U. S. President: Play, Pay, Porn
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
No evidence of collusion so you can take that off your list.
David, I don't agree with your conclusion. Aren't you "putting the cart before the horse?" The investigation is not over. Let truth run her course.
There have been multiple investigations lasting almost 2 years at this point. And not one shred of evidence has come to light. Face it, there was no collusion. The funny thing is, even if there were, it's not against the law.
I'd love to know where you come up with treason, that's a pretty big and unfounded charge.
Why is there an investigation? Please cite the original document of Rosenstein. When collusion is found, what is that for a US President? "Timeout?" CM
Not treason. Collusion isn't illegal even. You should check your facts.
@C_M_ said:
**Is this what the NRA is all about?
-- I hate children being slaughtered in the classroom like apples in a barrel.We agree, but the NRA doesn't cause this.
-- I hate the talk of teachers carrying guns in the classroom.
Why? Why do you hate that idea? What is so scary about that? So you would rather there be nobody to stop a deranged shooter?
-- I hate the NRA suing the State of Flordia so soon.
Why? The lawsuit is being filed because the law is unconstitutional. If it were in SC I would sign on to the lawsuit myself.
-- I hate unjust wars.**
I do as well, but this has nothing to do with the NRA or the 2nd Amendment.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Nobody forced Clinton either. And the hush money is still up for debate.I agree with you that no one forced Clinton or any other person - including Donald Trump - into his or her moral failures.
Glad we agree.
Given that Michael Cohen has publicly acknowledged he paid Stormy Daniels $130,000, and that we have now seen the non-disclosure agreement he and Ms Daniels (under a pseudonym) but not Donald Trump signed, an agreement that reports the $130,000 payment, on what grounds do you claim the "hush money is still up for debate"?
The debate is whether the President was actually involved in that transaction. It seems a little weird to me. Why did Cohen pay for it himself? Makes no sense.
Isn't that everyone? (who is responsible for the actions that display moral and character failures)
Yes.
Glad we agree.
-
the prevalence of LGBT / abortion issues by far....millions of times more than I am the president. If you want to high-center on the role model of president for our older teens, have at it, but you lost me way back at the logical stop light.
What's wrong with these people?
Sin
After you have answered this, do you feel they need to experience conversion?
Yes
If yes, how do you plan to do this, when you instruct your young people other Christians, to stay away from them?
You seem to be saying that we don't want our kids marred by sin, but you insist they immerse themselves in it to reach sinners.
If I have what you are saying right, I agree. That is how I raised my children. With prayer, wisdom and age-appropriate activities. All my kids are strongly missions minded and very active in outreach. Two of my family's families are involved in helping moms who have had abortions--and soon we all 5 may be. I have a few openly LGB (no T yet) friends, acquaintances, and a few extended LGB family members. I am not living in a cave.
Do you let them in your church and community? If not now, when?
Yes. Even my home.
Do you have any members of your family a part of the LGBT Community or had an abortion?
Yes
Your "more concerned", on "the prevalence of LGBT / abortion issues" may I suggest, may require some adjustments.
They need to be strengthened, to be sure.
I will speak freely facts (verifiable data/documents, etc.) and opinions (feelings, thoughts, concerns, etc.); hopefully, just like you and others have done and will do in these forums according to the agreed guidelines. Any more questions?
Thanks. Maybe later.
We seem to be comparing Assult gun killings with abortion? Is this fair and reaching a new low?
It is logical and simple common sense. It is the higher rung to which we must climb.
Slow down, Bro. GaoLu.
First, you have bought into Mr. Trump's playbook, in blaming the media.
Secondly, did the media brought the 13-plus indictment and guilty pleas?The media has drummed up, like savages in the jungle, all kinds of emotional hoopla and fake news and unverifiable allegations. A large, shrill lemming sector of America has played into their hands. That is the media role.
It is time to speed up.
Thirdly, why is it that I "fuss" when I respond to others. Are you being fair here?
I think gun control regulations and presidential integrity matter, but are little more than a "fuss," a mouse compared to the elephant of moral dissipation and killing of babies in our society.
