Why Putin wanted his puppet Trump as president

[MindTrap028]

Sure it is, it was his campaign and his administration.

Yes it was. That doesn't make him responsible or guilty simply by association.

and you're wrong, as already supported

You haven't supported that they are connected. All you did was list the convictions.
The context is completely missing from your "support".

All you need to do is answer "for what" or "about what" after each "support" you have offered.
convicted of lying..about... ???? O yea, something unrelated to the campaign.
Convicted of lying about ... ??? O yea, something to do with a country other than Russia.
etc.. etc..

I mean, it's great they are catching people who did stuff that is illegal, and it is good that the FBI is prosecuting people who lie to them (at least this time around). It just isn't related to Trump in the way that the Left wing wants it to be.

[CowboyX]

Yes it was. That doesn't make him responsible or guilty simply by association.

No, he's guilty of lying, repeatedly, to the american people which compromised him and violated his oath of office.

[MindTrap028]

No, he's guilty of lying, repeatedly, to the american people which compromised him and violated his oath of office.

Lying doesn't necessarily compromise you with foreign gov.
Nor is it clear what supposed lie you are even referencing, and you certainly haven't supported that he is compromised.

[CowboyX]

Lying doesn't necessarily compromise you with foreign gov.
Nor is it clear what supposed lie you are even referencing, and you certainly haven't supported that he is compromised.

He lied about his business continuing in Russia, repeatedly. The Russians knew this, he was therefore compromised.

[MindTrap028]

You can't be compromised over legal activity.. that is just sill.

[CowboyX]

You can't be compromised over legal activity.. that is just sill.

Sure you can. What if you had an affair and your mistress wanted to blackmail you or tell your wife? You'd be compromised over a legal activity - adultery isn't illegal. Neither is lying (not under oath).

[MindTrap028]

Sure you can. What if you had an affair and your mistress wanted to blackmail you or tell your wife? You'd be compromised over a legal activity - adultery isn't illegal. Neither is lying (not under oath).

That is very weak sauce. The example is hardly comparable in severity, and it is kinda "illegal" because cheating on your wife is breaking vows, that is why one is ashamed of it.
There simply isn't anything comparable here, certainly not on scale, and it is questionable if he even lied. Because it isn't really as clear cut as adultery is.

Libs are really reaching and attempting to over-blow this aspect. Especially by imagining that it compromises him in some way.

[CowboyX]

That is very weak sauce. The example is hardly comparable in severity, and it is kinda "illegal" because cheating on your wife is breaking vows, that is why one is ashamed of it.
There simply isn't anything comparable here, certainly not on scale, and it is questionable if he even lied. Because it isn't really as clear cut as adultery is.

Libs are really reaching and attempting to over-blow this aspect. Especially by imagining that it compromises him in some way.

"kinda" illegal?

I agree on the severity and scale part. Violating your oath of office and potentially putting the nation at risk is serious.

He repeatedly lied about his business dealings. No question.

"Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017" (emphasis mine)

[MindTrap028]

"kinda" illegal?

yea, in the sense that it violates the rules of marriage.


Yea, and that isn't really untrue. Because he doesn't have any deals with Russia.
The distinction he is making is not a false one.
In that, negotiating a deal, and having one is not the same thing.

[CowboyX]

yea, in the sense that it violates the rules of marriage.

There's nothing illegal about that. You don't go to jail or pay a fine for that.

---------- Post added at 10:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------

Yea, and that isn't really untrue. Because he doesn't have any deals with Russia.
The distinction he is making is not a false one.
In that, negotiating a deal, and having one is not the same thing.

"No Nothing"

At his last press conference before his inauguration, Trump said he had “no deals that could happen in Russia, because we’ve stayed away”:

could happen

[MindTrap028]

There's nothing illegal about that. You don't go to jail or pay a fine for that.

Well, one is breaking rules, and one is "punished" with the loss of half their assets through divorce.
So there is a sense in which it is illegal.

"No Nothing"

At his last press conference before his inauguration, Trump said he had “no deals that could happen in Russia, because we’ve stayed away”:

could happen

I get that your taking the most hard line angle at that statement, but that is simply not necessarily how he was using it.

---------- Post added at 05:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 AM ----------

I think the entire point is too abstract. I mean with all the controversy's over hillaries uranium 1 deal, it never occurred to me that it would be compromising in the way that you are holding Trump's failed buisness deal is supposed to compromise him. I mean it comes down to expecting a politician to be so ashamed of a ambiguous lie, that it actually makes them beholden to a foreign power.
I just don't see that as very reasonable.

[CowboyX]

Well, one is breaking rules, and one is "punished" with the loss of half their assets through divorce.
So there is a sense in which it is illegal.

Well, no, you split all of the assets, nothing is lost. Adultery is not illegal. What statute is it?

