Attorney's file on Roger Stone, LaRouche and Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election

[James DiEugenio]

Part 2 to Matt T's fine analysis of what Russia Gate was all about.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-trump-russia-mueller-investigation-815060/?fbclid=IwAR3W9RYtUglXzecIs26IJqiqq-95rotMMNXGWjX4hQHlwyeOAAPUSy6p6bY

Here is the takeaway:

Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, “I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump.”

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

On 3/30/2019 at 10:13 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Somebody please tell me if I am understanding this incorrectly....

According to Jeff and Jim D.,  Mueller coerced Papadopolous into agreeing to a dishonest plea deal. In the deal,  Papadopolous agreed that it was his understanding that the man he met, Professor Milsfud, had high-level Russian connections and that they had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But in reality,  Papadopolous understood Professor Milsfud to be a nobody.

In other words,  Mueller made Papadopolous lie.

I find that extremely hard to believe. To me it seems much more likely that the plea deal was honest and that Papadopolous is now lying about it.

That is a very superficial reading.

 

A superficial reading is all one needs to make the succinct conclusion I made. Because....

1. Either Papadopolous lied in the plea deal or he didn't. That is a correct statement regardless of any detailed information.
2. If Papadopolous did lie, what would have been his motivation? Obviously the lie doesn't serve to help him or Trump. So clearly he lied out of fear of what Mueller might do if he didn't lie. No details are required to draw that conclusion.
3. Therefore, my succinct statement above needs no further details.

But if you want to go into further detail, fine. A long as it is understood that my original statement stands.

 

20 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The persons involved have nothing actually to lie about because nothing actually suspicious ever occurred. Do you think otherwise? Where are the indictments? What do you base your suspicion on?

How do you know nothing suspicious happened? Do you have a copy of the Mueller Report? Just because there are no indictments doesn't mean nothing illegal or shady happened. Maybe something happened but there was insufficient evidence to indict. Or maybe not. We need to see the Mueller report.

 

20 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Papadopoulos explained his reasoning during sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in October 2018. Do you think he was lying to the Committee? That’s what you suggest. What makes you think that?

 

I don't know if Papadopoulos lied before the House Judiciary Committee or not. But either he lied then or he lied in his plea deal. Either way he is shown to be a xxxx.

Until I get further information from the Mueller report, I am going to assume that Mueller is the one who is being forthright. The reason being that Mueller had a good, long-term reputation. Papadopoulos  doesn't.

 

20 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The FBI, apparently, were focussed on Mifsud’s declaration, to Papadopoulos in March 2016, that his high-level contacts in Moscow had told him that they had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of emails. Presumably this was addressed when the FBI interviewed Mifsud in February 2017.

No  suspicion of sinister activity has been since articulated regarding this, and leaked information says that the situation was regarded as “innocuous”.

Do you have contrary information?

 

I don't have any information one way or another. But it seems to me that it is irrelevant whether or not Moscow actually told Mifsud they had dirt on Hillary. It seems to me that the relevant thing is whether or not Papadopoulos or Trump was trying to get that dirt.

But I'm not the Special Prosecutor, Mueller is. I will wait and see what he says about it in his report.

 

[Bob Ness]

30 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

CONFIRMED: Bogus Trump-Russia Alfa Bank Connections Were Created By Hillary Supporter, Working with Fusion GPS

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/04/confirmed-bogus-trump-russia-alfa-bank-connections-were-created-by-hillary-supporter-working-with-fusion-gps-and-pushed-by-hillary/

 

Your're joking right?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

Edited April 1, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Jim Harwood]

Does anyone recognize this White House press release ( 2 days after the collapse of Russiagate?) as an explicit intent by President Trump to revive JFK's most radical policy , his national mission for the USA of space travel including missions launched from the moon to colonize Mars? No wonder President Trump is under attack;  as our last Space President had his brains splattered onto Dealey Plaza and we stopped going to the moon less than a decade later.  The Kennedy Apollo program was the largest peace time mobilization or resources in our nations history. It appears the current President intends to revive JFK's science driver program.

 

White House Press Release

“This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars and perhaps, someday, to many worlds beyond.”

–President Donald J. Trump

ACCELERATING AMERICA’S SPACE EXPLORATION: President Donald J. Trump is setting a bold goal to put Americans back on the Moon by 2024.