A mosquito is annoying and you may think it should be swatted. But when a tiger is attacking--slap the mosquito if you want, but you better fight the tiger.
Is this what the NRA is all about?
-- I hate children being slaughtered in the classroom like apples in a barrel.
-- I hate the talk of teachers carrying guns in the classroom.
-- I hate the NRA suing the State of Flordia so soon.
-- I hate unjust wars.Other than the lawsuit which is a breach-of-constitution matter, I am certain the NRA would stand with you against all those things. Perhaps you are a better fit than you know.
_Oh soul are you troubled and weary...Keep your eyes upon Jesus. Look full in His wonderful face, and the things of life will grow strangely dim in the light of His glory and grace!
GaoLu, in all fairness, can this hymn be applied to what you called "the prevalence of LGBT / abortion issues? CM
I most assuredly do when applied in context as it was regarding raising fusses about AR-15's and presidential sins.
@GaoLu said: ...What about abortion which you staunchly defend which is the murder of innocent babies...?
GaoLu, do you really believe this?
I understood you to hold those positions. I would love to be corrected if wrong. I am willing to tell you up front where I stand. (I see LGBT issues as sin choices. I see abortion as the worst holocaust on earth--killing babies for convenience--worse even than offering babies to Molech.).
Is this a fact or a passionate opinion?
I thought I knew where you stood. Correct me, please.
Do others in these Forums believe as you do?
I have no more info from them than you do.
I would like to hear from you in another thread of your choice. Are you confusing me with someone else? CM
Perhaps. If so I offer you the deepest heartfelt apology. I have made mistakes before, and this would be most unjust and unfortunate if I have misunderstood your position. Please do clarify.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
The debate is whether the President was actually involved in that transaction. It seems a little weird to me. Why did Cohen pay for it himself? Makes no sense.The hush money is a trap in which either Cohen, Trump, or both will be ensnared; I don't see a way both of them escape.
If Cohen created and signed the non-disclosure agreement, but DIDN'T tell his client about it, he violated professional ethics in a serious way.
What attorney gives his or her client $130,000... for anything? There are ethical questions about such a practice.
If Trump knew about the payment, but didn't sign the NDA to avoid disclosure, there are serious questions about the integrity of his involvement in the process.
Then there are the campaign finance law questions, e.g. whether Cohen's expenditure was a gift intended to aid or influence the 2016 election. If it was, then it almost surely violated campaign finance laws.
Then, of course, there's the not-insignificant problem of a presidential candidate involved directly or indirectly in hush money schemes. That's generally considered to be a bad thing.
But don't misunderstand my point! On its own, the porn star affair and its hush money are not, in my view, disqualifying. Perhaps, not even the lying about the affair, as Mr Trump has done, is disqualifying for me (people lie about sex....cf Bill Clinton). But in my view, taken as a component of a much larger system of failures - e.g. the lies, the ignorance and ineptitude, the credible allegations of sexual assault, the emotional immaturity, and the ego and the narcissism - the affair and hush money lend credence to the case against Mr Trump's fitness for office.
-
GaoLu, thanks for your timely response.
A confession: I handled a "long gun" twice in my life (once as a teen and as an adult). However, my position remains-- firmly opposed! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
GaoLu, thanks for your timely response.Are you going to offer your position on LGBT and abortion as to whether I was wrong or not in my description? You made a big issue of the fact that I alluded to the position I believe you hold. You never said where you stand or why you made an issue of the matter. This knowledge would be nice to have for the future.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
The debate is whether the President was actually involved in that transaction. It seems a little weird to me. Why did Cohen pay for it himself? Makes no sense.The hush money is a trap in which either Cohen, Trump, or both will be ensnared; I don't see a way both of them escape.
I agree.
- If Cohen created and signed the non-disclosure agreement, but DIDN'T tell his client about it, he violated professional ethics in a serious way.
Agree
- What attorney gives his or her client $130,000... for anything? There are ethical questions about such a practice.
Very much so agree.
- If Trump knew about the payment, but didn't sign the NDA to avoid disclosure, there are serious questions about the integrity of his involvement in the process.
