Comrade Trump

[Eddie]

Mueller Poised to Zero In on Trump-Russia Collusion Allegations

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...on-allegations

They are JUST NOW PREPARING to zero in on Trump's collusion with Russia? Wasn't that the entire purpose of this investigation?

[PaloAltoCougar]

They are JUST NOW PREPARING to zero in on Trump's collusion with Russia? Wasn't that the entire purpose of this investigation?

I know you're not a Hannity/Trumpophile, but that's what they've been harping on since day one. The word "collusion" doesn't appear in Mueller's instruction letter. Rather, he was tasked with finding any links or coordination between the Russian government and any individual associated with the Trump campaign. Having now identified many such links (and I remain open to the possibility that they're all benign), Mueller is ready to turn to the topic of collusion.

Trump bleating "no collusion" from day one, well in advance of any reported results from Mueller, is certainly the behavior of a guilty person, although it wouldn't surprise me if Orange Julius is not one. He's guilty of being thin-skinned, narcissistic, and morally repugnant but sadly it is the American people who are punished for those crimes.

[Pelado]

I know you're not a Hannity/Trumpophile, but that's what they've been harping on since day one. The word "collusion" doesn't appear in Mueller's instruction letter. Rather, he was tasked with finding any links or coordination between the Russian government and any individual associated with the Trump campaign. Having now identified many such links (and I remain open to the possibility that they're all benign), Mueller is ready to turn to the topic of collusion.

Trump bleating "no collusion" from day one, well in advance of any reported results from Mueller, is certainly the behavior of a guilty person, although it wouldn't surprise me if Orange Julius is not one. He's guilty of being thin-skinned, narcissistic, and morally repugnant but sadly it is the American people who are punished for those crimes.

I love you, PAC.

[Lost Student]

I know you're not a Hannity/Trumpophile, but that's what they've been harping on since day one. The word "collusion" doesn't appear in Mueller's instruction letter. Rather, he was tasked with finding any links or coordination between the Russian government and any individual associated with the Trump campaign. Having now identified many such links (and I remain open to the possibility that they're all benign), Mueller is ready to turn to the topic of collusion.

Trump bleating "no collusion" from day one, well in advance of any reported results from Mueller, is certainly the behavior of a guilty person, although it wouldn't surprise me if Orange Julius is not one. He's guilty of being thin-skinned, narcissistic, and morally repugnant but sadly it is the American people who are punished for those crimes.

I love you, PAC.

[frank ryan]

Let's make sure we set up a Trump-Putin summit pronto! POTUS can talk about all the things he has done to not hold the Russians accountable.

White House, Kremlin agree on time and place for Trump-Putin summit

MOSCOW — The White House and the Kremlin have agreed on a time and place for a summit meeting between President Trump and Vladi*mir Putin, a Russian official said Wednesday after talks here between the Russian president and national security adviser John Bolton.

The details of the much-anticipated meeting will be announced Thursday, the official, Kremlin foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov, told reporters. The meeting is expected to take place in mid-July, when Trump will be in Europe for previously scheduled visits to Belgium and Britain. The Putin-Trump meeting will be held in a “third country,” Ushakov said.

Earlier Wednesday, Putin warmly greeted Bolton in a grand oval meeting hall at the Kremlin, flanked by statues of Russian czars set before lime-painted walls.

Putin opened the meeting by repeating to Bolton his frequent contention that U.S.-Russian relations are in a poor state in large part because of the domestic political environment in the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.d5e0caa009bb

[Eddie]

I know you're not a Hannity/Trumpophile, but that's what they've been harping on since day one. The word "collusion" doesn't appear in Mueller's instruction letter. Rather, he was tasked with finding any links or coordination between the Russian government and any individual associated with the Trump campaign. Having now identified many such links (and I remain open to the possibility that they're all benign), Mueller is ready to turn to the topic of collusion.

