Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Tiggs

Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

2,214 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

F3SS
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You haven't been in a Congress-declared war since WW2, which is why the last person convicted of treason by the US was Japanese.

You can also be convicted of treason for attacking the US or aiding an enemy who does so when not in war, but within the definition it only extends to acts which result in physical attacks against the government. I think the Miner Strikes in the 20s was the last time that was applied.

Anyone claiming that the Dems, acting completely within the boundaries of the laws that govern your country, could be accused of treason is an outright idiot with no concept of the meaning of the term. Trump only uses it to (successfully) stir up the ignorant amongst those who follow him blindly.

Trump was late to the party talking about treason and the war in Afghanistan is still on I believe. Doesn't matter. A coup is a coup and you're going to learn about it very soon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)

35mil are pennies in terms of gvmnt budget.  reputation damage is much grater,  but it is a good news, cuz it's damage that libs sustained.  i'd say 35mil well spent

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
4 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

If TDS is real it's just in direct response to years upon years of CDS and ODS.

Please.

Clinton committed 11 felonies according to his investigator Starr.

Ended up being stripped of his law license.

He's lucky he was tried in the Senate, and not in a court of law.

Hardly comparable to Mueller's findings, which are factually 180 degrees from Starr's.

And I don't remember any FBI or Special Counsel witch hunt against Obama.

Harte

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, F3SS said:

Trump was late to the party talking about treason and the war in Afghanistan is still on I believe. Doesn't matter. A coup is a coup and you're going to learn about it very soon.

The war in Afghanistan isn't an official 'war', in that it wasn't declared by Congress. There was no formal declaration of war, so there, under said law, can be no 'enemy' that fits the legal definition of treason. People ignorant of the definition also incorrectly applied it Trump and Russia. 

He's also been bandying the term about for quite some time. It resonates well with conservatives who love nothing more than their hatred of Dems.

Quote

It followed social-media content that the president promoted last November, which included text that read, “Now that Russia collusion is a proven lie, when do the trials for treason begin?”

A couple of months earlier, the New York Times published a rather extraordinary op-ed, written by “a senior official in the Trump administration,” describing a White House in which “many” officials work diligently behind the scenes to subvert Donald Trump. The president suggested the newspaper may have committed “treason” by agreeing to run it.

A few months before that, the president was so bothered by media coverage of his summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un that he described the reports as “really almost treasonous.”

And a few months before that, while whining that Democrats failed to applaud his State of the Union address to his satisfaction, the president said Dems “certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much” – and then raised the prospect of Democratic “treason.”

 

It also isn't a coup or attempted coup. It seems a lot of people also don't understand what that word means. This one doesn't even make sense. If the investigation was part of an attempted coup, wouldn't they have fabricated evidence or something? Wouldn't they have went ahead and charged Jr for the illegal Trump Tower meeting instead of letting him off? The investigation itself debunks that wild claim.

How can following your own laws and constitution be a coup? It's more of the 'drain the swamp' type of catchy phrases that feed into the desires of his supporters.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
11 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The war in Afghanistan isn't an official 'war', in that it wasn't declared by Congress. There was no formal declaration of war, so there, under said law, can be no 'enemy' that fits the legal definition of treason. People ignorant of the definition also incorrectly applied it Trump and Russia. 

He's also been bandying the term about for quite some time. It resonates well with conservatives who love nothing more than their hatred of Dems.

 

It also isn't a coup or attempted coup. It seems a lot of people also don't understand what that word means. This one doesn't even make sense. If the investigation was part of an attempted coup, wouldn't they have fabricated evidence or something? Wouldn't they have went ahead and charged Jr for the illegal Trump Tower meeting instead of letting him off? The investigation itself debunks that wild claim.

How can following your own laws and constitution be a coup? It's more of the 'drain the swamp' type of catchy phrases that feed into the desires of his supporters.

Add you name to the list.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
3 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

As a whole our political system is insanely broken. The cracks that once were bipartisanship have become open, seething, pulsating chasms. America as it once was is dying and we are witnessing the last ditch effort by all involved to cling onto the corruption inducing payday that being a government official has been. The country as a whole will either emerge stronger and better for this or it will crumble under the weight of it's own lack of ability to progress for the benefit of the common man.

Meh. Nero ruled Rome horribly,  and he was followed by 30 years of strife and political unrest, but following that were the Good Emperors, and over 100 years of expansion and prosperity.

The end isn't always and end, but sometimes a new beginning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
4 hours ago, F3SS said:

A coup is a coup and you're going to learn about it very soon.

You remind me of my teenage son describing 4 hours of the internet being down as Torture.  

It us not a coup.

If intelligence agencies monitoring Russian agents activities (as they are supposed to do)  found Trump campaign workers on the other end of some of those calls, what do you think they would do but investigate?

The Mueller report did not suggest indictments against the President, nor did it exonerate him.

It is unfortunate that the Republicans did not elect a conservative as President instead of a  con man.  He came into office with a shady past that isn't going away. 

