What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (2 Viewers)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
One of the most shocking things I’ve learned through this is that in 2019 there are people who think Watergate went the wrong way. That exists. Roger Stone is an obvious one but they’re out there.
Click to expand...
Roger Stone, Trump Jr., Wikileaks connection is proof of coordination with Russia.  They are slow playing the hand for some reason though. 

ETA Probably the most concrete evidence. There's too many probable connections.  It should bother every American that Trump continues to meet with Putin without so much as an interpretor.  Throw it on the pile of "what is he hiding.". 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Blutarsky said:
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller

Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn’t prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment

"The real fault lies in those leaders who allowed a secret investigation to mushroom into a media maelstrom driven by leaks that created a story that far exceeded the evidence, and then used that false narrative to set a special counsel flying downhill ahead of his skis."
Click to expand...
So they couldn't prove anything BEFORE the investigation.  That's a bombshell?  Wouldn't that be WHY there was an investigation? 

 
timschochet said:
Sorry I was in a meeting.

It's snarky because it adds nothing to the discussion. You never once introduced the fact that you were upset over President Obama's handling of Russian interference- to the contrary, you have attempted to minimize that interference by arguing that it had no effect (though you have provided no details of this claim.) Apparently the only reason you brought up this article was to perform a "whataboutism" and also to attack somebody that for you is on "the other side." It's extremely snarky, it's not thoughtful, and adds nothing to the discussion.
Click to expand...
I forgot the whataboutims are only allowed from the Anti- Trump guys. I never attacked anyone.

 
John Blutarsky said:
This is an interesting article as well and I checked my time limit

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/barr-media-trump.html

"After Trump’s vindication, the liberal media and its allies in government should face a reckoning. I’m not holding my breath."
Click to expand...
I referred to this article before. Did you actually read it? It uses circular logic. First it relies solely on the conclusion that there is no evidence for collusion, while ignoring all of the terrible things that the report says that Trump did. Well that's expected, it's the standard defense of Trump these days, illogical as it is. But the article then goes on to make the following arguments:

1. Trump is innocent of obstruction because Barr says so.

2. Barr has been proven right because Trump is innocent of obstruction.

This is what I meant by a circular argument. He then demands that liberals owe Barr an apology. Personally, I apologize for thinking that Barr might be an honorable public servant. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I agree, action is needed. Strong words though even so, I think we could count direct criticism of Trump by Senators on one hand in 2 years.
Click to expand...
Honestly, it doesn't read like a strongly worded disappointment. It appears to be dipping his toes in the water to gauge the temperature.

“Even so, I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President,” Romney continued. “I am also appalled that, among other things, fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia-including information that had been illegally obtained; that none of them acted to inform American law enforcement; and that the campaign chairman was actively promoting Russian interests in Ukraine.

“Reading the report is a sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders,” he concluded.
Click to expand...

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
One of the most shocking things I’ve learned through this is that in 2019 there are people who think Watergate went the wrong way. That exists. Roger Stone is an obvious one but they’re out there.
Click to expand...
Even George Conway made some sympathetic allusions in his op-ed in the WaPo:

"Contrast poor Richard M. Nixon. He was almost certain to be impeached, and removed from office, after the infamous “smoking gun” tape came out. On that tape, the president is heard directing his chief of staff to get the CIA director, Richard Helms, to tell the FBI “don’t go any further into this case” — Watergate — for national security reasons. That order never went anywhere, because Helms ignored it.

Other than that, Nixon was mostly passive — at least compared with Trump. For the most part, the Watergate tapes showed that Nixon had “acquiesced in the cover-up” after the fact. Nixon had no advance knowledge of the break-in. His aides were the driving force behind the obstruction."

 
John Blutarsky said:
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller

Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn’t prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment

"The real fault lies in those leaders who allowed a secret investigation to mushroom into a media maelstrom driven by leaks that created a story that far exceeded the evidence, and then used that false narrative to set a special counsel flying downhill ahead of his skis."
Click to expand...
Now with this article you're quoting a guy (John Solomon) infamous for creating fake scandals, like Uranium One. You do get that, right?

 
adonis said:
The amount of grown men whining on this forum just never ceases to amaze me.  
Click to expand...
Agreed, I’m amazed this safe space is allowed for this kind of behavior. Hopefully you all won’t be as riled up now that the report is out and there are no further indictments coming. 