I also agree.
- Then there are the campaign finance law questions, e.g. whether Cohen's expenditure was a gift intended to aid or influence the 2016 election. If it was, then it almost surely violated campaign finance laws.
I agree.
Then, of course, there's the not-insignificant problem of a presidential candidate involved directly or indirectly in hush money schemes. That's generally considered to be a bad thing.
Agree but I bet this happens more than is advertised.
But don't misunderstand my point! On its own, the porn star affair and its hush money are not, in my view, disqualifying. Perhaps, not even the lying about the affair, as Mr Trump has done, is disqualifying for me (people lie about sex....cf Bill Clinton). But in my view, taken as a component of a much larger system of failures - e.g. the lies, the ignorance and ineptitude, the credible allegations of sexual assault, the emotional immaturity, and the ego and the narcissism - the affair and hush money lend credence to the case against Mr Trump's fitness for office.
I disagree. First, with regards to assault, we haven't seen proof of that yet. Innocent until proven guilty. If they are true, then I have serious issues. Emotional immaturity, ego and narcissism, I felt those ways about Obama so I can't agree with you there.
Ignorance and ineptitude though I feel you are dead wrong given the amazing accomplishments of the administration so far.
-
No, definitely not here, not now.
You made a big issue of the fact that I alluded to the position I believe you hold.
I didn't make "a big issue". It was you, who, assumed to know what I am thinking and believed once and for all. You don't know and never will. Even if I were to make a statement on the matter, I reserve the right to change my mind. What I am saying, in short, is that you can't and shouldn't lock me into a box (even if you wanted to) on matters you have firmly decided for yourself.
You never said where you stand or why you made an issue of the matter. This knowledge would be nice to have for the future.
Perhaps, I did and didn't. I have made some statements around the forums on aspects of the subject matter, but... Why is it that you seemed driven to know where I stand on the "LGBT and abortion" matter?
I would say this much: I don't share your, change or be gone, position when it comes to the "LGBT and abortion" matters. Love people for who they are and change will come as they choose to do so. CM
-
Bro. GaoLu,
CM said: > >We seem to be comparing Assult gun killings with abortion? Is this fair and reaching a new low?
CM said: We must acknowledge the basic lower rungs of the two matters first.
1. Is not there is authorizing and support a person to purchase a gun or Ar-15 in the USA? This gives one the right to own as many guns as he or she can afford? With these guns, he can KILL anyone invading his property illegally or threaten or causing bodily harm?
2. Equally, is there a law in the USA authorizing and support a person right to abortion and to have as many as one can afford or able to endure? Yes or No.Note:
Both are covered by the laws of your country.
Both are by choice of the individual.
Both places no limits on the number.- Gun owners can take a life to save a life.
- Abortion can be performed to save a life (most "good" Christians acceptability).
There are constant efforts to restrict a woman's right to what the law allows.
Little or no restrictions on purchasing, owning or the number of guns one can take possession of.What is good for the goose is good for the gander?
- Do away with all guns and all abortions?
- No restrictions on guns and no restriction on abortions?
Lastly, Guns and abortions-- how can you compare the inanimate with the animated? How do you compare the two in quality and value?
The only thing the two have in common is the law of the USA permits them.
GaoLu, as a sober thinker, are Americans being hypocritical in their Bible-thumping and Second Amendment rights shouting? Especially, when the law allows women the right to an abortion in consultation with her church/Pastor, family, spouse, doctors, and conscious.
- Is it more a male thing (restriction of abortion) or a matter of the law when unjustly compared with guns?
What Pastor would endorse the NRA or its members to own a gun ( to take life in their quest to save the one's life or family's) and find it repulsive to embrace a woman who health and familial matters require an abortion? Protecting one's family (guns) overrides the protection of a mother (abortion)? CM
-
So, I shall proceed with my description, that being the best I have. Your statement above indicates that you do not deny it. You do seem to defend LGBT and abortion and claim to be a Christian. That matters as you post your views--as much as Trump's character matters to you as the economy booms in response to his leadership.
You made a big issue of the fact that I alluded to the position I believe you hold.
