised you don't know this.

Steele was so desperate that he broke the cardinal 'Acorn' rule and leaked his report to David Corn from Mother Jones to create circular validation. And that is why the FBI sacked his not very experienced and not really respected sorry arse.


What he actually seems to have been is "virulently alarmed" when he started work on a Republican commissioned report on Trump and discovered just how compromised the Trump organisation was in regard to its dealing with Russia.

I'm surprised that you keep banging the 'Republican commissioned' drum.

I'll try one more time. First you need to be up to speed with conflation - the merging of two or more sets of information into one. Trust me. It's a thing.

In October 2015, 'The Washington Free Beacon' a conservative newsroom hired the firm Fusion GPS to investigate Trump and other Republican candidates during the GOP primaries. On May 2nd 2016 - After Trump had won the nomination, the Free Beacon dropped the project. That's the first set of information OK?


The Second set of information is this. In April 2016, The law firm Perkins Coie acting as a cut out for the Clinton campaign separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier.

The Steele Dossier was entirely bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign and the DNC.


That is a chronologically established, copper bottomed, square rigged, ocean going fact.

What is also a fact, according to Rosemary Collyer of the FISA Court, is that this information was never revealed to her court.


See a problem? Any problem?


Page was named by Steele as a Trump/Russia liaison man, Mueller proved he had done significant work for Trump. It also said he was an unreliable witness. ( ie bent as a dogs back leg). Trump lied about Page working for him. Quelle surprise.

Page admitted dealing with the Russians on Trumps behalf when he testified to the House Intelligence Committee.

What's your inference? That's a bold claim. Want to walk back from that one at all? Very bold. It's testimony so there should be a quote. Please do provide a link.

Seriously if wishes were fishes you'd be king of the sea.


So, given that Page is clearly a wrong un, it is entirely normal for the Feds to tap his phone. Not because he was working for Trump, but because he was an American citizen with some very, very dodgy business partners.

I ask again, why after two and a half years of investigation, why isn't Carter-Page in jail?

I'll explain why he isn't because now we have the benefit of the Ohr 302's.

The Ohr 302's tell us that:

  • Carter Page met in Moscow with Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Mueller says no that didn't happen.

  • Michael Cohen visited Prague. The Cohen-Prague allegation was Steele’s most direct allegation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mueller said no.

  • Steele claimed that the source of the fictional sex tape was Sergei Millian. Mueller said that never happened.

  • Steele also claimed that Sergei Millian was the source that the Russian bank Alfa had a secret server in Trump Towers as a link to the Trump campaign. Mueller found that was a crock.
The Mueller Special Counsel comprehensively debunked these 'Steele Dossier' conjectures.

The basis for the wiretap on Carter Page that extended to the rest of the Trump campaign was predicated mostly on the 'Steele Dossier'

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Saint Robert Mueller. FFS


Since the same can be said for Trump himself, you should be asking why the Feds hadn''t been taping Trump himself for years as his criminal, fraud, money laundering and sexual offences, should have seen him jailed years ago before he dragged his septic carcass into politics.

Got it.

ORANGEMANBAD.

Thanks;)
 
Last edited:
Different government agencies exhibit differing levels of competence. The GRU may have more enthusiasm than nous, but that doesn't mean the same could be said of all the Russian organs of state.

If the pissing video exists, (and AFAIK, its existence has only ever been rumoured) the video that matters is the one everyone has seen of the Helsinki summit, and Trump's uncharacteristic meekness and deference to Vladimir.

And I think you greatly overestimate Trump's willingness to own his past misdeeds. Or why else spend so much money on Stormy and others like her, refuse to release his tax returns, obstruct justice as detailed in Mueller's report, etc etc etc?
I know the etc etc etc with question mark at the end of your post infers that you know a whole lot more than you are saying...

My question to you is - What obstruction of justice was detailed in Mueller's report?

One example would be sufficient.

Shouldn't be too hard.

You've just stated that Trump was guilty of the charge of 'Obstruction of Justice'

Further that Mueller detailed it.

What was it?

I think you just made that up.

The worst kind of pseud is an Orangeman bad pseud...
 