• President Trump has received five recommendations, unanimously approved by his National Space Council, to accelerate America’s space exploration program.
  • President Trump also received four recommendations on streamlining export control regulations that followed a year-long review.
  • The NASA Administrator will provide an update on the implementation of Space Policy Directive-1 (SPD-1) and the recommendations at the next Space Council meeting.
• The United States will seek to land on the Moon’s South Pole by 2024, establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon by 2028, and chart a future path for Mars exploration.
  • NASA’s lunar presence will focus on science, resource management, and risk reduction for future missions to Mars.
• NASA will create a Moon-to-Mars Mission Directorate and make all necessary efforts to achieve Exploration Mission-1, a foundational uncrewed mission around the Moon.
  • Exploration Mission-1 will take place no later than 2020 and a crewed mission around the Moon, Exploration Mission-2, will take place no later than 2022.
• NASA will unleash American industry, including through public-private partnerships, to enhance innovation and the sustainability of its space activities.
• To implement SPD-1, NASA will continue to improve its structure and management, and improve cost and schedule performance, seeking legislative authorization as necessary.
• The United States will engage with international partners to enable a sustainable lunar exploration and development program.

DARING AGAIN: President Trump is building a space program worthy of our great Nation and the American spirit.

• An American has not walked on the Moon in 47 years, but President Trump is working to change that.
• To achieve this goal, President Trump is taking action to ensure that American astronauts get to their destination quickly and sustainably.

REIGNITING AMERICA’S SPACE LEGACY: President Trump is keeping his promise to restore America’s proud legacy of leadership in space.

• These recommendations follow President Trump’s bold call for America to go back to the Moon and establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars.
• In December 2017, President Trump signed SPD-1, “Reinvigorating America’s Human Space Exploration Program.”
  • The President’s Space Policy calls for NASA to lead an innovative space program with commercial and international partners.
  • Americans will return to the Moon for long-term exploration, followed by missions to Mars and beyond.
• President Trump has signed three additional SPDs to restore American leadership in space.

[Jim Hargrove]

PLEASE STOP HIDING THE MUELLER REPORT!

JUST LET US READ IT, WITHOUT REDACTIONS!

WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?  PLEASE....

JUST LET US READ IT!

[Jeff Carter]

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

A superficial reading is all one needs to make the succinct conclusion I made. Because....

1. Either Papadopolous lied in the plea deal or he didn't. That is a correct statement regardless of any detailed information.
2. If Papadopolous did lie, what would have been his motivation? Obviously the lie doesn't serve to help him or Trump. So clearly he lied out of fear of what Mueller might do if he didn't lie. No details are required to draw that conclusion.
3. Therefore, my succinct statement above needs no further details.

But if you want to go into further detail, fine. A long as it is understood that my original statement stands.

How do you know nothing suspicious happened? Do you have a copy of the Mueller Report? Just because there are no indictments doesn't mean nothing illegal or shady happened. Maybe something happened but there was insufficient evidence to indict. Or maybe not. We need to see the Mueller report.

 

I don't have any information one way or another. But it seems to me that it is irrelevant whether or not Moscow actually told Mifsud they had dirt on Hillary. It seems to me that the relevant thing is whether or not Papadopoulos or Trump was trying to get that dirt.

It is my understanding plea deals are the way the American justice system works these days, and that defence counsel often advises clients to accept the terms of the deal rather than risk the financial drain or an onerous sentence should they choose to fight. So notions such as telling the truth or telling lies have no substantive meaning when one is faced with, say, two weeks in jail and a probative period should one agree to an inaccurate and/or unfair prosecution plea deal, or face several years in jail and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees should you choose to fight - even if you are truthful - because the prosecutors have the decisive edge in the current system. So no, your statement doesn't stand. In the Papadopoulos case, the fact that there are no indictments means that nothing illegal or shady was found to have happened outside of the process crimes which got him two weeks in jail. Innocent until proven guilty. The Mueller Report is not going to state otherwise, as was explained by attorney Dowd. Again, the awful media have raised false expectations based on completely erroneous interpretations of the process. 

The curious thing about this particular angle is that the FBI apparently did not bother to interview him until almost a full six months after they supposedly opened a file on Russian interference supposedly after an Australian diplomat alerted them specifically to Papadopoulos. What is going on there? Supposedly this was actionable intelligence regarding a real time conspiracy to interfere with America's core principles, and they sat on it until after the election? No other information regarding FBI activities in that period -and there is a lot of it - refer to Papadopoulos at all. All the activity related to the Steele dossier and the efforts against Carter Page in the FISA court.