I didn't make "a big issue". It was you, who, assumed to know what I am thinking and believed once and for all. You don't know and never will. Even if I were to make a statement on the matter, I reserve the right to change my mind. What I am saying, in short, is that you can't and shouldn't lock me into a box (even if you wanted to) on matters you have firmly decided for yourself.
I am sorry, but you did in fact make a rather large issue that I should hold any opinion of your beliefs as if you can say anything and exist in a vacuum. Context matters, character matters (think Trump vs. Jesus). No one likes to be judged, yet we do make some basic evaluations about the legitimacy of a person' arguments based on their beliefs (think all your anti-Trump diatribes).
You never said where you stand or why you made an issue of the matter. This knowledge would be nice to have for the future.
Perhaps, I did and didn't. I have made some statements around the forums on aspects of the subject matter, but... Why is it that you seemed driven to know where I stand on the "LGBT and abortion" matter?
Because you keep speaking about them defensively and I find some arguments increasingly disingenuous. Now you refuse to say where you stand. That doesn't build trust. Of course, if you stand in the middle of the road, like Margaret Thatcher sagely said, you get hit by traffic going both ways.
Personal responsive musing:
I was once helping a church through a divorce-remarriage issue. They insisted I tell them where I stood. I knew that if I did so, half the people on one side would reject my leadership. I told them that I would not give them my position, but that we would look at Scripture together and pray until they arrived at their own conclusion. I recall the day they angrily refused to read the Bible. They just seemed to want a fight and for a leader to defend their side as if they would somehow win that way. Well, that didn't work either, they split down the middle anyway---but that is another story.I would say this much: I don't share your, change or be gone, position when it comes to the "LGBT and abortion" matters. Love people for who they are and change will come as they choose to do so. CM
I don't share it either. You keep insisting I think that, but I just don't.
-
Thanks again, GaoLu.
You seem to be highly interested in the topic of "LGBT and abortion matters." You may want to consider starting a thread on it. I will consider making a contribution. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Thanks again, GaoLu.You seem to be highly interested in the topic of "LGBT and abortion matters." You may want to consider starting a thread on it. I will consider making a contribution. CM
I am interested in your views on it as relates to this thread as we have both engaged multiple times above. You dodge the question leaving a blank which you refuse to answer. That's ok if that is how you want to discuss the matter. Doesn't matter that much to me. Just so we have clarity on your position and I think we do.
-
@GaoLu said:
@C_M_ said:
Thanks again, GaoLu.You seem to be highly interested in the topic of "LGBT and abortion matters." You may want to consider starting a thread on it. I will consider making a contribution. CM
I am interested in your views...Doesn't matter that much to me...we have clarity on your position and I think we do.
You do or you don't? Regardless, I suggest a fresh thread. CM
-
- Yes, we do have clarity on your position. Until you revise it. Thanks.
- I will stay with this thread, and find it fresh enough for me.
-
@GaoLu said:
1. Yes, we do have clarity on your position. Until you revise it. Thanks.
2. I will stay with this thread, and find it fresh enough for me.As you will have it. Let's continue the conversation OP: U. S. President: Play, Pay, Porn
Quick update:
- There is the one-sided report of the House of Rep.
- Ms. Daniel's lawsuit against the President and her desire to return the "hush" money of $ 130,000; so she can speak freely. Is it raw shame or the President has something else to hide?
- Some segment of Ms. Daniel's story will be told in a future 60 Minutes, would you let your teens or other teens view it? This is what this OP is all about.
- Mueller can't stop, now, because of all the other things uncovered. This is from the Party that cried, "There is no there, there" and "A Nothing Burger." Mueller has more indictment to hand down.
- Russia activities in England, US President is not clear on speaking out of the 2-deaths there.
- Dems are slated to win in PA today over Trump's candidate.
- Educational Secty (Devoss) interview on 60 Minutes is painful to watch. The bit of truth she was able to get out, her "boss" (President) is not happy. I am not shaming, but she seems to be in over her head when it comes to her responsibilities. Rich and privileged, but grossly uninformed. Unfortunately, not much has improved since her confirmation hearings (least approval vote).