 
Sheriff Bart said:
Roger Stone, Trump Jr., Wikileaks connection is proof of coordination with Russia.  They are slow playing the hand for some reason though. 
Click to expand...
The report has a pretty interesting sequence on that and it’s heavily redacted as ongoing. In general my impression is that the report goes through a lot of trouble to avoid referencing classified redactions or sources or ongoing investigations but they both come up in that context.

I asked Sinn about WL & 2016 a while back and he seemed to think Mueller had abandoned that piece. I’m not so sure. My point was it seemed odd to me that Mueller would shut ‘Er down knowing that an opportunity to interview Assange was in the near offing. Seems like an important piece of the story. But so far none of the key participants one degree from Trump have flipped on him except Cohen. So maybe Mueller thought it wasn’t worth hanging around a year for. That’s certainly the approach he took with Trump.

 
Skoo said:
That's fine of course, but you probably shouldn't be commenting on something you've decided not to learn anything about.
Click to expand...
If you read my first post, I asked for cliff notes so yes I wanted to learn about subject but also wanted to refrain from getting into a discussion since it’s fruitless.  Hope that makes sense..

 
adonis said:
timschochet said:
I don't even belong to the Democratic Party, lol.  I just want a different President rather than Trump taking the oath in January of 2021. Just about anybody else will do. 
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's your party.

Put it this way.  My advice on what the house should do is the same regardless of which party controls the house, how likely Trump is to win re-election, or whether he's in his first term or second.

Does the analysis stay the same for you through all those situations?
Click to expand...
Legit question.

 
[scooter] said:
Even George Conway made some sympathetic allusions in his op-ed in the WaPo:

"Contrast poor Richard M. Nixon. He was almost certain to be impeached, and removed from office, after the infamous “smoking gun” tape came out. On that tape, the president is heard directing his chief of staff to get the CIA director, Richard Helms, to tell the FBI “don’t go any further into this case” — Watergate — for national security reasons. That order never went anywhere, because Helms ignored it.

Other than that, Nixon was mostly passive — at least compared with Trump. For the most part, the Watergate tapes showed that Nixon had “acquiesced in the cover-up” after the fact. Nixon had no advance knowledge of the break-in. His aides were the driving force behind the obstruction."
Click to expand...
And this is the lie that Barr put forth, that participation in ‘the’ underlying crime was necessary. The report examined that argument and shot it down. Mueller clearly doesn’t believe that.

 
adonis said:
Legit question.
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed that. My answer is no. But I absolutely reject the idea that I am putting anything before country.  I am not. Impeachment of a President is a political process, not a moral one.  There are no consistent rules that need apply here. 

 
John Blutarsky said:
And let me guess....you don't think the DNC, Hillary and Obama had anything to do with the Steele report.
Click to expand...
He’s wrong on Obama, as your link showed there is a ton of responsibility that should be on him if anyone wanted to look at it objectively. Instead excuses are made for what happened under his watch. The talking points in here are one side is always right and the other always wrong.....if that was the case why isn’t the left getting 100% of the votes each election? Should be an easy choice. Cue the “we are the educated, others are dumb” schtick. 

 
John Blutarsky said:
Calling what I post is crap is probably now allowed here. And there are many people in this country that can't accept Trump won including many in the media and in government.
Click to expand...
You know I keep hearing this talking point from the pro-Trump crowd but I have never actually run across it anywhere.  I know of a ton of people who dislike that he won but absolutely no one that doesn't "accept" that he won, and that's a huge distinction.   Even here as anti-Trump as it get I don't see anyone saying he didn't win.   

 
timschochet said:
Sorry I missed that. My answer is no. But I absolutely reject the idea that I am putting anything before country.  I am not. Impeachment of a President is a political process, not a moral one.  There are no consistent rules that need apply here. 
Click to expand...
So you don't believe their oaths of office require them to remove a president from office when it's clear he violated the rule of law to protect himself?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
John Blutarsky said:
Calling what I post is crap is probably now allowed here. And there are many people in this country that can't accept Trump won including many in the media and in government.
Click to expand...
You know I keep hearing this talking point from the pro-Trump crowd but I have never actually run across it anywhere. 
Click to expand...
"Democrats can't accept that Trump won!"