Trump bleating "no collusion" from day one, well in advance of any reported results from Mueller, is certainly the behavior of a guilty person, although it wouldn't surprise me if Orange Julius is not one. He's guilty of being thin-skinned, narcissistic, and morally repugnant but sadly it is the American people who are punished for those crimes.

Gotcha. I just assumed, as most news outlets were talking about the Mueller investigation being about collusion with Russians, that's what was being addressed. But get that it was much more broad than that.

I kinda have a problem with the bolded part. If claiming to not be guilty is is a sign of guilt, what are people who really are not guilty of something supposed to do? "Well - I can't tell them I'm innocent. That's what guilty people do."

I just figure everyone claims innocence. And it doesn't bother me - because if I was accused of something I didn't do I'd want to tell people I didn't do it too.

That aside - I agree with your last sentence regarding what he truly is guilty of.

[BlueK]

G

I kinda have a problem with the bolded part. If claiming to not be guilty is is a sign of guilt, what are people who really are not guilty of something supposed to do? "Well - I can't tell them I'm innocent. That's what guilty people do."

I just figure everyone claims innocence. And it doesn't bother me - because if I was accused of something I didn't do I'd want to tell people I didn't do it too.

Well, it's the lying about it that I think is more meaningful. There were over the top denials for a long time that not he nor a single person around him ever had a single conversation/connection with Russians. But now we're well past a dozen people with upwards of 70 well documented connections during the campaign and afterwards between his people and the Russians, including multiple attempts at setting up secret "back channels" of communication to attempt to get around our own intelligence agencies. Hundreds of thousands of dollars from Russia somehow ended up in Michael Cohen's bank account. What was that money for? There are reportedly hundreds of conversations that Cohen recorded. What might some of those say about what was going on?

We also have Paul Manafort who was $19 million in debt to a Russian oligarch offering to work for Trump for free when he could have used some money. But there is a recorded conversation between him and a Russian go-between offering information about the campaign to the guy he owed money to in exchange for getting out of that debt. All of this is just weird if nothing else and should invite suspicion. And these are just a few of the things that have been made public. I wouldn't be that surprised if what we know is just the tip of the iceberg and Mueller's team is just working on putting it all together and making an unbreakable case for something.

Oh, and when they got to the White House and had to apply for security clearances, under the law they are supposed to disclose any foreign contacts they have or have had in the past. Every single person around Trump who has now been proven to have had such connections with Russia lied on the application (Kushner, Sessions, Flynn) Michael Flynn who similar to Manafort had made a career out of overseas "consulting" with many countries, most of which were somewhat shady in terms of their relationship with the US, did not list a single case of such connections or previous work. Then later he lied to the FBI about something and got in trouble. These are not the actions of a team that is completely above board and has nothing to hide.

Can there be a completely innocent reason for all of this and everything else? I guess. But with Trump, the lying about it more so than just the simple denials is more troubling.

[Eddie]

Well, it's the lying about it that I think is more meaningful. There were over the top denials for a long time that not he nor a single person around him ever had a single conversation/connection with Russians. But now we're well past a dozen people with upwards of 70 well documented connections during the campaign and afterwards between his people and the Russians, including multiple attempts at setting up secret "back channels" of communication to attempt to get around our own intelligence agencies. Hundreds of thousands of dollars from Russia somehow ended up in Michael Cohen's bank account. What was that money for? There are reportedly hundreds of conversations that Cohen recorded. What might some of those say about what was going on?

We also have Paul Manafort who was $19 million in debt to a Russian oligarch offering to work for Trump for free when he could have used some money. But there is a recorded conversation between him and a Russian go-between offering information about the campaign to the guy he owed money to in exchange for getting out of that debt. All of this is just weird if nothing else and should invite suspicion. And these are just a few of the things that have been made public. I wouldn't be that surprised if what we know is just the tip of the iceberg and Mueller's team is just working on putting it all together and making an unbreakable case for something.