Why this, America needs prayer. May I also add there needs to be a change of personnel in government. "Keep hope alive!" CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
1. Yes, we do have clarity on your position. Until you revise it. Thanks.
2. I will stay with this thread, and find it fresh enough for me.As you will have it. Let's continue the conversation OP: U. S. President: Play, Pay, Porn
Quick update:
- There is the one-sided report of the House of Rep.
- Ms. Daniel's lawsuit against the President and her desire to return the "hush" money of $ 130,000; so she can speak freely. Is it raw shame or the President has something else to hide?
- Some segment of Ms. Daniel's story will be told in a future 60 Minutes, would you let your teens or other teens view it? This is what this OP is all about.
- Mueller can't stop, now, because of all the other things uncovered. This is from the Party that cried, "There is no there, there" and "A Nothing Burger." Mueller has more indictment to hand down.
- Russia activities in England, US President is not clear on speaking out of the 2-deaths there.
- Dems are slated to win in PA today over Trump's candidate.
- Educational Secty (Devoss) interview on 60 Minutes is painful to watch. The bit of truth she was able to get out, her "boss" (President) is not happy. I am not shaming, but she seems to be in over her head when it comes to her responsibilities. Rich and privileged, but grossly uninformed. Unfortunately, not much has improved since her confirmation hearings (least approval vote).
Why this, America needs prayer. May I also add there needs to be a change of personnel in government. "Keep hope alive!" CM
I'm only going to deal with number 4. All of the other things uncovered? You mean the stuff that has nothing to do with collusion at all? It's still "A Nothing Burger" and still needs to be stopped. It's a waste of tax payer money.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
- Mueller can't stop, now, because of all the other things uncovered. This is from the Party that cried, "There is no there, there" and "A Nothing Burger." Mueller has more indictment to hand down.
I'm only going to deal with number 4. All of the other things uncovered? You mean the stuff that has nothing to do with collusion at all? It's still "A Nothing Burger" and still needs to be stopped. It's a waste of tax payer money.
It's interesting you say this: "It's a waste of taxpayer money", just like the $ 70 million spent investing Mr. Clinton's Whitewater Land Deal. When it was all, said and done; it was just about sex. A heads up-- Trump fall is going to be about sex-- Ms. Daniels- Campaign funds.
Republicans want Trump out more than the Dems. Hey, my opinion. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
- Mueller can't stop, now, because of all the other things uncovered. This is from the Party that cried, "There is no there, there" and "A Nothing Burger." Mueller has more indictment to hand down.
I'm only going to deal with number 4. All of the other things uncovered? You mean the stuff that has nothing to do with collusion at all? It's still "A Nothing Burger" and still needs to be stopped. It's a waste of tax payer money.
It's interesting you say this: "It's a waste of taxpayer money", just like the $ 70 million spent investing Mr. Clinton's Whitewater Land Deal. When it was all, said and done; it was just about sex. A heads up-- Trump fall is going to be about sex-- Ms. Daniels- Campaign funds.
Republicans want Trump out more than the Dems. Hey, my opinion. CM
How about you just wait for facts to come out before you jump to conclusions?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
How about you just wait for facts to come out before you jump to conclusions?One could quite defensibly assume that this would also be your view about the Robert Mueller investigation, David: "Wait for the facts to come out before you jump to conclusions." But surprisingly, in the OP of the thread you created to discuss that probe - a thread you titled "Mueller Investigation Needs to Shut Down Now" - you wrote...
"Mission creep is overly evident now. This has nothing to do with his investigation. He is looking for anything now to destroy the president.
"It has been long evident this is not about Russian Collusion (since it doesn't exist). This is about destroying the president in any way possible.
"Mueller and his team must be fired today."
... which sure reads like a set of conclusions about the Mueller probe issued before all of its facts have come out. Am I wrong to read your Mueller thread OP that way? Did you in fact reach those conclusions about Mueller only after all the facts came out?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
How about you just wait for facts to come out before you jump to conclusions?One could quite defensibly assume that this would also be your view about the Robert Mueller investigation, David: "Wait for the facts to come out before you jump to conclusions." But surprisingly, in the OP of the thread you created to discuss that probe - a thread you titled "Mueller Investigation Needs to Shut Down Now" - you wrote...