I see Rex Tillerson has testified, I wonder if Gen. Mattis will be asked to testify too.  We nay or may not see all of the retribution and revenge you seem to think is so richly deserved.    Let the chips fall where they may as long as corruption is extracted from both sides.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Trump wants to be impeached. It's to his political advantage to be impeached. It will be the partisan circus that will be on trial before the eyes and ears of the American people. Then impeachment will fail, abjectly. They'll look like fool's and will have wasted their most potent weapon for nothing and Trump will rub their noses in it, often and publically. Nancy knows it and fears losing all her gains in the vote of a fickle public that grows weary of the charade. The Adventure Continues.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The war in Afghanistan isn't an official 'war', in that it wasn't declared by Congress. There was no formal declaration of war, so there, under said law, can be no 'enemy' that fits the legal definition of treason. People ignorant of the definition also incorrectly applied it Trump and Russia. 

He's also been bandying the term about for quite some time. It resonates well with conservatives who love nothing more than their hatred of Dems.

 

It also isn't a coup or attempted coup. It seems a lot of people also don't understand what that word means. This one doesn't even make sense. If the investigation was part of an attempted coup, wouldn't they have fabricated evidence or something? Wouldn't they have went ahead and charged Jr for the illegal Trump Tower meeting instead of letting him off? The investigation itself debunks that wild claim.

How can following your own laws and constitution be a coup? It's more of the 'drain the swamp' type of catchy phrases that feed into the desires of his supporters.

The "War on terror" was approved by Congress. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

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

U.S. president George W. Bush first used the term "war on terrorism" on 16 September 2001, and then "war on terror" a few days later in a formal speech to Congress. In the latter speech, George Bush stated, "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them."

U.S. President Barack Obama announced on 23 May 2013 that the Global War on Terror was over, saying the military and intelligence agencies will not wage war against a tactic but will instead focus on a specific group of networks determined to destroy the U.S.[63] On 28 December 2014, the Obama administration announced the end of the combat role of the U.S.-led mission in Afghanistan.

And as to your bold above: Published 2 July 2018    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maxine-waters-subpoena-trump/

Could Maxine Waters Subpoena Trump’s Bank Records If Democrats Take the House?

Maxine Waters is in line to become chair of the House Financial Services Committee if Democrats take that chamber — a position that comes with broad subpoena powers.

[Waters] has used her position [as ranking member] on the panel to slam Trump and his Cabinet. She was among the first Democrats to call for Trump’s ouster, saying just two weeks after his inauguration that “my greatest desire is to lead him right into impeachment.”

She has taken advantage of her post as the committee’s top Democrat to investigate Trump’s ties to Russia, repeatedly highlighting them in Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s appearances before the panel.

A particularly acrimonious exchange in her Russia-Trump inquiry led to one of her most viral moments, in which she repeatedly cut off Mnuchin with the meme-worthy “reclaiming my time.”

There is the real hatred. From the liberal left that will do anything to (try) and oust Trump. Her mind was already made up even before Trump became President to oust him by any means necessary. Even a fool can see that.

 

Edited by South Alabam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

This guy is so full of it that if someone gave him an enema, you could bury him in a shoebox...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
46 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Maxine Waters is in line to become chair of the House Financial Services Committee if Democrats take that chamber — a position that comes with broad subpoena powers.

All together now...PEACH FAWTY FIE, PEACH FAWTY FIE!

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
 
 
 
4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It seems a lot of people also don't understand what that word means. This one doesn't even make sense. If the investigation was part of an attempted coup, wouldn't they have fabricated evidence or something?

What the hell would you call the Steele dossier?  Nevermind, it was rhetorical, I couldn't care less what you think of it.  An attempt to remove a duly-elected president through political assassination is a COUP, bright boy.  If he gets reelected I believe they'll move on to more direct means.  God help this country if they do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

I always liked the term "coup" when used in reference to Trump.  Coups happen to weak, incompetent, or corrupt leaders, historically.  When people use the term it leads people to think that he is one or more of these things to have gotten himself in his current position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
Posted (edited)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wells-fargo-td-bank-have-already-given-trump-related-financial-documents-to-congress/ar-AABKyq1?li=BBnb7Kz

Wells Fargo, TD Bank have already given Trump-related financial documents to Congress

The subpoenas, details of which have not been released to the public, are predicated on the notion that Congress has access to the information under the Bank Secrecy Act, which allows Congress access to financial information to search for money laundering, according to a person who has seen the subpoenas.

And you watch this "leaked" to the press proving this is political, and unnecessary. But with Mad Maxine in charge of this committee, we already know it is extremely biased, and political, and she should step down and recuse herself as we know she is incapable of a fair outcome. She has shown that over and over. That's like having a KKK affiliated Judge giving a black man a "fair" trial. It just isn't happening.

It is just like when McCabe took Strozk off of the Mueller investigation for perceived bias, yet Maxine is leading this one, clearly biased.

 

Edited by South Alabam
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
5 hours ago, South Alabam said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wells-fargo-td-bank-have-already-given-trump-related-financial-documents-to-congress/ar-AABKyq1?li=BBnb7Kz

Wells Fargo, TD Bank have already given Trump-related financial documents to Congress

The subpoenas, details of which have not been released to the public, are predicated on the notion that Congress has access to the information under the Bank Secrecy Act, which allows Congress access to financial information to search for money laundering, according to a person who has seen the subpoenas.

