POTUS Donald Trump

[Brock Beauchamp]

I find it really weird that everyone is shouting about CNN being biased, yet no one is defending them.

 

How about we get back to the facts here?

 

The Mueller Report was defined to find international interference in our elections. They found that.

 

That led them to the Trump campaign, which was supported by said international interference, and Mueller found no collusion.

 

Okay, can we agree on that part?

 

Now, to the obstruction of justice... Maybe some of you aren't as comfortable with this part of the conversation.

[Badsmerf]

You know who talked about impeachment the most? Fox News. Know why? Because their viewers hated hearing about it. Didn't matter if it was a council member from the city of Seattle, or AOC... It was a way to vilify liberals, libtards, democrats, whatever you want to call them.... and keep the focus off Trump, off the facts, off the real investigation, and on something people can see as an enemy.

 

CNN rarely talked about impeachment for the whole investigation... and when it was brought up, the journalists challenged it. Had there been a smoking gun, we would be taking openly about impeachment... or should be, but I doubt republicans would go through with it. There wasn't for conspiracy of treason, but there still might be for obstruction of justice. The obstruction case is actually what I most often heard CNN say has the most merit, and could be where impeachment comes from.

 

The media wouldn't have discussed the Trump Russia collusion nearly as much had Trump acted like a normal innocent person and not constantly attacked the process. They had every right to ask why, but did waste a lot of time doing so.

 

Steve Bannon was on Anderson Cooper tonight and they discussed some issues happening in China. I wish our news focused more on those types of topics rather than interpreting Trump tweets constantly. I mean, I think it is fine to bring it up, but don't have a while panel go back and forth for 10 minutes on some meaningless tweet. That is what I despise about CNN.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I find it really weird that everyone is shouting about CNN being biased, yet no one is defending them.

 

How about we get back to the facts here?

 

The Mueller Report was defined to find international interference in our elections. They found that.

 

That led them to the Trump campaign, which was supported by said international interference, and Mueller found no collusion.

 

Okay, can we agree on that part?

 

Now, to the obstruction of justice... Maybe some of you aren't as comfortable with this part of the conversation.

 

For the record, the initial definition of the special counsel did include suspected ties to Trump.  I'm not sure that matters, but it seems like it might the way you framed it.

 

Beyond that I agree.  I still have a problem with obstruction of justice, but that was always seen as a difficult thing to prove without a smoking gun.  

 

Also, I think it's worth noting that there are several prominent Democrats that are ignoring what the Mueller report concluded.  This would seem to reinforce some of the points being made that the left/media has put too much emphasis on impeachment.  Now they're having trouble letting that go.  I hope they do, what Schiff said today is.....not smart.

[Badsmerf]

I find it really weird that everyone is shouting about CNN being biased, yet no one is defending them.

 

How about we get back to the facts here?

 

The Mueller Report was defined to find international interference in our elections. They found that.

 

That led them to the Trump campaign, which was supported by said international interference, and Mueller found no collusion.

 

Okay, can we agree on that part?

 

Now, to the obstruction of justice... Maybe some of you aren't as comfortable with this part of the conversation.

I will defend CNN, because I listen to them while I drive... until I get tired of the panels saying the same things over and over. There are only so many ways to dissect some topics, and they wasted a lot of time because of the partisan taking heads. I much prefer when they don't do that. Not the same as calling for impeachment, which they avoided for the most part.

 

That isn't the facts. There wasn't enough evidence to bring a case against Trump for collusion. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Schiff is being extreme and should let it go... but let's see the full report and we can all make up our own minds about if there was collusion. We already have the facts psuedo posted, what else could we find out?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I will defend CNN, because I listen to them while I drive... until I get tired of the panels saying the same things over and over. There are only so many ways to dissect some topics, and they wasted a lot of time because of the partisan taking heads. I much prefer when they don't do that. Not the same as calling for impeachment, which they avoided for the most part.

 

I watch CNN quite a bit as well, but I definitely think they circled around impeachment and obstruction of justice a lot.  There were valid reasons to do so, IMO.  However, I do think the narrative went off the tracks over time.  It was no longer "what we know makes us think this" and became more of a "how could this also be (impeachable) even though we know very little"  They started tryign to connect dots rather than letting the dots connect themselves.

 

I still find them a viable news source, but I think they let this one get away from them a bit.

[PseudoSABR]

 

You know who talked about impeachment the most? Fox News. Know why? Because their viewers hated hearing about it. Didn't matter if it was a council member from the city of Seattle, or AOC... It was a way to vilify liberals, libtards, democrats, whatever you want to call them.... and keep the focus off Trump, off the facts, off the real investigation, and on something people can see as an enemy.

CNN rarely talked about impeachment for the whole investigation... and when it was brought up, the journalists challenged it. Had there been a smoking gun, we would be taking openly about impeachment... or should be, but I doubt republicans would go through with it. There wasn't for conspiracy of treason, but there still might be for obstruction of justice. The obstruction case is actually what I most often heard CNN say has the most merit, and could be where impeachment comes from.

The media wouldn't have discussed the Trump Russia collusion nearly as much had Trump acted like a normal innocent person and not constantly attacked the process. They had every right to ask why, but did waste a lot of time doing so.