"Mission creep is overly evident now. This has nothing to do with his investigation. He is looking for anything now to destroy the president.
"It has been long evident this is not about Russian Collusion (since it doesn't exist). This is about destroying the president in any way possible.
"Mueller and his team must be fired today."
... which sure reads like a set of conclusions about the Mueller probe issued before all of its facts have come out. Am I wrong to read your Mueller thread OP that way? Did you in fact reach those conclusions about Mueller only after all the facts came out?
All of the facts regarding Russian Collusion are out. That's why the House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation. It didn't happen. Mueller was always a redundant needless investigation. His mission creep is overly evident and going back to things that happened well before the 2016 campaign was even a thought for Trump.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
It's interesting you say this: "It's a waste of taxpayer money", just like the $ 70 million spent investing Mr. Clinton's Whitewater Land Deal. When it was all, said and done; it was just about sex. A heads up-- Trump fall is going to be about sex-- Ms. Daniels- Campaign funds.
Republicans want Trump out more than the Dems. Hey, my opinion. CM
How about you just wait for facts to come out before you jump to conclusions?
David, here we go again...
It's not a fact, I stated that! See, "Hey, my opinion. CM" I hate to quote myself. Slow down and read what's written. You're improving, but not there. Enjoy the day! CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
How about you just wait for facts to come out before you jump to conclusions?One could quite defensibly assume that this would also be your view about the Robert Mueller investigation, David: "Wait for the facts to come out before you jump to conclusions." But surprisingly, in the OP of the thread you created to discuss that probe - a thread you titled "Mueller Investigation Needs to Shut Down Now" - you wrote...
"Mission creep is overly evident now. This has nothing to do with his investigation. He is looking for anything now to destroy the president.
"It has been long evident this is not about Russian Collusion (since it doesn't exist). This is about destroying the president in any way possible.
"Mueller and his team must be fired today."
... which sure reads like a set of conclusions about the Mueller probe issued before all of its facts have come out. Am I wrong to read your Mueller thread OP that way? Did you in fact reach those conclusions about Mueller only after all the facts came out?
Would someone please, show me the LIKE BOTTON! CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
All of the facts regarding Russian Collusion are out. That's why the House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation. It didn't happen. Mueller was always a redundant needless investigation. His mission creep is overly evident and going back to things that happened well before the 2016 campaign was even a thought for Trump.
A fact: "The House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation..." It's one-sided. Dems were not consulted or agree to the final report. This is sick. CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
All of the facts regarding Russian Collusion are out.Since the conclusions you "jumped" to in the OP I quoted in my previous post were about the Mueller probe, I ask: What information does the Mueller team have regarding possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign? And the follow-up question: How do you know the Mueller probe has (or doesn't have) that particular information? To my knowledge, there have been few if any leaks out of Mueller's office, which means it would be VERY difficult for you to know what information Mueller has or doesn't have.
That's why the House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation. It didn't happen.
In light of the fact that the Intel Committee's Republican majority refused to subpoena bank records or uncooperative witnesses, didn't hear from witnesses under criminal indictment in the Mueller probe, refused to hold Steve Bannon in contempt for failing to answer key questions, even though he appeared under Committee subpoena, and decided to accept every finding of the U.S. Intelligence Community's January 2017 assessment of Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign EXCEPT the finding that the Russians meddled in the election with the intention of helping Donald Trump get elected - a finding even Trump's own Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, accepts - it's hard to call the Committee's investigation "completed"... or even worthy of respect.
Mueller was always a redundant needless investigation.
Mueller's is a criminal investigation whose purpose is to evaluate the legality of past actions related to Russian-Trump campaign coordination, and "any other matters that arose or may arise directly out of the investigation."
His mission creep is overly evident and going back to things that happened well before the 2016 campaign was even a thought for Trump.