And you watch this "leaked" to the press proving this is political, and unnecessary. But with Mad Maxine in charge of this committee, we already know it is extremely biased, and political, and she should step down and recuse herself as we know she is incapable of a fair outcome. She has shown that over and over. That's like having a KKK affiliated Judge giving a black man a "fair" trial. It just isn't happening.

It is just like when McCabe took Strozk off of the Mueller investigation for perceived bias, yet Maxine is leading this one, clearly biased.

 

Congressional investigations and impeachment are a political process.  It's not a jury of peers but a jury of politicians.  It's why they present everything to the public.  There are people who will vote party over justice in a heart beat.  Having an overwhelming, publicly known "truth hammer" is the only way to force them to vote correctly.  You might not like it, but that's the America the founding fathers and the constitution made.  There is no such thing as "recusal" in this process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

@Gromdor  - the Dems are desperate to stop what is about to happen to fellow party members.

Notice the dems call for all these financial records of Trump, and all they are doing is hoping to catch *something* . Ya. another fishing expedition

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
15 hours ago, South Alabam said:

The "War on terror" was approved by Congress. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

None of what you've posted disproves what I said. In fact, considering your evidence lacks a declaration of war, it goes a way to proving my point. There's a very important distinction between authorising military force and a formal declaration of war. One that is recognised within definition of treason (an 'enemy' is a country on which the US has declared war).

It's so silly. This was debunked way back when people were trying to claim Trump committed treason. It fits even less into this accusation thrown at Dems.

Which part of:

Quote

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Do you think applies to Democrats or Mueller or anyone else?

Like I said before: it's nothing more than an empty buzzword to rally the support of the ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

None of what you've posted disproves what I said. In fact, considering your evidence lacks a declaration of war, it goes a way to proving my point. There's a very important distinction between authorising military force and a formal declaration of war. One that is recognised within definition of treason (an 'enemy' is a country on which the US has declared war).

The terrorist and those that supported them came from many nations and rather than declare war on 14 nations that we have so far used military action in, Congress authorized the President to wage war against terrorist in any nation they were found using the AUMF consistent within the War Powers Act.

To say Congress didn't authorize it, you are wrong, to say it may not be an official war in Afghanistan, instead an authorized AUMF, you are right. Word salad I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 5/22/2019 at 11:37 AM, Hammerclaw said:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Wascally wabbit

That's it!  Now I know who the Progs and MSM remind me of...

Trump pretty much has the same kind of nemesis as Bugs does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
42 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

The terrorist and those that supported them came from many nations and rather than declare war on 14 nations that we have so far used military action in, Congress authorized the President to wage war against terrorist in any nation they were found using the AUMF consistent within the War Powers Act.

To say Congress didn't authorize it, you are wrong, to say it may not be an official war in Afghanistan, instead an authorized AUMF, you are right. Word salad I suppose.

I didn't say that the actions were not authorised, I said that it wasn't a war in the general sense. There was no formal declaration of war.

And your reasoning for why war was not declared doesn't hold up. The US has attacked numerous countries since WW2 without a declaration of war. And when I say numerous, I'm talking tens, not a few. None of them apparently warranted a formal declaration, without the reason you have given.

This is all besides the point anyways, unless someone can point out which part of the US law on treason that I quoted could possibly apply to your own government st this point in history. It's such an obviously stupid claim, that for some reason his supporters actually believe and adore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I didn't say that the actions were not authorised, I said that it wasn't a war in the general sense. There was no formal declaration of war.

And your reasoning for why war was not declared doesn't hold up. The US has attacked numerous countries since WW2 without a declaration of war. And when I say numerous, I'm talking tens, not a few. None of them apparently warranted a formal declaration, without the reason you have given.

This is all besides the point anyways, unless someone can point out which part of the US law on treason that I quoted could possibly apply to your own government st this point in history. It's such an obviously stupid claim, that for some reason his supporters actually believe and adore.

Was The Falkland War a "Declared War"? When a British submarine sank The General Belgrano in an undeclared war causing huge loss of life, was that a war crime? When the British loosed their Gurkhas on Argentine troops peacefully occupying Argentine islands was that a war crime, too? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
53 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Was The Falkland War a "Declared War"? When a British submarine sank The General Belgrano in an undeclared war causing huge loss of life, was that a war crime? When the British loosed their Gurkhas on Argentine troops peacefully occupying Argentine islands was that a war crime, too? 

The Falkland Conflict was NOT a war. Argentina never declared war on Britain, and Britain never declared war on Argentina. 

There WAS, however, a state of Armed Conflict. The British Government issued a 'warming to mariners' note, stating that Argentinian naval (and merchant navy) vessels could be attacked at any time, regardless of whether they where in the exclusion zone or not. 

Argentinian troops never occupied the Falklands "peacefully", and neither the Falklands nor South Georgia belonged to Argentina at the time. 

So no, there was no question of war crimes in this particular case. I'm not sure how this helps the discussion of the Mueller Report ? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.