Mueller report to be revealed soon!

So you are basically saying that no matter what is in the file, the trials and investigations against Trump will continue?

This is my surprised face ....

 

Are you not paying attention. Have you not yet learned what Mueller's job is? There are no trials about Trump. Are you lost?

 

Again nor to you, we are both free to speculate based on our observations.

 

Seems serious, why hasn't it been done?

 

Because up till now the Republicans controlled the House and Senate. The times they are a changing.

 

Mueller let all this juiciness avoid him?

 

It is highly unlikely that the Trump Justice Department Special Counsel's report (and one should expect the scrupulously thorough Mueller to still commit the time that is required to examine Zippy Stone's recently seized stash - and where it might lead - with characteristic patient diligence) will "completely exonerate Trump", but it is entirely possible that he might not be able to prove indictable offenses.

That does not mean that other conscientious public servants committed to exposing the lies will not be in hot pursuit:

I expect that Engels will be as impervious to the hysterical dung flinging he will provoke in his pursuit of truth as has Mueller.

 

I said, "Trump always got someone else to do the dirty work for him, giving him the luxury of deniability. Trump is responsible for what his campaign did. If his campaign collaborated with a hostile foreign govern, he collaborated with a hostile foreign government."

What does that have to do with Trump's sex?

He is smart enough not to do his own dirty work when he can pay others to do it for him.

 

The Mueller investigation is all about Trump. The others are small potatoes. Here is a short review of the case against Trump.

No less than nine of Trump's close associates have connections to the Russian government or were involved in concealed payoffs. One was the former chief of the DOJ. One is his former NSA. One is a former campaign manager. One was a former deputy campaign manager. One was his personal lawyer for ten years. Another one is his son-in-law, and another is his son.

In December 2016, Mike Flynn made a deal with the Russian ambassador for Trump, the elected President. Try to imagine private citizen Flynn doing that all on his own.

We know of at least one occasion where his son, son-in-law, and his campaign manager met with representatives of the Russian government at Trump's home, Trump Tower, to gain an advantage in the election. Put all this together, and it is extremely unlikely the hands-on manager did not know what was going on.

Trump has been accused of obstruction of justice. This charge is related to his firing of the FBI director. At the time, the FBI was actively engaged in the Russian probe.

In May 2017 Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office. He had this to say about the firing of James Comey, his FBI director.

"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump said. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." "I'm not under investigation," he added.

Trump appreciated the help from the Russians and WikiLeaks. “WikiLeaks! I love WikiLeaks,” Trump proclaimed at a Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, rally on Oct. 10, 2016. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said during a news conference in an apparent reference to Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Why in the world would Trump be so foolish as to collaborate with the Russian government in a Presidential election? Is he really that naive?

One possible answer is, his hands were caught in the cookie jar. Evidence suggests that he was involved in money laundering with Russian interests. This further suggests that Putin knows about it, and he is extorting the President.

Why, on a number of occasions, Trump encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks to involve themselves in the election is a question no one can answer and suggests extreme naiveté on Trump's part, or a strong belief that he is above the law -- the law does not pertain to him. Who knows, but it was stupid.

Time reports, "Testimony to the U.S. Congress by the head of a political research firm indicates that the Trump Organization’s sales of properties to Russian nationals may have involved money-laundering.

“Transcripts reveal serious allegations that the Trump Organization may have engaged in money laundering with Russian nationals. Patterns of buying and selling were suggestive of money-laundering."

One important factor that we all must keep in mind. Trump never does the dirty work. He gets others to do it for him. Picture Trump calling the Russian ambassador to make a deal in December 2016. Never happen, right. So, claiming that Trump never collaborated with the Russians or did not know about the activities of his son, son-in-law, campaign manager, and personal lawyer on his behalf is meaningless and useless as a defense tactic. Trump is responsible for what the Trump campaign did in his name.

 

laughable... there has been zero proof of any trump putin russia ties, other than the norm for a prez or an entrepenuer ...

under garments are ripe from dreaming wet...