Item (b).iii of Rosenstein's letter authorizing Mueller as special counsel provided for the expansion of the probe to any other other matters for which the special counsel receives authorization from the attorney general - or in this case, the deputy AG. To wit:
"(b) Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere."
Congressional committee investigations are NOT criminal probes charged with uncovering criminal wrongdoing. Their responsibility is to learn what happened in the 2016 election AND, through the legislative process, to recommend actions necessary to stop such meddling in future elections.
Mueller's is a criminal investigation. Congressional committees' investigations are not. Hence, the Mueller probe is neither "redundant" nor "needless."
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
It's interesting you say this: "It's a waste of taxpayer money", just like the $ 70 million spent investing Mr. Clinton's Whitewater Land Deal. When it was all, said and done; it was just about sex. A heads up-- Trump fall is going to be about sex-- Ms. Daniels- Campaign funds.
Republicans want Trump out more than the Dems. Hey, my opinion. CM
How about you just wait for facts to come out before you jump to conclusions?
David, here we go again...
It's not a fact, I stated that! See, "Hey, my opinion. CM" I hate to quote myself. Slow down and read what's written. You're improving, but not there. Enjoy the day! CM
No I read what is there and it is very evident you have jumped to conclusions about this president.
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
All of the facts regarding Russian Collusion are out. That's why the House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation. It didn't happen. Mueller was always a redundant needless investigation. His mission creep is overly evident and going back to things that happened well before the 2016 campaign was even a thought for Trump.
A fact: "The House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation..." It's one-sided. Dems were not consulted or agree to the final report. This is sick. CM
Fact: Adam Schiff admits there is no evidence outside of circumstantial evidence of collusion. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/schiff-there-is-circumstantial-of-collusion-901506115931
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
It's interesting you say this: "It's a waste of taxpayer money", just like the $ 70 million spent investing Mr. Clinton's Whitewater Land Deal. When it was all, said and done; it was just about sex. A heads up-- Trump fall is going to be about sex-- Ms. Daniels- Campaign funds.
Republicans want Trump out more than the Dems. Hey, my opinion. CM
How about you just wait for facts to come out before you jump to conclusions?
David, here we go again...
It's not a fact, I stated that! See, "Hey, my opinion. CM" I hate to quote myself. Slow down and read what's written. You're improving, but not there. Enjoy the day! CM
No I read what is there and it is very evident you have jumped to conclusions about this president.
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
All of the facts regarding Russian Collusion are out. That's why the House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation. It didn't happen. Mueller was always a redundant needless investigation. His mission creep is overly evident and going back to things that happened well before the 2016 campaign was even a thought for Trump.
A fact: "The House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation..." It's one-sided. Dems were not consulted or agree to the final report. This is sick. CM
Fact: Adam Schiff admits there is no evidence outside of circumstantial evidence of collusion. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/schiff-there-is-circumstantial-of-collusion-901506115931
David, please read what I have written:
A fact: "The House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation..." It's one-sided. Dems were not consulted or agree to the final report. This is sick. CM
My remarks are about the releasing of the final report. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
It's interesting you say this: "It's a waste of taxpayer money", just like the $ 70 million spent investing Mr. Clinton's Whitewater Land Deal. When it was all, said and done; it was just about sex. A heads up-- Trump fall is going to be about sex-- Ms. Daniels- Campaign funds.
Republicans want Trump out more than the Dems. Hey, my opinion. CM
How about you just wait for facts to come out before you jump to conclusions?
David, here we go again...
It's not a fact, I stated that! See, "Hey, my opinion. CM" I hate to quote myself. Slow down and read what's written. You're improving, but not there. Enjoy the day! CM
No I read what is there and it is very evident you have jumped to conclusions about this president.
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
All of the facts regarding Russian Collusion are out. That's why the House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation. It didn't happen. Mueller was always a redundant needless investigation. His mission creep is overly evident and going back to things that happened well before the 2016 campaign was even a thought for Trump.