I know the etc etc etc with question mark at the end of your post infers that you know a whole lot more than you are saying...

My question to you is - What obstruction of justice was detailed in Mueller's report?

One example would be sufficient.

Shouldn't be too hard.

You've just stated that Trump was guilty of the charge of 'Obstruction of Justice'

Further that Mueller detailed it.

What was it?

I think you just made that up.

The worst kind of pseud is an Orangeman bad pseud...
You've put a lot of words in my mouth there, mick. If you want some examples of actions by President Trump that could be charged for obstruction of justice, well, I refer you to volume II of the Mueller report. It's easy enough to find. Google is your fwiend and all that. Here are some samples.

Mueller's Report Volume II" said:
Page 155: Intent. In analyzing the President's intent in his actions towards Cohen as a
potential witness, there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to
discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen's information would shed
adverse light on the President?s campaign-period conduct and statements...
...The evidence could support an inference that the President was aware of these facts at the
time of Cohen's false statements to Congress. Cohen discussed the project with the President in
early 2017 following media inquiries. Cohen recalled that on September 20, 2017, the day after
he released to the public his opening remarks to Congress - which said the project "was terminated
in January of 2016" - the President's personal counsel told him the President was pleased with
what Cohen had said about Trump Tower Moscow. And after Cohen's guilty plea, the President
told reporters that he had ultimately decided not to do the project, which supports the inference
that he remained aware of his own involvement in the project and the period during the Campaign
in which the project was being pursued.

Page 157: 2. Although the events we investigated involved discrete acts e.g., the President's
statement to Comey about the investigation, his termination of Comey, and his efforts to
remove the Special Counsel, it is important to view the President?s pattern of conduct as a whole.
That pattern sheds light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn
about his intent.

a. Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting
undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and
obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in
which the President sought to use his offcial power outside of usual channels.
Mueller's Conclusion said:
The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Further to the above and the redacted Mueller report which I quoted from:


You could have a look at his old tweets and the times he publicly told people not to cooperate or accused them of being rats when they did.

Mueller may not have pressed charges (Since it wasn't in his remit to do so), but there are clear grounds for Congress to hold Trump accountable for his actions in trying to confound the investigation.
 
Actually, it implies. you are the one doing the inferring.
Another pseud to the rescue. How quaint.

(When I said quaint just now, I meant quaint in the original context of the word and wasn't inferring at all that your 'white knighting' was a bit gay or anything. Just to make that perfectly clear. Not that there's anything wrong with that. What you and the Rogue have going on is nobody's business. Least of all mine. Glad we cleared that whole inference business up.)

You'd be able to stay 'On Topic' and help him out better If you could throw up any actual examples of President Trumps obstruction of justice? That Mueller confirmed?

What have you got?

Cheers.
 
Further to the above and the redacted Mueller report which I quoted from:


You could have a look at his old tweets and the times he publicly told people not to cooperate or accused them of being rats when they did.

But none of them were found to be obstruction of justice, they were just capable of potentially being, if the men’s rea was there. Without the men’s rea there’s no obstruction of justice.
 
But none of them were found to be obstruction of justice, they were just capable of potentially being, if the men’s rea was there. Without the men’s rea there’s no obstruction of justice.
Unless there's a strict liability aspect. In United States v. Kantor (an appropriate test case, as it turns out) the court ruled that mens rea in the form of the 'good faith' defence could only be applied if the defendant had positive reason to believe that they were not engaged in a criminal act, rather than plain old ignorance that they were.
 
You've put a lot of words in my mouth there, mick. If you want some examples of actions by President Trump that could be charged for obstruction of justice, well, I refer you to volume II of the Mueller report. It's easy enough to find. Google is your fwiend and all that. Here are some samples.





Further to the above and the redacted Mueller report which I quoted from:


You could have a look at his old tweets and the times he publicly told people not to cooperate or accused them of being rats when they did.

Mueller may not have pressed charges (Since it wasn't in his remit to do so), but there are clear grounds for Congress to hold Trump accountable for his actions in trying to confound the investigation.
I put no words into your mealy mouth.

Your quote was "obstruct justice as detailed in Mueller's report" That's what you said.