 

They don't have to be indictable offenses for impeachment, which is a political process, not a legal one. I'm guessing even Congressional Republicans are getting tired of Trump's antics. Already they are doings things that are refuting Trump. They don't want another government shutdown for which they will be blamed and they disagree with Trump's surrender in Syria. They don't care for his chronic lying. All they want is an excuse to dump Trump.

Chris Stewart from Utah is a strong supporter of Trump. He appeared on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. He repeated his undying devotion to Trump, but when Blitzer got down to specifics on what Trump is doing, Stewart disagreed with Trump every time, from another potential shutdown to the national emergency threat to Trump's surrender in Syria and Afghanistan.

 

Read the post just above yours.

 

yep, and our silly, nonsensicle senetors/reps decide , no judge, just them and their feelings, proof is not necessary, nor needed, it is just their feelings... aka, not justice...

they could impeach & remove just because of his hair, or being orange which btw would be racist (skin tone) but thats ok with the dems...


as for the other post, all circumstance and wind from hearsayers with agendas... aka, not proof...

 

I suspect that some Democrats will end up hoping that a disgraced Trump, beset by mounting problems and the consequences of his incompetence, will serve out his term in impotence, rather than give Ayatollah Pence the advantage of incumbency in 2020.

 

Soon. Would somebody define that...


Tick tock Bobby M.

 

that would be prudent if them, why risk alienating anyone else with a potential backfire from impeachment...

that said, meulers 'report' will have inuendo, circumstantial bs, which many will demand impeachment for, putting the dems in a precarious position... go forward hoping the senate denies it, ergo giving dems more boost against repubs in '20... or the senate agrees, removes trump & pence becomes incumbant against a marginal dem field , leaving the possibility of an indy prog prez...

i'm actually rootin for a three way race in the general and a breakaway in the dnc (prog/libbies are fed up with establushed dems)...

 

Likely not. I don't think the investigation was ever about finding facts, it was about poisoning the well.

 

The duopoly has designed the system to seriously impair any nascent third party, but one can arise internally - e.g., Trumpery displacing, ravishing, and supplanting the GOP.

Bloomberg is contemplating running as a third party candidate under the Democratic label.

 

perhaps enough time has passed since his defection from repubs and his totalitarianistic approach... lest we forget, he broke rules to force new law allowing him to a third term as mayor... he is an actual center leaning repub, reborne as an independent... that just might be enough on its own, to secure prog/lib votes in the primaries, along with 'no more super d's, he just might prevail. his major downfall is, he doesnt fit their 'mold', he's too clean & upscale. do you think that will make any difference to that bunch on the left?

...
...

 

He'd encounter the usual barrier for candidates who rely on bipartisan appeal. The nominative process rewards partisanship.

For him to become the Democratic nominee, quite a few ahead of him would have to succeed in savaging one another.

 

Yet he governs as a far left authoritarian.

 

Guilt doesn't necessarily result in impeachment and removal just look at Bill Clinton. And the fact remains we have not seen a shred of evidence of a crime committed by Trump. And as I have noted previously ABC reported a week ago that their sources are saying Muellers findings will be anti-clamactic. And keep in mind his report is not a public document in order to protect the privacy of those referenced in it who are not charged with a crime. It will be submitted to the AG who will then issue a report.

 

well, he spent an unprecendented 90 million of his own cash to secure that mayorship, now thats he's older he might just splash a billion or more, and stay in the race regardless.

another, more recent issue he might have to overcome, is many ny'ers arent exactly happy that cuomo keeps getting elected, and that was bloombergs doing by extending term limits... yeah they went with andrew this past november, but now, many wished they hadn't... will they remember and not vote for him based upon that...

 

Oh geez not that tired old canard again.

 

Sonce he was trying to build a hotel in Russia that alone proves the absurdity of your post. And he sold a bunch of condominiums at rediculously inflated ties to Putin oligarchs. And then there is the DonJr. Comment about how much business was being done with Russia.

Now if you claim is there is no proof as of yet that Trump conspired with Putin to influence the election that would be an accurate statement.