---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------

I get that your taking the most hard line angle at that statement, but that is simply not necessarily how he was using it.[COLOR="Silver"]

It's a total lie.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 AM ----------

I mean with all the controversy's over hillaries uranium 1 deal, it never occurred to me that it would be compromising in the way that you are holding Trump's failed buisness deal is supposed to compromise him.

That's because she didn't lie, everything was approved, vetted, and above board.

No lying.

---------- Post added at 11:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 AM ----------

I mean it comes down to expecting a politician to be so ashamed of a ambiguous lie, that it actually makes them beholden to a foreign power.
I just don't see that as very reasonable.

Possibly. Who knows combined with whatever else. Which is why he violated his oath.

[CowboyX]

The Trump Administration and Attorney General Barr is joining Russian spy Maria Butina in requesting she be sent home to Moscow without serving her sentence.



"Attorneys for Maria Butina and U.S. prosecutors jointly asked a federal judge Friday to order the gun rights activist deported to her native Russia after she is sentenced on April 26 for conspiring with a senior Russian official to infiltrate conservative American groups as an undeclared agent for the Kremlin.

Butina has sought removal since pleading guilty in December in a deal with prosecutors, agreeing to cooperate with the investigation into her efforts on behalf of the Russian government to forge ties with the National Rifle Association and other U.S. conservative groups leading up to the 2016 elections."

---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------

The Great Republican Abdication



"So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

Because the modern G.O.P. is perfectly willing to sell out America if that’s what it takes to get tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans may not think of it in those terms, but that’s what their behavior amounts to."

[Belthazor]

Because the modern G.O.P. is perfectly willing to sell out America if that’s what it takes to get tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans may not think of it in those terms, but that’s what their behavior amounts to."

Not unlike our illustrious Dem's for that matter (doing whatever stupid thing that puts their own special interest ahead of oath of office that is)......so sad...…

[CowboyX]

Not unlike our illustrious Dem's for that matter (doing whatever stupid thing that puts their own special interest ahead of oath of office that is)......so sad...…

That's a flawed analogy, really no analogy at all.

[Belthazor]

That's a flawed analogy, really no analogy at all.

Opinion noted unless you have a rebut....

[CowboyX]

Opinion noted unless you have a rebut....

There's nothing to rebut. You offered nothing, no analogy at all.

[CowboyX]

it his really hard to leverage a billionaire with money.

Something we all suspected or knew:

New York Times' Report on Trump's Taxes Confirms He Is the Worst Businessman in the World

In what may be the undoing of Donald Trump’s facade as the biggest, wealthiest businessman to every lace up his hard bottoms, a new report shows that Trump is exactly who we thought he was: an idiot who inherited his father’s fortune and pissed it away making bad business deals.

In a scathing report by the New York Times, which obtained 10 years of the president’s tax documents, from the years 1985 to 1994, Trump reported losses of $1.17 billion; that’s billion for those in the back of the room.

Trump wasn’t just losing money, he was the biggest loser in America, having reported loses higher than any other individual U.S. taxpayer. Trump didn’t just hemorrhage money; he was the Mr. America of losing money for almost 10 years.

[MindTrap028]

@cowboy.
Are you supposing that, that report means trump isn't a billionaire.. or that he isn't very, very wealthy so as to make it difficult to levearge him with money?

Because that certainly doesn't follow.

If you are presenting this piece of "news" as some hit on trump as a businessman... Well that seems to lack a lot of relevant buisness context. And to me strikes me as being ognora t about buisness, especially real estate business.

But good luck with that Ecco chamber, the accustoics are great.

[CowboyX]

Are you supposing that, that report means trump isn't a billionaire..

Perhaps. Depends on what you mean by billionaire. Does he have a billion dollars in the bank? In investments? In real estate? Is he worth a billion?

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------

or that he isn't very, very wealthy so as to make it difficult to levearge him with money?

Because that certainly doesn't follow.

Why not? The more you overtake the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the sink. If he is so wealthy why would he have to lie on his financials for a loan as Cohen testified? If he's so wealthy why does he have to borrow money?

---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

If you are presenting this piece of "news" as some hit on trump as a businessman... Well that seems to lack a lot of relevant buisness context. And to me strikes me as being ognora t about buisness, especially real estate business.

Business and real estate business is an extremely large category. I suppose it depends on what you mean by it. Some kind of gift for selling, or coming up with new products and services. Or is it just having accountants and lawyers finding loop holes for you:

"We know Trump got hundreds of millions of debt forgiven in the 1990s as his projects went belly up."

"his projects went belly up"...doesn't sound like a good businessman. Of course, in the same article, it outlines how he used financial wrangling to get out of or around his losses. Is that being a good businessman? I suppose. It's just following the law (the article suggest its more like skirting the edge of the law). Creative accounting, maybe, but is there anything truly creative about it? Isn't he supposed to be a great visionary of business...the great deal maker?