December 14, 2018, 12:35:02 AM


Author Topic: When will Trump be impeached?  (Read 198814 times)

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5790
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1280 on: January 29, 2018, 10:24:52 AM »
If anyone who thinks the President won't undergo any of the 3 choices above then you are truly living under a rock. DJT fired Comey for no reason
Trump's decision to fire Comey is consistent with someone who is guilty. It is also consistent with someone who is innocent and is outraged that such a witch hunt is being permitted to go on.

The fact is that the investigation was not materially altered. The investigation is not led by Comey, it is lead by the investigative team and it's work continued. Trump did not squash the investigation, he was simply upset with the "public tone" of the investigation. Characterizing it as an investigation into Trump only, without considering Russian collusion in general (as we might now be seeing with FusionGPS) is what the FBI director is responsible for.

Regardless the standard for obstruction at the very least means it's not open and shut and the FBI will have to have more than speculative mind-reading.

Quote
tried to fire Mueller over membership disputes at a golf club, wanted to fire Rosentein because he wouldn't fire Andrew McCabe

You can't charge someone with obstruction by exploring their options and seeking advice of counsel and then acting upon that advice.

That would be a horrible standard for criminal behavior.

Quote
the other instances are true which to an investigator means there is clear intent on stopping the Russia investigation on behalf of the President.
The problem is that if it turns out there is "No Evidence of Collusion", then one has to consider that Trump is innocent, in which case him exploring every legal option under his disposal to fight such an investigation and clear himself has to be considered as justifiable.

Quote
The fact that a trained lawyer (Doug Mcghan) refused the order from the sitting President to pressure Sessions and to fire Mueller means that Trumps OWN lawyer sees his intentions as being criminal. This isn't subjective...its clearly an objective opinion.

No it's subjective. You think there's only one explanation.

Trump: Can we fire Mueller?
McGhan: No
Trump: What if I ordered you?
McGhan: I would resign
Trump: Okay, what are our other options?

That could just as well be what happened. That is NOT criminal intent. That is a President consulting with his counsel.

Quote
"did they collude with Russia in the election", which they've already acquired two guilty pleas (one being from the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER),

Flynn did not plead guilty to collusion. He plead guilty to failing to disclose a meeting he held with the Russian ambassador during the transition period when he was the presumptive National Security Adviser. That's not collusion.

Manafort was charged with stuff before the campaign.

Papadapoulos pled guilty to lying about having contacted Russia, contacts which led nowhere.

Quote
And when the downfall of President Trump comes (whether that be in a year or a couple years) I hope all you Trump supporters have the guts to come out and say you were wrong.


If the FBI attempted to nail Trump for this and it turns out there was no collusion, it would tear the country apart and 45% of Americans would not accept it and see it as tantamount to a coup.

Trump's team would likely make the case that the extreme level of paranoia, pattern of dishonesty, and suspicion that government officials were seeking to undermine his administration or at least were biased against him, potentially in an official capacity (which, there is some evidence for), then that certainly has to be taken into account and makes obstruction charges harder.

The point isn't that Trump 100% DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION (he might well, at least technically), the point is that it's not as open and shut as it appears and a non-criminal (but still attempted impeachment) obstruction issue is likely DOA from a political standpoint.

Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1695
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1281 on: January 29, 2018, 11:16:03 AM »
Why no bigger uproar over Stormygate?


Offline parkerynp

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1282 on: January 29, 2018, 11:48:33 AM »
I love it :)

1. (If he is innocent) He fired Comey because he was outraged at the investigation? Honestly ask yourself this question. Do I want the leader of the United States (in charge of nuclear weapons and the worlds most well equipped military) to have thinly veiled skin? Such thin skin as to take drastic measures like firing the head of the FBI (republican mind you) when theres only been one of instance of it happening? The only other FBI director fired was this guy named Sessions (no relation) by President Clinton at the direction of the republicans. Clinton came into office with a directive from the Republicans to fire this guy.

Are you okay with this type of precedent being established? That a president has a right to fire anyone he likes because he doesn't want his reputation tarnished? Firing someone who leads an organization that DEFINES the separation of powers our democracy was clearly founded on?