Now your quote is

"Mueller may not have pressed charges."

Weak pseud sauce.

I'll double down.

Which of President Trump's tweets publicly told people not to cooperate or accused them of being rats when they did?

If you can provide examples of those, particularly anything that involves rats - that would be good.

Mueller's brief was to investigate:

  • “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”
  • “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”
  • “any other matters within the scope” of the statute governing special counsels
At the outset, Mueller and his staff were given the power to interview witnesses, issue subpoenas and, if the evidence warranted it, work with the FBI to bring criminal charges.

Before it began the 'small group' knew that there was 'no big there there'. Before the button was pushed starting the Mueller machine, it was well known by the team assembled by Weissman, with Mueller as the figurehead, that there was no link and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.

Before it even started!

The Mueller inquiry was deliberately designed and constructed as an 'Obstruction of Justice" trap. And it failed.

An attempt to admit ancient Trump's tweets into evidence after the race has been run? Forget about it. Experts were on the case. They failed.

But ho!

You know better.
 
Unless there's a strict liability aspect. In United States v. Kantor (an appropriate test case, as it turns out) the court ruled that mens rea in the form of the 'good faith' defence could only be applied if the defendant had positive reason to believe that they were not engaged in a criminal act, rather than plain old ignorance that they were.
Well, the “positive reason to believe that they were not engaged in a criminal act” would clearly be that he couldn’t be engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice over allegations of collusion, because no collusion took place. This was the whole point of what Barr said when he cleared the president of any wrongdoing - that given the findings of the first half of the Mueller report, there was no underlying crime to cover up.
 
I put no words into your mealy mouth.

Your quote was "obstruct justice as detailed in Mueller's report" That's what you said.

Now your quote is

"Mueller may not have pressed charges."

Weak pseud sauce.

I'll double down.

Which of President Trump's tweets publicly told people not to cooperate or accused them of being rats when they did?

If you can provide examples of those, particularly anything that involves rats - that would be good.

Mueller's brief was to investigate:

  • “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”
  • “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”
  • “any other matters within the scope” of the statute governing special counsels
At the outset, Mueller and his staff were given the power to interview witnesses, issue subpoenas and, if the evidence warranted it, work with the FBI to bring criminal charges.

Before it began the 'small group' knew that there was 'no big there there'. Before the button was pushed starting the Mueller machine, it was well known by the team assembled by Weissman, with Mueller as the figurehead, that there was no link and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.

Before it even started!

The Mueller inquiry was deliberately designed and constructed as an 'Obstruction of Justice" trap. And it failed.

An attempt to admit ancient Trump's tweets into evidence after the race has been run? Forget about it. Experts were on the case. They failed.

But ho!

You know better.
1565790414107.png
 
Well, the “positive reason to believe that they were not engaged in a criminal act” would clearly be that he couldn’t be engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice over allegations of collusion, because no collusion took place. This was the whole point of what Barr said when he cleared the president of any wrongdoing - that given the findings of the first half of the Mueller report, there was no underlying crime to cover up.

There was no collusion is the starting point, I keep going back to this piece from John Solomon from July 2018.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The fact that there was no collusion was established even before the Mueller enquiry began. History has proved that Solomon was completely correct.
 
Well, the “positive reason to believe that they were not engaged in a criminal act” would clearly be that he couldn’t be engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice over allegations of collusion, because no collusion took place.
That's a logical leap too far. Let's assume for the sake of argument that absolutely no collusion took place - it would still be possible for someone to commit a crime by obstructing an investigation into whether collusion took place, even if they believed none had taken place.
 
Last edited:
That's a logical leap too far. Let's assume for the sake of argument that absolutely no collusion took place - it would still be possible for someone to commit a crime by obstructing an investigation into whether collusion took place, even if they believed none had taken place.
How can you (and perhaps more pertinently, why would you) cover up something you haven’t done?

It reminds me of the old court joke:

Solicitor: “So, you pulled him over, breathalysed him, searched the car, strip searched him, took him back and searched his house, but you still didn’t find any drugs? What did you do then? Let him go?”

Copper: “Of course not, we arrested him for wasting police time!”
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top