"Democrats can't accept that the Mueller report exonerated Trump!"

"Democrats don't want Trump to send migrants to sanctuary cities!"

It's wishcasting for liberal tears.

 
adonis said:
So you don't believe their oaths of office require them to remove a president from office when it's clear he violated the rule of law to protect himself?
Click to expand...
He goes on and on starting threads about folks with the courage of their convictions, he just does not subscribed to that for himself or the modern Democratic party.

 
adonis said:
So you don't believe their oaths of office require them to remove a president from office when it's clear he violated his oath of office and obstructed justice to protect himself?
Click to expand...
That depends. First, what you and I call "clear"  might be very different. Second, it depends on the issue.

 
GoBirds said:
He’s wrong on Obama, as your link showed there is a ton of responsibility that should be on him if anyone wanted to look at it objectively. Instead excuses are made for what happened under his watch. The talking points in here are one side is always right and the other always wrong.....if that was the case why isn’t the left getting 100% of the votes each election? Should be an easy choice. Cue the “we are the educated, others are dumb” schtick. 
Click to expand...
Which link would that be?  One of the three opinion articles he posted from highly questionable authors?  As others have pointed out.

And no...nothing i said about Obama was wrong.  He did something things.  Not enough sure (and some that is on him not wanting to make it political and in McConnel for refusing to go along with it...again as pointed out by me and others and linked to).

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
He goes on and on starting threads about folks with the courage of their convictions, he just does not subscribed to that for himself or the modern Democratic party.
Click to expand...
Are you going to start contrasting me with Margaret Chase Smith again? Heck, why not Robert Welch?

And why "modern" Democratic party? As I challenged Adonis before, give me a time when either party took a brave stand against the majority of public opinion. Not a single stateswoman like Chase Smith, but a political party. Doesn't have to be modern.

 
GoBirds said:
He’s wrong on Obama, as your link showed there is a ton of responsibility that should be on him if anyone wanted to look at it objectively. Instead excuses are made for what happened under his watch. The talking points in here are one side is always right and the other always wrong.....if that was the case why isn’t the left getting 100% of the votes each election? Should be an easy choice. Cue the “we are the educated, others are dumb” schtick. 
Click to expand...
Just on the flip side of that Obama argument- and I do think he got criticism from Dems because I remember it when it was reported - keep in mind that Obama specifically ***warned Trump about Flynn and he hired him anyway. 

 
timschochet said:
adonis said:
So you don't believe their oaths of office require them to remove a president from office when it's clear he violated his oath of office and obstructed justice to protect himself?
Click to expand...
That depends. First, what you and I call "clear"  might be very different. Second, it depends on the issue.
Click to expand...
It's clear that Trump sought to use his presidential authority to stall, stop, obstruct, or otherwise interfere with many aspects of the Russia investigation, directly and also through witness tampering.  This is clear for anyone who can read and accept evidence.

This is an abuse of power.

Congress is tasked with being a check on the president.  This is exactly the kind of situation impeachment was to be used for.  To remove a president from office who is abusing his position for personal gain, breaking laws, or otherwise behaving in ways grossly out of character with what we should expect from a POTUS.

Why, again, should congress neglect their duties as a co-equal branch of government, tasked specifically with providing checks on the authority and actions of the executive branch, and let these transgressions go unchallenged?  What precedent does this set?  A POTUS who has behaved in this outrageous way will not be brought up on charges?  

Trump could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not get impeached.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The directional signs on that road are painted by pragmatists.
Click to expand...
Can you list one significant legislative achievement or act by Congress in the history of this country that was not accomplished through compromise and pragmatism?

Freedom of the slaves.

Civil rights Act.

Social Security.

Medicare.

Perhaps you can come up with one. I certainly can't. 

 
timschochet said:
Are you going to start contrasting me with Margaret Chase Smith again? Heck, why not Robert Welch?

And why "modern" Democratic party? As I challenged Adonis before, give me a time when either party took a brave stand against the majority of public opinion. Not a single stateswoman like Chase Smith, but a political party. Doesn't have to be modern.
Click to expand...
There have been times where the judicial branch has taken such positions.

 
timschochet said:
Are you going to start contrasting me with Margaret Chase Smith again? Heck, why not Robert Welch?