Steve Bannon was on Anderson Cooper tonight and they discussed some issues happening in China. I wish our news focused more on those types of topics rather than interpreting Trump tweets constantly. I mean, I think it is fine to bring it up, but don't have a while panel go back and forth for 10 minutes on some meaningless tweet. That is what I despise about CNN.

This makes a lot of sense, and explains why it's even an issue, because Fox et al. says everyone else has been obsessed with it.  

[Badsmerf]

That's probably a fair take. When they started rambling and carrying on I probably just changed the station or zoned out. My point about it is, I don't think it is a big enough deal to yell "see! They did it again! Fake news!" Not that ewen said that exactly...

 

The investigation was an interesting topic that I'm sure viewers wanted to know about, and know what impeachment would look like. My experience was they stayed on rails for the most part.

[PseudoSABR]

 

  I still have a problem with obstruction of justice, but that was always seen as a difficult thing to prove without a smoking gun.  

Has it? Barr's BS about there needing to be an underlying provable crime I don't believe is in the statutory definition of the crime (which admittedly I don't have handy), as I said above thread, even if Trump didn't collude, he'd have ample reason to obstruct to preserve his business deals with Russia.

[PseudoSABR]

 

That's probably a fair take. When they started rambling and carrying on I probably just changed the station or zoned out. My point about it is, I don't think it is a big enough deal to yell "see! They did it again! Fake news!" Not that ewen said that exactly...

The investigation was an interesting topic that I'm sure viewers wanted to know about, and know what impeachment would look like. My experience was they stayed on rails for the most part.

Right.  Every news media use talking heads to the point of idiocy.  But that's more a problem of demand, and insistence of news each hour of every day.  But the major media, even with its problem, never jumped the shark with Mueller/Trump story. Perhaps its pundits did, and the satellite media, or the internet media did.  But CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, even MSNBC, weren't creating fake news. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Has it? Barr's BS about there needing to be an underlying provable crime I don't believe is in the statutory definition of the crime (which admittedly I don't have handy), as I said above thread, even if Trump didn't collude, he'd have ample reason to obstruct to preserve his business deals with Russia.

 

It requires proving corrupt intent.  That was never going to be easy to do, mostly because he can say "Nope, fired Comey for not approving of his job performance".  And it'll be very tricky, without something pretty damn concrete, to undermine that.

 

You can find all the reasonable theories you want about why he did it.  They may even actually be true.  But that's not the same as proving corrupt intent.

[PseudoSABR]

 

It requires proving corrupt intent.  That was never going to be easy to do, mostly because he can say "Nope, fired Comey for not approving of his job performance".  And it'll be very tricky, without something pretty damn concrete, to undermine that.

 

You can find all the reasonable theories you want about why he did it.  They may even actually be true.  But that's not the same as proving corrupt intent.

Here, with Trump's Russia business dealings, I think it would be exceedingly easy.  But what do I know.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Here, with Trump's business dealings, I think it would be exceedingly easy.  But what do I know.

 

Sure, that could be the motive....but that's not the standard.  I'm not saying you can't make a case for obstruction, just that it's hard as hell.  Many legal experts suggested it was going to be a difficult case to make from the outset.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Sure, that could be the motive....but that's not the standard.  I'm not saying you can't make a case for obstruction, just that it's hard as hell.  Many legal experts suggested it was going to be a difficult case to make from the outset.

Maybe they have, but the tongue-in-cheek Barr summary suggesting Trump isn't exonerated, but Mueller left it to Barr to decide to prosecute, suggests there's sufficient evidence of obstruction and intent.

 

You also have the known facts of everything Trump has said through twitter and his comments to the Russian ambassador and on national TV that he fired Comey to get rid of the Russia thing.

 

Let's not down play the known facts.  I think this is a bit of white wash.  Today, we also learned the Mueller's grandjury is still seated.  I think we'll learn that Mueller was instructed to complete his report and hand off his investigation, which he did.  

[Badsmerf]

I don't think obstruction is as complicated as conspiracy or treason. If any part of the Trump investigation was going to hold water in court, obstruction had the highest chances.

 

Stone and Manafort not flipping was critical imo. I bet they get pardons, even with the state threatening Manafort.

[Badsmerf]

I don't think obstruction is as complicated as conspiracy or treason. If any part of the Trump investigation was going to hold water in court, obstruction had the highest chances.

 

Stone and Manafort not flipping was critical imo. I bet they get pardons, even with the state threatening Manafort.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Potentially dumb answer. Maybe there's classified info they need to scrub/redact before releasing to the public?

If that’s the answer, then classified according to whom?

 

Maybe Berardino or LENIII will follow up on thi—oh wait, Berardino covers Notre Dame now

[biggentleben]

 

For the record, the initial definition of the special counsel did include suspected ties to Trump.  I'm not sure that matters, but it seems like it might the way you framed it.

 

...and there were things tying back to Trump directly that were better pursued in New York and were farmed out to prosecution in New York state. That's another angle that is still very under-reported on the Mueller investigation. There are dozens of ongoing cases still in progress throughout the nation at state and federal level due to this investigation. Anyone saying that it did not bring results is being intentionally obtuse.