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

It is my understanding plea deals are the way the American justice system works these days, and that defence counsel often advises clients to accept the terms of the deal rather than risk the financial drain or an onerous sentence should they choose to fight. So notions such as telling the truth or telling lies have no substantive meaning when one is faced with, say, two weeks in jail and a probative period should one agree to an inaccurate and/or unfair prosecution plea deal, or face several years in jail and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees should you choose to fight - even if you are truthful - because the prosecutors have the decisive edge in the current system. So no, your statement doesn't stand. In the Papadopoulos case, the fact that there are no indictments means that nothing illegal or shady was found to have happened outside of the process crimes which got him two weeks in jail. Innocent until proven guilty. The Mueller Report is not going to state otherwise, as was explained by attorney Dowd. Again, the awful media have raised false expectations based on completely erroneous interpretations of the process. 

The curious thing about this particular angle is that the FBI apparently did not bother to interview him until almost a full six months after they supposedly opened a file on Russian interference supposedly after an Australian diplomat alerted them specifically to Papadopoulos. What is going on there? Supposedly this was actionable intelligence regarding a real time conspiracy to interfere with America's core principles, and they sat on it until after the election? No other information regarding FBI activities in that period -and there is a lot of it - refer to Papadopoulos at all. All the activity related to the Steele dossier and the efforts against Carter Page in the FISA court.

No they don't advise clients to admit to crimes they haven't committed. Jeff, take it from the horses mouth. Pay close attention to the transcript below where the Judge asks him "is everything in that document (stipulation outlining the Governments assertions) true? He answers "yes".

RANDOLPH D. MOSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:  Mr. Papadopoulos, going back to all the rights that I just described to you that you have. Do you understand that if you plead guilty in this case, you're giving up all those rights because there's not going to be a trial in the case?
THE DEFENDANT (Papadopoulos): Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Papadopoulos, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to ask that Mr. Goldstein or Mr. Zelinsky come back up to the podium. What I'm going to ask them to do is to describe in detail what the Government submits it believes it would be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if this case were to go to trial. I'm going to ask that you listen very carefully to what they say. When they're done, I'm going to ask that you come back up and I'm going to ask you whether everything they've said is absolutely true or whether there's anything that needs to be clarified, modified or was incorrect, okay?
THE DEFENDANT: Absolutely, yes.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Mr. Goldstein?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, your Honor. A fuller recitation of the offense conduct is set forth in the statement of offense that's attached to the plea agreement and that the Defendant signed. But for the purposes of this proceeding, the Government would be able to prove at trial that the Defendant was interviewed by the FBI on January 27th, 2017. During that voluntary interview, the agents with the FBI asked the Defendant a series of questions that pertained to the FBI's ongoing investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016presidential election; and whether there was any coordination between the campaign of candidate Donald Trump and Russia's efforts to interfere in the election. In the course of that interview, the Defendant made a series of deliberate false statements and deliberate omissions that are including, but not limited to, the timing of when he met certain individuals that the Defendant understood had substantial connections to high-level Russian government officials; and the extent and the nature of his communication with those individuals and with certain Russian nationals that he was communicating with during the campaign. The Government would be able to prove this conduct by, among other evidence, a record of the statement itself which was recorded; e-mails; text messages; communications via social media such as Facebook; Skype records; records of internet searches; location data; and other evidence which would show that the Defendant's statements that were made during that January 27th interview were false. And that he knew that they were false at the time they were made, and that there was a deliberate effort to provide false information to the Government.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Mr. Papadopoulos,you're welcome to come back up with your counsel. Mr. Papadopoulos, is what Mr. Goldstein just described completely accurate?
THE DEFENDANT: I believe so, yes.
THE COURT: Anything that you think needs to be modified or clarified with respect to what he said?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: And Mr. Stanley, do you concur in that?
MR. STANLEY: I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Stanley, if the Government were to take its case to trial, do you concur that the Government would be able to prove each of the necessary elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt?
MR. STANLEY: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Papadopoulos, do you have in front of you the statement of offense?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: And did you read that documentcare fully?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is everything in that document true?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is that your signature at the final page, page 14?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there anything in that document that you think needs to be clarified or amended?
THE DEFENDANT: No, your Honor.

I've left out five pages of transcripts of the Judge going over these things with Papadopoulos, over and over and over again. You're free to check it at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/george-papadopoulos-stipulation-and-plea-agreement

Edited April 2, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Jeff Carter]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_States

“The use of plea bargaining has inspired some controversy over issues such as its potentially coercive effect on incarcerated defendants, defendants who have been charged with more serious offenses than the facts warrant, and innocent defendants, all of whom might feel pressured to enter into a plea bargain to avoid the more serious consequences that would result from conviction.”