And why "modern" Democratic party? As I challenged Adonis before, give me a time when either party took a brave stand against the majority of public opinion. Not a single stateswoman like Chase Smith, but a political party. Doesn't have to be modern.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have said present day.  The reason why I sought to distinguish that by the use of the term "modern" is the past is not something we can change, but the present and the future are challenges we can yet meet, if we have the courage.  As for who I contrast you with, it could be any person of principle over pragmatism, so who can say?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Just on the flip side of that Obama argument- and I do think he got criticism from Dems because I remember it when it was reported - keep in mind that Obama specifically ***warned Trump about Flynn and he hired him anyway. 
Click to expand...
It’s also interesting that Obama is deep state because Trump associates were caught in surveillance of Russians and those working with Russians...but he also did nothing.

Which is it?  He spied and illegally started an investigation into Russian activity and to spy on the  Trump campaign or he did nothing?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Just on the flip side of that Obama argument- and I do think he got criticism from Dems because I remember it when it was reported - keep in mind that Obama specifically ***warned Trump about Flynn and he hired him anyway. 
Click to expand...
Agreed Flynn was a poor decision, but that doesn’t give Obama a free pass back to 2014 when interference started under his watch. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Can you list one significant legislative achievement or act by Congress in the history of this country that was not accomplished through compromise and pragmatism?

Freedom of the slaves.

Civil rights Act.

Social Security.

Medicare.

Perhaps you can come up with one. I certainly can't. 
Click to expand...
That some eventually saw the writing on the wall, forced to see it by the morally courageous, and got on board at the end, pragmatically, means that pragmatist got on board, not that they were necessary to the outcome nor that they accomplished anything. 

Defend moral cowardice all you want, I will not be sold. Instead of trying to defend your position maybe you should re-evaluate it.  Maybe you should adopt the intestinal fortitude of your heroes, an admirable list, BTW.

At least I think this is your list of heroes. I don't notebook, search the site, or have a particularly excellent memory anymore.  Feel free to correct my list. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
And this is the lie that Barr put forth, that participation in ‘the’ underlying crime was necessary. The report examined that argument and shot it down. Mueller clearly doesn’t believe that.
Click to expand...
There is no underlying crime

whether you are covering for your friends or yourself, in Nixon’s case there was an underlying crime.

in Trumps case there was no underlying crime and no attempt to cover anything up.  Nothing to hide, and no attempt to hide it.

 
GoBirds said:
Agreed Flynn was a poor decision, but that doesn’t give Obama a free pass back to 2014 when interference started under his watch. 
Click to expand...
By all means, let's talk about holding a president out of office 3+ years ago accountable for the unethical, illegal, immoral, anti-American actions of our current President and his campaign members and associates.

Why not go back to Bush...Clinton...Bush...Reagan?  How many fingers can we point in different directions OTHER than where they belong...pointed squarely at Trump and his associates.

 
Rove! said:
There is no underlying crime

whether you are covering for your friends or yourself, in Nixon’s case there was an underlying crime.

in Trumps case there was no underlying crime and no attempt to cover anything up.  Nothing to hide, and no attempt to hide it.
Click to expand...
You concede that the whole first part is about crimes by the Russian government and it’s non state actors, right?

 
timschochet said:
Can you list one significant legislative achievement or act by Congress in the history of this country that was not accomplished through compromise and pragmatism?

Freedom of the slaves.

Civil rights Act.

Social Security.

Medicare.

Perhaps you can come up with one. I certainly can't. 
Click to expand...
And also, the question seems odd.

For legislation, it matters much more what the will of the people is.

Impeachment, while a political process, is more along the lines of a law enforcement, DOJ, or judicial branch activity.  It's a trial.

Examples closer to that type of situation would be more apt in this case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Are you going to start contrasting me with Margaret Chase Smith again? Heck, why not Robert Welch?

And why "modern" Democratic party? As I challenged Adonis before, give me a time when either party took a brave stand against the majority of public opinion. Not a single stateswoman like Chase Smith, but a political party. Doesn't have to be modern.
Click to expand...
BTW, Margaret Chase Smith was an admirable woman, while Welch, lets just say I don't subscribe to his beliefs.  I may insult your self perception a bit to get you thinking, but I would never insult you by such a comparison, one clearly unwarranted. That would violate my principles.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
4K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
207
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top