Oh, and when they got to the White House and had to apply for security clearances, under the law they are supposed to disclose any foreign contacts they have or have had in the past. Every single person around Trump who has now been proven to have had such connections with Russia lied on the application (Kushner, Sessions, Flynn) Michael Flynn who similar to Manafort had made a career out of overseas "consulting" with many countries, most of which were somewhat shady in terms of their relationship with the US, did not list a single case of such connections or previous work. Then later he lied to the FBI about something and got in trouble. These are not the actions of a team that is completely above board and has nothing to hide.

Can there be a completely innocent reason for all of this and everything else? I guess. But with Trump, the lying about it more so than just the simple denials is more troubling.

Well sure. Trump is a liar. He's always been a liar. And there are questionable issues for sure. I think EVERYONE is curious what Mueller's final report is going to actually say.

I'm just saying - I find the idea of believing that declaring one's innocence is what guilty people do and implying it is evidence of their guilt to be troubling.

[BlueK]

Well sure. Trump is a liar. He's always been a liar. And there are questionable issues for sure. I think EVERYONE is curious what Mueller's final report is going to actually say.

I'm just saying - I find the idea of believing that declaring one's innocence is what guilty people do and implying it is evidence of their guilt to be troubling.

I think it's not just the lying. It's what is lied about. Now I get that being crazily over the top about what he says is part of his style. But Trump's strategy right now is clearly to throw as many smokescreens out there as possible to try to keep that curiosity about Mueller's report as low as possible -- among his own fans and other Republicans anyway. That also isn't typically a sign of someone who has nothing to hide. But then again, we're talking about a complete untypical weirdo like Trump.

[Eddie]

I think it's not just the lying. It's what is lied about. Now I get that being crazily over the top about what he says is part of his style. But Trump's strategy right now is clearly to throw as many smokescreens out there as possible to try to keep that curiosity about Mueller's report as low as possible -- among his own fans and other Republicans anyway. That also isn't typically a sign of someone who has nothing to hide. But then again, we're talking about a complete untypical weirdo like Trump.

I guess what I'm thinking, but doing a poor job of explaining, is that I wasn't talking about Trump in my original response to PAC. I was talking about "people", the plural of "person".

Trump bleating "no collusion" from day one...is certainly the behavior of a guilty person

I agree with everything PAC said about Trump. And would even agree that Trump's MO is to bleat that he is innocent whenever allegations are aimed at him - from LONG before he was even a candidate, much less President.

The ONLY exception I took (and my wife tells me I tend to be a little too literal, so maybe I'm doing it again) is the concept that proclaiming one's innocence is "certainly the behavior of a guilty person". What is an innocent person to do?

Again - removing the statement from Trump. (Proclaiming his innocence is certainly the behavior of a guilty Trump.) I'm saying I wouldn't take it so far as to say that it is certainly the behavior of all guilty persons - with the implication that proclaiming one's innocence is evidence of guilt.

[PaloAltoCougar]

...
I agree with everything PAC said about Trump. And would even agree that Trump's MO is to bleat that he is innocent whenever allegations are aimed at him - from LONG before he was even a candidate, much less President.

The ONLY exception I took (and my wife tells me I tend to be a little too literal, so maybe I'm doing it again) is the concept that proclaiming one's innocence is "certainly the behavior of a guilty person". What is an innocent person to do?

I was unclear. I have no problem with anyone proclaiming their innocence and don't think that alone is an indicator of guilt. But it's no exaggeration to say that Trump has proclaimed his innocence several hundred times, thousands perhaps, since the election. He does so spontaneously, even when the subject which he is supposed to address has nothing to do with Russia or any collusion. And, as noted, his protestations have changed as the facts have changed, going from "There was no Russian involvement in the election" to "We had no contact with the Russians" to "We didn't collude with the Russians." It is the gargantuan number of denials, coupled with their changing nature, that suggests guilt. The orange one doth protest too much, methinks.