The context of the particular charges has been well developed, including the original indictment, the sentencing statement and the corresponding defence response to the sentencing statement - all of which are readily available and have more relevant information than the courtroom proceeding. As does Papadopoulos’ testimony to the Congressional panel from October 2018.

It remains a nothingburger across the board. The individuals involved had nothing to do with any presumed interference in the 2016 election. There has been a number of legal criticisms of Mueller’s use of process crimes in this regard.

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

It is my understanding plea deals are the way the American justice system works these days, and that defence counsel often advises clients to accept the terms of the deal rather than risk the financial drain or an onerous sentence should they choose to fight. So notions such as telling the truth or telling lies have no substantive meaning when one is faced with, say, two weeks in jail and a probative period should one agree to an inaccurate and/or unfair prosecution plea deal, or face several years in jail and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees should you choose to fight - even if you are truthful - because the prosecutors have the decisive edge in the current system.

So no, your statement doesn't stand.

 

Jeff,

Please tell me specifically where my statement is wrong. Here it is:

According to Jeff and Jim D.,  Mueller coerced Papadopolous into agreeing to a dishonest plea deal. In the deal,  Papadopolous agreed that it was his understanding that the man he met, Professor Milsfud, had high-level Russian connections and that they had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But in reality,  Papadopolous understood Professor Milsfud to be a nobody.

In other words,  Mueller made Papadopolous lie.

 

 

22 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

In the Papadopoulos case, the fact that there are no indictments means that nothing illegal or shady was found to have happened outside of the process crimes which got him two weeks in jail.

 

What you say here is only an opinion.  Because, as I said earlier, it's possible that a crime occurred but that insufficient evidence was uncovered to successfully prosecute.

 

22 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Innocent until proven guilty.

The correct legal phrase is "PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty." If one is acquitted of a crime, that doesn't necessarily mean they are innocent. Of course.

 

22 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The Mueller Report is not going to state otherwise, as was explained by attorney Dowd. Again, the awful media have raised false expectations based on completely erroneous interpretations of the process. 

The curious thing about this particular angle is that the FBI apparently did not bother to interview him until almost a full six months after they supposedly opened a file on Russian interference supposedly after an Australian diplomat alerted them specifically to Papadopoulos. What is going on there? Supposedly this was actionable intelligence regarding a real time conspiracy to interfere with America's core principles, and they sat on it until after the election? No other information regarding FBI activities in that period -and there is a lot of it - refer to Papadopoulos at all. All the activity related to the Steele dossier and the efforts against Carter Page in the FISA court.

 

[Ron Bulman]

Stone and Trumph are both guilty of misleading and deceiving the people of the United States.  Most likely many real crimes which may be proven in the future.  Jim's right again though.  While there may be substantial crimes in the investigations of Russian collusion focusing exclusively on them is a distraction from equally important issues.  

Just one example.  The Cristian Right.  I was appalled.  They hold the sanctity of marriage, monogamy, and faithfulness reputedly in high regard.  Yet no one talked about Trumphs three trophy wives much during the election.  Getting the second one pregnant before he left the first.  The third being an illegal immigrant until being admitted as a model.  His demeaning "Locker room talk" about grabbing them by the pussy, while his wife was pregnant, was ignored.  Hypocrisy in action.  Ignored by the Main Stream media of course.   

[Jeff Carter]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jeff,

Please tell me specifically where my statement is wrong. Here it is:

According to Jeff and Jim D.,  Mueller coerced Papadopolous into agreeing to a dishonest plea deal. In the deal,  Papadopolous agreed that it was his understanding that the man he met, Professor Milsfud, had high-level Russian connections and that they had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But in reality,  Papadopolous understood Professor Milsfud to be a nobody.

In other words,  Mueller made Papadopolous lie.

Papadopoulos was interviewed in late January 2017 concerning events from the previous spring. At that time a man named Mifsud entered his life presenting himself as holding high-level contacts with Russian officials which could assist in arranging a meeting with Trump campaign officials. Papadopoulos was eager to exploit this angle to impress himself with the campaign and advance his career. But Mifsud’s contacts did not and evidently could not lead anywhere near the promises of his initial presentation. Therefore, based on this experience, Papadopoulos could say to FBI agents ten months after the fact that Mifsud had misrepresented himself - was not in fact highly connected but a “nobody”.