[Vanimal46]

If that’s the answer, then classified according to whom?

 

Maybe Berardino or LENIII will follow up on thi—oh wait, Berardino covers Notre Dame now

Not sure... That's why it's a potentially dumb answer!

[biggentleben]

 

If that’s the answer, then classified according to whom?

Maybe Berardino or LENIII will follow up on thi—oh wait, Berardino covers Notre Dame now

 

I will say that Monica Lewinsky has been incredible to follow as this has come out and people on one side are trying to give out as little information as possible. Nevermind that details of her sexual activity as a young person were made very public in a report that was released AS A BOOK TO THE PUBLIC during the investigation of a president with a different letter behind his name. Later on, people did make comments about how that report didn't do a good job of covering up sensitive material that gave away some information on our covert operations around the world. If that's being done right with things this time, I can appreciate that being withheld, but some leaks of the report being over 700 pages long and ending up in a 4-page summary would require one heck of a lot of confidential and security-sensitive information...

[stringer bell]

There is and was evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Enough to convict in a court of law? Probably not. Trump's tweets and his behavior seem to be that of a guilty man. I believe there was collusion with Russia, which has reaped exactly what they wanted in the United States--a country thoroughly divided, with trust diminished in almost every part of the government.

 

As far as the media, perhaps the people staffing the newsrooms lean a bit left, but editorially all but Fox News are closer to the center than the political extremes. What drives news is what is sensational--impeachment is more in line with that than erosion from climate change. Jussie Smollett is more of a story than the unemployment rate. Crime is more of a story than crime rates.

 

Impeachment is what Republicans want to talk about. They want to paint such an action as what rank-and-file Democrats want. They want to portray Democrats as the most extreme, why else is a freshman Congresswomen from New York so prominent, along with the two Muslim women (also in their first term).

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

Adam Schiff has a nice summary of Trumps wrong doings.

[PseudoSABR]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1111214993293357056

 

The Smollet case is puzzling, but this is a scary federal overreach into powers specifically reserved to the states.

[Badsmerf]

Why is Trump concerning himself with that case? Doesn't he have better things to do?

[LaBombo]

 

Why is Trump concerning himself with that case? Doesn't he have better things to do?

 

You're just noticing his suspect judgement now?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Why is Trump concerning himself with that case? Doesn't he have better things to do?

It totally is an issue his base love, no?

[Vanimal46]

Why is Trump concerning himself with that case? Doesn't he have better things to do?

It's today's SQUIRREL! Look at that!

[Badsmerf]

It totally is an issue his base love, no?

You probably nailed it. A few of my ultra right wing friends have been going bonkers over this case. This is so far below what our president should be concerning himself with or commenting on. the media is giving it far too much attention.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't think obstruction is as complicated as conspiracy or treason. If any part of the Trump investigation was going to hold water in court, obstruction had the highest chances.

Stone and Manafort not flipping was critical imo. I bet they get pardons, even with the state threatening Manafort.

 

I disagree.  Collusion is an action you can find evidence for.  Intent is something you have to prove only indirectly.  It's one of the hardest things for any prosecutor to establish.  You have to convince people of what you believe was in someone's mind at the time of the act.  This should be a non-controversial thing - intent is hard as hell to establish.

[TheLeviathan]

 

...and there were things tying back to Trump directly that were better pursued in New York and were farmed out to prosecution in New York state. That's another angle that is still very under-reported on the Mueller investigation. There are dozens of ongoing cases still in progress throughout the nation at state and federal level due to this investigation. Anyone saying that it did not bring results is being intentionally obtuse.

 

Of course there were results.  But there were not results on impeachment or collusion.  

 

it's strange to me that some here are on one hand arguing that collusion and impeachment was never the goal and then simultaneously citing Adam Schiff saying he'll still pursue the collusion angle even after the report.  

 

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.  The special counsel was convened to look into Russian interference and potential ties to Donald Trump's campaign.  It then expanded to include obstruction after the Comey firing.  It resulted in many charges against members of Trump's campaign for a variety of illegal acts but, so far as we know, did not conclude there was collusion.  It punted on obstruction but gave evidence both ways.  The left wanted this to be Trump's undoing, which only was going to happen if he was found to have colluded or obstructed.  The right wanted this to be a witch hunt about collusion.  Now every schmo in those camps has stayed in their camp with their fingers in their ears yelling the same things they did before the report concluded.

 

If you're in those camps - get serious.  You're being silly.  This report did have real results and Trump was associated with some real shady folks and was probably shady himself.  It also did not conclude that there was conclusion.  Accept it.  Move on.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I disagree.  Collusion is an action you can find evidence for.  Intent is something you have to prove only indirectly.  It's one of the hardest things for any prosecutor to establish.  You have to convince people of what you believe was in someone's mind at the time of the act.  This should be a non-controversial thing - intent is hard as hell to establish.

Conspiracy like any crime requires proof of mens rea. Conspiracy is more difficult than obstruction, because you have to show that mens rea of more than one actor was essentially the same.