Had I been his attorney at the outset, and assuming he were genuinely convinced of his innocence, I'd have instructed him to state that he's concerned about Russian involvement and wants Mueller to get to the bottom of it, and that he wants those associated with his campaign to cooperate fully with the investigation as there's nothing to fear. Then I'd tell him to shut up for the next eighteen months and let the investigation take its course. Of course, I would never voluntarily represent a sleazebag like Trump, and the chance he would follow such counsel can be illustrated with the proverbial snowball and acetylene torch.

[Eddie]

I was unclear. I have no problem with anyone proclaiming their innocence and don't think that alone is an indicator of guilt. But it's no exaggeration to say that Trump has proclaimed his innocence several hundred times, thousands perhaps, since the election. He does so spontaneously, even when the subject which he is supposed to address has nothing to do with Russia or any collusion. And, as noted, his protestations have changed as the facts have changed, going from "There was no Russian involvement in the election" to "We had no contact with the Russians" to "We didn't collude with the Russians." It is the gargantuan number of denials, coupled with their changing nature, that suggests guilt. The orange one doth protest too much, methinks.

Had I been his attorney at the outset, and assuming he were genuinely convinced of his innocence, I'd have instructed him to state that he's concerned about Russian involvement and wants Mueller to get to the bottom of it, and that he wants those associated with his campaign to cooperate fully with the investigation as there's nothing to fear. Then I'd tell him to shut up for the next eighteen months and let the investigation take its course. Of course, I would never voluntarily represent a sleazebag like Trump, and the chance he would follow such counsel can be illustrated with the proverbial snowball and acetylene torch.

Yeah - I didn't assume you meant anyone who proclaims there innocence was obviously guilty. I was just pointing out that one correction.

As for Trump, he can't help himself. If he isn't talking, he isn't breathing. He is his own worst enemy. I'm sure he's had more than one attorney tell him his best bet is to just shut up.

I'm pretty sure Trump comes from the school of thought that if you say something enough times, people will start to believe you. Because they've heard it so many times. I remember being in a training once where they shared a study that basically said that most people (like around 90%) will believe the first description of an event that they hear over a second description. So in a competing case where 2 people have 2 different stories, people tend to believe the first one they hear.

[BlueK]

Trump pulls out another variation of the old "Putin told me he didn't do it and I believe him" line again.

[frank ryan]

Just more ordinary kowtowing to close ally Russia.

Trump fails to rule out accepting Russian claim on Crimea

Washington (AFP) - US President Donald Trump refused on Friday to rule out accepting Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region when he meets his Kremlin counterpart Vladimir Putin next month.

Asked by reporters whether he was considering -- as has been reported -- dropping Washington's opposition to the 2014 land grab, Trump said: "We're going to have to see."

Trump's refusal to reaffirm the long-standing US opposition to Russia's intervention in Ukraine will dismay European allies ahead of next month's NATO summit.

Just days after Western leaders meet in Brussels on July 11, Trump is due to fly to Helsinki for his first one-on-one summit on July 16 with Putin.

Accepting that Crimea is never to return to Ukrainian control would be a major concession to Russia, which is languishing under tough international trade sanctions over its actions.

In early 2014, with areas of Ukraine falling into chaos in the wake of a Kiev street revolt that ousted a pro-Russian president, unbadged Russian troops seized Crimea.

A referendum was called in the territory, which has a large Russian-speaking population, and on March 18, 2014 Russia formally annexed it to the Russian federation.

Ukraine, which is also facing a pro-Russian rebellion on its mainland in the Donbas region, furiously opposed this breach of its sovereignty -- with stern Western backing.

Trump has reluctantly approved the dispatch of US anti-tank missiles to support Ukraine forces, and other senior US officials continue to insist sanctions will remain until Moscow backs down.

But Trump has long supported warmer relations with Russia, and Western diplomats based in Washington have begun to fear that he could make major concessions in Helsinki.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fai...223706348.html

[Walter Sobchak]

Just more ordinary kowtowing to close ally Russia.

Trump fails to rule out accepting Russian claim on Crimea

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fai...223706348.html

Still true.