A fact: "The House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation..." It's one-sided. Dems were not consulted or agree to the final report. This is sick. CM
Fact: Adam Schiff admits there is no evidence outside of circumstantial evidence of collusion. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/schiff-there-is-circumstantial-of-collusion-901506115931
David, please read what I have written:
A fact: "The House Intel Committee has concluded their investigation..." It's one-sided. Dems were not consulted or agree to the final report. This is sick. CM
My remarks are about the releasing of the final report. CM
I understand you were talking about releasing the final report. But here is the thing, there is no evidence of collusion and there hasn't been for almost 2 years. The Democrats reluctantly admit this when pressed. So yes, the Democrats want to keep the investigation open because it suits their political purposes and narrative but they know there is nothing there.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Fact: Adam Schiff admits there is no evidence outside of circumstantial evidence of collusion. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/schiff-there-is-circumstantial-of-collusion-901506115931David, did you find any characterization of the collusion evidence from Rep. Schiff more recent than the date of the "Meet the Press" appearance to which you linked - March 19, 2017, almost a year ago?
Did you notice that in the clip to which you linked, Schiff asserted the existence of circumstantial evidence of collusion AND "direct evidence of "deception"?
Did you happen to run into Schiff's appearance on MSNBC's "MTP Daily" just three days after the clip to which you linked, the appearance in which he said there is "more than circumstantial evidence (of collusion) now"?
Given the indictments and guilty pleas in the Mueller probe, what he said three days after the appearance to which you linked, and what we have learned since Schiff's year-old media appearances about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Don Trump Jr and Russian representatives, is it your view that today Schiff would STILL say there is ONLY circumstantial evidence of collusion?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Fact: Adam Schiff admits there is no evidence outside of circumstantial evidence of collusion. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/schiff-there-is-circumstantial-of-collusion-901506115931- David, did you find any characterization of the collusion evidence from Rep. Schiff more recent than the date of the "Meet the Press" appearance to which you linked - March 19, 2017, almost a year ago?
- Did you notice that in the clip to which you linked, Schiff asserted the existence of circumstantial evidence of collusion AND "direct evidence of "deception"?
Deception is a very vague term. Same way they played gotya with Hope Hicks.
- Did you happen to run into Schiff's appearance on MSNBC's "MTP Daily" just three days after the clip to which you linked, the appearance in which he said there is "more than circumstantial evidence (of collusion) now"?
Yet they haven't been able to show any... Hmm....
- Given the indictments and guilty pleas in the Mueller probe, what he said three days after the appearance to which you linked, and what we have learned since Schiff's year-old media appearances about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Don Trump Jr and Russian representatives, is it your view that today Schiff would STILL say there is ONLY circumstantial evidence of collusion?
Yep, no evidence. Can't produce one shred of it.
-
I asked you for a more recent characterization from Schiff of the evidence of collusion. And on the video to which you linked, Schiff identifies the involvement of George Papadopolous, and then of the the emails to Don Jr about the information the Russian government had to help the Trump campaign against Hillary Clinton Schiff says, "That looks a lot like collusion to me."
So, according to the videos you have provided, David, in the last year, Adam Schiff has moved from believing there was a case for collusion that was "only circumstantial," to one that "looks a lot like collusion" to him. Those videos comport with my understanding of Schiff's views as I have heard him express them throughout the last year.
Deception is a very vague term. Same way they played gotya with Hope Hicks.
I made mention of the deception charge only to note that there was more to the first video to which you linked than references to circumstantial evidence.
Yet they haven't been able to show any... Hmm....
How do you characterize the emails to Don Jr that offered him "very high level and sensitive information" that the Russian government had on Hillary Clinton, emails to which Don Jr. replied, if the dirt was as the emails described, he loved it and thought it would fit well into the Trump campaign later that summer?
- Given the indictments and guilty pleas in the Mueller probe, what he said three days after the appearance to which you linked, and what we have learned since Schiff's year-old media appearances about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Don Trump Jr and Russian representatives, is it your view that today Schiff would STILL say there is ONLY circumstantial evidence of collusion?
Yep, no evidence. Can't produce one shred of it.
As noted above, Schiff DOES in fact point to MORE than "one shred" of evidence, starting with Papadopolous and the Trump Tower meeting.