But the indictment bizarrely insists that his expectation in the spring of 2016 that Mifsud had high-level connections, based on Mifsud’s say-so, was the ultimate truth, and that his subjective opinion in January 2017 that Mifsud was a “nobody”, after being disappointed over the course of several months by a lack of meaningful activity, was a “lie”. I don’t understand how one’s subjective opinion based on personal experience can become a source of legal jeopardy.

Similarly, Papadopoulos was indicted for saying he was not yet working for the Trump campaign when he first met Mifsud. According to the record, he had been told he was accepted to the foreign policy advisory board about mid-March, but was not officially announced as such until a couple of weeks later, after the initial meeting with Mifsud. (Papadopoulos told his London based boss he was leaving to join the Trump campaign after his acceptance, and this boss was the source to Mifsud of this connection).

So - when do you officially start your job? When you’ve been told you have been hired, or when you arrive at the office for the first time? Is there actually a legal distinction? The indictment implies there is. The indictment says that you start your job when you’ve been told you are “hired” and if you assume otherwise you are guilty of a crime. Papadopoulos wasn’t even being paid - it was a volunteer position - so could he even be described as being “employed” by the Trump campaign?

The indictment was delivered in July 2017, about six months after the initial interview. By this time the FBI had run out all the leads on Papadopoulos, Mifsud, and the “Russian national” falsely portrayed as “Putin’s niece” who was actually a flower seller based in Rome. The leads led nowhere. Papadopoulos was instead indicted based on subjective opinions expressed at an FBI interview.

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Stone and Trumph are both guilty of misleading and deceiving the people of the United States.  Most likely many real crimes which may be proven in the future.  Jim's right again though.  While there may be substantial crimes in the investigations of Russian collusion focusing exclusively on them is a distraction from equally important issues.  

Why?  People can't multi-task?

I'm always amused when someone claims an issue is a "distraction" when, like Jim D., all they are trying to do is distract from that issue.

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Just one example.  The Cristian Right.  I was appalled.  They hold the sanctity of marriage, monogamy, and faithfulness reputedly in high regard.  Yet no one talked about Trumphs three trophy wives much during the election.  Getting the second one pregnant before he left the first.  The third being an illegal immigrant until being admitted as a model.  His demeaning "Locker room talk" about grabbing them by the pussy, while his wife was pregnant, was ignored.  Hypocrisy in action.  Ignored by the Main Stream media of course.   

No, it wasn't ignored until 10/28/16 when the Comey letter to the house re-opened the Clinton e-mail railroad job.

The morning of 10/28/16 there were three top subjects on MSNBC  --- an on-going discussion of the pussy grabber tape, the unrevealed Trump tax returns, and Clinton's double digit lead in the polls.

When the Comey letter hit cable news didn't let up on Hillary until election day.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jeff,

Please tell me specifically where my statement is wrong. Here it is:

According to Jeff and Jim D.,  Mueller coerced Papadopolous into agreeing to a dishonest plea deal. In the deal,  Papadopolous agreed that it was his understanding that the man he met, Professor Milsfud, had high-level Russian connections and that they had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But in reality,  Papadopolous understood Professor Milsfud to be a nobody.

In other words,  Mueller made Papadopolous lie.

Papadopoulos was interviewed in late January 2017 concerning events from the previous spring. At that time a man named Mifsud entered his life presenting himself as holding high-level contacts with Russian officials which could assist in arranging a meeting with Trump campaign officials. Papadopoulos was eager to exploit this angle to impress himself with the campaign and advance his career. But Mifsud’s contacts did not and evidently could not lead anywhere near the promises of his initial presentation. Therefore, based on this experience, Papadopoulos could say to FBI agents ten months after the fact that Mifsud had misrepresented himself - was not in fact highly connected but a “nobody”.

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

Well you said a lot. But you didn't show me where my statement is wrong.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Stone and Trumph are both guilty of misleading and deceiving the people of the United States.  Most likely many real crimes which may be proven in the future.  Jim's right again though.  While there may be substantial crimes in the investigations of Russian collusion focusing exclusively on them is a distraction from equally important issues.  

Just one example.  The Cristian Right.  I was appalled.  They hold the sanctity of marriage, monogamy, and faithfulness reputedly in high regard.  Yet no one talked about Trumphs three trophy wives much during the election.  Getting the second one pregnant before he left the first.  The third being an illegal immigrant until being admitted as a model.  His demeaning "Locker room talk" about grabbing them by the pussy, while his wife was pregnant, was ignored.  Hypocrisy in action.  Ignored by the Main Stream media of course.   

