US Politics

Teddy Eagle said:
Apparently there's no such thing as a comparison allowed any more.
OK, think if it as reaping what you sow. Ask the people of Vietnam or Chile about American interference.
Click to expand...
Of course comparisons are useful, but only when things are being compared!!!

The subject was not whether America has interfered too. We know it has. So nothing to discuss.

The subject was also not whether Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. We know it did. So nothing to discuss.

The subject was whether the involvement of the Trump campaign, and Trump himself in covering it up, was a hoax. Which it wasn’t.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Of course comparisons are useful, but only when things are being compared!!!

The subject was not whether America has interfered too. We know it has. So nothing to discuss.

The subject was also not whether Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. We know it did. So nothing to discuss.

The subject was whether the involvement of the Trump campaign, and Trump himself in covering it up, was a hoax. Which it wasn’t.
Click to expand...
The comparison shows how superpowers get involved in other countries' governance. If American could get any traction in Russian elections then they would. Is your concern about Russian interference per se or that Trump apparently benefited from it?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Whataboutery again!

No one says they are.

What has been said is that “Russiagate” was a hoax. When it very clearly was not.
Click to expand...

I've already quoted you the lines from the Mueller Report which you refuse to read and accept that you are wrong.

Volume I: Russian Interference and Coordination

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Volume II: Obstruction of Justice

The Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
 
Economists are like plumbers.

In other words, of differing quality.....Unfortunately some of them are more like activists for political outcomes rather than just focused in on the science.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-07-30 050330.webp
    Screenshot 2025-07-30 050330.webp
    57.7 KB · Views: 4
Teddy Eagle said:
The comparison shows how superpowers get involved in other countries' governance. If American could get any traction in Russian elections then they would. Is your concern about Russian interference per se or that Trump apparently benefited from it?
Click to expand...
No. My concern is that the lies Trump tells are accepted as the truth by some due to them being constantly repeated. In this case the claim that Russiagate was a hoax and that he was exonerated.

Not about the interference itself, or its impact. They are separate subjects.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
No. My concern is that the lies Trump tells are accepted as the truth by some due to them being constantly repeated. In this case the claim that Russiagate was a hoax and that he was exonerated.

Not about the interference itself, or its impact. They are separate subjects.
Click to expand...

Any thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard's release of declassified documents about Russia gate? Implicating Obama...
 
Penge Eagle said:
I've already quoted you the lines from the Mueller Report which you refuse to read and accept that you are wrong.

Volume I: Russian Interference and Coordination

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Volume II: Obstruction of Justice

The Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
Click to expand...
I have read the Mueller report several times. I think you need to read this again:-

www.acslaw.org

Key Findings of the Mueller Report | ACS

www.acslaw.org www.acslaw.org

If a President obstructs an enquiry and refuses to answer questions and his own AG then says he hasn’t been exonerated, then he is lying when he claims he has been.

When the only reason any investigation cannot reach a legal conclusion is the non cooperation of key witnesses what conclusions can any reasonable observer draw? That there is likely to be a reason for the non cooperation or that those not cooperating are completely innocent? Smoke without fire is very, very unlikely.

I know my answer and a few very well placed others seem to agree with me.

To quote from the above:- “A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.”

Barr also ruled that a sitting President could not be prosecuted. So Trump was impeached instead, turning the process into political theatre rather than a pursuit of justice. He was cleared because of the requirements of a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, not by a jury of citizens assessing evidence. A few brave Republicans voting guilty says all any objective observer needs to see.

Russiagate was no hoax. That the US system failed to fully expose it doesn’t alter that.

Legally the verdict was “not proven”. In the court of public opinion it was. The Trump campaign, which Trump led, was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
 
Penge Eagle said:
I've already quoted you the lines from the Mueller Report which you refuse to read and accept that you are wrong.

Volume I: Russian Interference and Coordination

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Volume II: Obstruction of Justice

The Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
Click to expand...
A snidey remark in plain English I think he's guilty but I couldn't find the evidence. Hardly what you would expect from a so called unbiased investigation.

As I have said repeatedly on here Special Prosecutors are policial appointments who often abuse their appointments as they are trying to make a name for themselves. Clinton's was supposed to be investigating a dodgy property deal so Monica Lewinsky had nothing to do with that. The SP couldn't prove that Clinton had done anything wrong so he went for the personal dirt to justify his existence.
 
Penge Eagle said:
Any thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard's release of declassified documents about Russia gate? Implicating Obama...
Click to expand...
It’s political smearing. A big bag of nothing.

Of course any evidence of Russian interference will be discussed and the IC tasked with investigating. Of course there will be some who express doubts on the veracity of some of the evidence. That’s normal. That Russia was likely to be playing both sides against the middle to stir the pot is probably true too.

Releasing selected emails that few will actually read, let alone fully comprehend, under the cover of a press release making claims that aren’t substantiated by them, is politics. It’s just another attempt by Trump lackeys to pour whitewash over him.
 
Badger11 said:
A snidey remark in plain English I think he's guilty but I couldn't find the evidence. Hardly what you would expect from a so called unbiased investigation.

As I have said repeatedly on here Special Prosecutors are policial appointments who often abuse their appointments as they are trying to make a name for themselves. Clinton's was supposed to be investigating a dodgy property deal so Monica Lewinsky had nothing to do with that. The SP couldn't prove that Clinton had done anything wrong so he went for the personal dirt to justify his existence.
Click to expand...
Hardly snidely! More frustrated after many attempts to conduct interviews that were refused. The Mueller investigation turned up lots of evidence and resulted in 37 charges and jail for some of Trump’s close associates. Trump himself avoided prosecution, both by refusing cooperation and by arms length plausible deniability. Tactics that mob bosses also employ.

If you choose to believe he was innocent, that’s your choice. I think it flies in the face of common sense.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I have read the Mueller report several times. I think you need to read this again:-

www.acslaw.org

Key Findings of the Mueller Report | ACS

www.acslaw.org www.acslaw.org

If a President obstructs an enquiry and refuses to answer questions and his own AG then says he hasn’t been exonerated, then he is lying when he claims he has been.

When the only reason any investigation cannot reach a legal conclusion is the non cooperation of key witnesses what conclusions can any reasonable observer draw? That there is likely to be a reason for the non cooperation or that those not cooperating are completely innocent? Smoke without fire is very, very unlikely.

I know my answer and a few very well placed others seem to agree with me.

To quote from the above:- “A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.”

Barr also ruled that a sitting President could not be prosecuted. So Trump was impeached instead, turning the process into political theatre rather than a pursuit of justice. He was cleared because of the requirements of a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, not by a jury of citizens assessing evidence. A few brave Republicans voting guilty says all any objective observer needs to see.

Russiagate was no hoax. That the US system failed to fully expose it doesn’t alter that.

Legally the verdict was “not proven”. In the court of public opinion it was. The Trump campaign, which Trump led, was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Nice bit of waffle there. The quotes from the report are there in my post and people can make up their own minds.
 
Vice President JD Vance warns Europe it's engaging in "civilizational suicide":

"Yes, the Europeans annoy me sometimes. Yes, I disagree with them on certain issues. But you have to remember that is the Cradle of Western Civilization. The entire idea of Christian civilization that led to the founding of the US, that was formed in Europe.

"Europe is at risk of engaging in Civilizational Suicide.

"They are unwilling to control their borders. You see them starting to limit the free speech of their own citizens, even as those citizens are protesting against things like the border invasion."

"I want Europe to thrive, I want them to be an important ally.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top