Ron, You seem to straining to find some solidarity with Jim.  Jim has never expressed  that he feels Trump is "guilty of real crimes which may be proven in the future" like you.

Jim has never hinted he has any suspicion of Trump impropriety much less  on these moral issues you've focused on,. the sanctity of marriage etc.. Only until this thread has Jim even  admitted to disagreeing with Trump about his politics, though you would suspect he would.   For years, he's been silent, though he's weighed in on about everything else.. 

Ron says:

Jim's right again though. While there may be substantial crimes in the investigations of Russian collusion focusing exclusively on them is a distraction from equally important issues.  

I agree with you in that I've never focused exclusively on Russian collusion, though I tend to believe he is compromised. And of course, if he is, that's very serious.

Honestly 2 years ago, I didn't expect they would find as much circumstantial evidence and past history of Trump with Russian ties as they in fact have. It was previously inconceivable to me  that he could have been that careless to leave that many clues but  in that time that I've witnessed Trump and the Trump Presidency, I now see him, and it makes perfect sense, as he is such a loose cannon.The compulsive lying, Circumstantially it also makes sense in that  he's not the least curious and has no idea of his limitations so he's a sucker and gets played in the hands  of more aware types.  

.When you say "equally important issues" I assume you are talking about Trump Obstruction or just his overall financial corruption or both?  If so I agree with you, But once again, Jim believes in neither. So the only point you agree with him on, I also agree  that "  focusing exclusively Russian collusion is a distraction."

********************

Ron said:   His demeaning "Locker room talk" about grabbing them by the pussy, while his wife was pregnant, was ignored.

Ron, were off on planet "X' during the time of the campaign during the "Pussy Grabbing" incident? I wonder if Trump supporters here thought that this was ignored by the MSM at the time?

Ron says: Hypocrisy in action.  Ignored by the Main Stream media of course.   

Of course??? I would think you're about the only one here who would say he "Trump pussy grabbing comment" was ignored. by the MSM.  And the hypocritical MSM did this.... because they wanted Trump to be President???,   I've seen this before.  You seem to be just reflexively going off on some tangent of paranoid fear about the MSM. I can't make sense of it.

What are you really saying?

   

Edited April 3, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[Cory Santos]

2 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ron, You seem to straining to find some solidarity with Jim.  Jim has never expressed  that he feels Trump is "guilty of real crimes which may be proven in the future" like you.

Jim has never hinted he has any suspicion of Trump impropriety much less  on these moral issues you've focused on,. the sanctity of marriage etc.. Only until this thread has Jim even  admitted to disagreeing with Trump about his politics, though you would suspect he would.   For years, he's been silent, though he's weighed in on about everything else.. 

Ron says:

Jim's right again though. While there may be substantial crimes in the investigations of Russian collusion focusing exclusively on them is a distraction from equally important issues.  

I agree with you in that I've never focused exclusively on Russian collusion, though I tend to believe he is compromised. And of course, if he is, that's very serious.

Honestly 2 years ago, I didn't expect they would find as much circumstantial evidence and past history of Trump with Russian ties as they in fact have. It was previously inconceivable to me  that he could have been that careless to leave that many clues but  in that time that I've witnessed Trump and the Trump Presidency, I now see him, and it makes perfect sense, as he is such a loose cannon.   .When you say "equally important issues" I assume you are talking about Trump Obstruction or just his overall financial corruption or both?  If so I agree with you, But once again, Jim believes in neither. So the only point you agree with him on, I also agree  that "  focusing exclusively Russian collusion is a distraction."

********************

Ron said:   His demeaning "Locker room talk" about grabbing them by the pussy, while his wife was pregnant, was ignored.

Ron, were off on planet "X' during the time of the campaign during the "Pussy Grabbing" incident? I wonder if Trump supporters here thought that this was ignored by the MSM at the time?

Ron says: Hypocrisy in action.  Ignored by the Main Stream media of course.   

Of course??? I would think you're about the only one here who would say he "Trump pussy grabbing comment" was ignored. by the MSM.  And the hypocritical MSM did this.... because they wanted Trump to be President???,   I've seen this before.  You seem to be just reflexively going off on some tangent of paranoid fear about the MSM. I can't make sense of it.

What are you really saying?

   

Agree with Kirk, what is your point?  How can you say it was ignored? Everyone covered it.  A whole lot.  Were you watching tv at the time or out fishing for a month?