2. (Can't charge someone who explores options with counsel on whether to fire someone). You are totally right about that and I never said he could be charged for this. What this does suggest is INTENT. He lets Mueller know where the President has clear intentions of derailing the investigation which is HIGHLY suspicious activity. Where there is fire there is smoke.

3. If we find out there is no evidence of collusion then Trump has every right to be fighting it. I take issue with this. First, there was collusion. Trumps son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met a Russian lawyer and "former" KGB counterintelligence officer to discuss the documentation that would be damning to the Clinton campaign. Emails released by DJTjr confirmed this despite the fact that President Trumps dictated response alluded to the meeting being apart of a Russian Adoption program (which we know as a cover for pay for play tactics....try not to bring up HRC in your response to this haha).

Furthermore, Steve Bannon (who is now testifying to Mueller mind you) says "The chance that Don Jr. did not walk these Jumos up to his father’s office of the 26th floor is zero." Even IF you don't believe the words of STEVE BANNON then the question should be...why didn't Don jr, Kushner, or Manafort contact the FBI regarding the evidence of a foreign advisory in possession of stolen documents of an American political campaign? Hmmmmm

And lets say you're right...no collusion. Why fight it? If you have nothing to be afraid of then just chill out on the attacks. Nothing screams "I"M GUILTY" more than a constant denial of collusion. And deep state? Christopher Wray and Rob Rosentein (both overseeing the investigation now) are both Trump appointees so cool it with your conspiracy theory nonsense.

4. Trump "can i fire Mueller?"
    McGhan "Yes you can but it has to be good reason."
   Trump "he was upset over membership fees at my golf club. Is that a good reason?"
   McGhan "no."
   Trump "he once worked at a firm that represented my son-in-law. Is that a good reason?"
   McGhan "no."
   Trump  "I interviewed him for the head of the FBI the day before he was appointed special counsel. Is that a good reason?"
   McGhan "no"
   Trump "But I think these are good enough reasons to fire him so I am going to fire him."
  McGhan "If these are the reasons you are firing him then I will quit."

This is likely the conversation that was had. What can we infer from this? WH attorney listened to the reasons for firing special counsel and realized that non of them were justified.

So the question is...why is DJT trying to find reasons to fire Mueller (a life long republican)? Is it because Trump knows hes innocent? If so then chill out let the investigation run its course.  Why you give Trump the benefit of the doubt is beyond me lol.

Who do you think leaked it? This conversation? Reince Preibus? Don McGhan? Somebody did and its likely someone who is very close to the president. The question is why did they leak it?

5. Flynn's guilty plea means Muellers Russia investigation has weight. Did you see all of the charges he could have faced? All the time he could be facing? But won't because of this 1 guilty plea? Flynn's cooperating with Mueller. That means someone higher up is implicated in this Russian collusion case. 

You ever wonder why, out of nowhere, the issue of Ukrainian support was taken off the table RIGHT before the Republican National Convention? Seemingly out of nowhere? Why would the Republican party decide, all of the sudden, to withdraw its stance of support for the Ukraine in the face of Eastern Ukrainian separatists?

When DJT and Mueller sit down it'll all be brought to a light. Mueller has Sessions on record, Hope Hicks, Micheal Flynn, Jared Kushner, Reince Preibus, Sean Spicer, George Papadapolous, Sally Yates, Mike Pompeo, Carter Page,  Don McGhan, Steven Miller, and soon to be Steve Bannon discussing Russian involvement and why and how the firing of Comey and Flynn came to be.

If President Trump says ANYTHING that differes from any of these people then BOOM goes the dynamite.  But...its the deep state isn't it? Give me a break!
 

Offline CDW

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1283 on: January 29, 2018, 12:12:55 PM »
Why no bigger uproar over Stormygate?
Fake news.


Online Adel

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1284 on: January 29, 2018, 12:28:14 PM »
Why no bigger uproar over Stormygate?


Fake news.



You do realise her real name is Stephanie don't you?
So if one signs a statutory declaration with a fake name how valid is the declaration?

Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1695
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1285 on: January 29, 2018, 12:28:51 PM »
Why no bigger uproar over Stormygate?
Fake news.



“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Follow the money. Of course, signing a NDA after being paid off she’s not going to admit to the truth.

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5790
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1286 on: January 29, 2018, 01:20:42 PM »
I love it :)

1. (If he is innocent) He fired Comey because he was outraged at the investigation? Honestly ask yourself this question. Do I want the leader of the United States (in charge of nuclear weapons and the worlds most well equipped military) to have thinly veiled skin? Such thin skin as to take drastic measures like firing the head of the FBI (republican mind you) when theres only been one of instance of it happening? The only other FBI director fired was this guy named Sessions (no relation) by President Clinton at the direction of the republicans. Clinton came into office with a directive from the Republicans to fire this guy.

Ah yes, the "Trump is going to start the apocalypse at 3AM because of a tweet" hysteria. Trump has shown no impulsiveness when it comes to violence. At the very least he seems like the kind of person who despises violence as it kills potential customers.

I don't see firing the head of the FBI, who let us not forget was no favorite of Democrats at the time (many of whom wanted him out), as a calamitous act. This didn't stop the investigation it just seemed bad.

Quote
What this does suggest is INTENT. He lets Mueller know where the President has clear intentions of derailing the investigation which is HIGHLY suspicious activity. Where there is fire there is smoke.

Now we're getting into mind-reading. I could just as easily say that his intent is to squash an investigation he knows is false and is tearing the country apart, and that the only reason it is continuing is because of political support by the Democrats.

It's only suspicious if you oppose Trump.

Quote
I take issue with this. First, there was collusion. Trumps son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met a Russian lawyer and "former" KGB counterintelligence officer to discuss the documentation that would be damning to the Clinton campaign.

Did you know that this Russian lawyer was barred from entry to the U.S. but granted a specific waver of entry by the State Dept. right before she met them? Did you know that the day before and the day after, she met one of the execs of FusionGPS, the firm that produced the dossier and was paid by the HRC campaign?

Quote
why didn't Don jr, Kushner, or Manafort contact the FBI regarding the evidence of a foreign advisory in possession of stolen documents of an American political campaign? Hmmmmm

Simple, because they had to determine the veracity of it first. You don't run to the FBI every time someone offers you dirt on the opposition. You have to see if what they offer is credible.

Russian: "I have incriminating evidence of the opposition candidate" (actual evidence is napkin written in crayon saying "I'm gilty of treeson"
Does Trump Jr. A) Meet first to assess the quality of this or B) Immediately contact DOJ and made to look like an idiot when there's nothing there?

This is blindingly obvious to anyone not in the Trump Derangement Syndrome hysteria bubble.

Furthermore, if a foreign government has potentially incriminating evidence involving a U.S. politician, it IS the responsibility of American citizens to determine if this evidence is genuine and to seek it out. That is NOT collusion.

Quote
Why fight it? If you have nothing to be afraid of then just chill out on the attacks. Nothing screams "I"M GUILTY" more than a constant denial of collusion.

Nothing screams "I'm guilty" than NOT fighting being accused of a crime. There's a simple police rule of interrogation A guilty person when brought into the police station will eventually fall asleep. An innocent person will scream to the hills that they're innocent. Of course this isn't 100% true, but it is a general rule of thumb.

"You're a witch!"
"No I'm not."
"Only a witch would protest so strongly that they're a witch."


That's the same logic you're using.No one's guilt should EVER be inferred by their denial that they committed a crime. To believe in such a thing goes against our most basic legal principles.

Quote
So the question is...why is DJT trying to find reasons to fire Mueller (a life long republican)? Is it because Trump knows hes innocent? If so then chill out let the investigation run its course.  Why you give Trump the benefit of the doubt is beyond me lol.

Because in many cases the true reality of any situation often results from a failure of imagination. If I had to speculate, assuming Trump is innocent, is that he's infuriated at how long this is taking and being smeared with this collusion nonsense. If/When this is proven to be nonsense it would also be a massive blow against the Democrats and his favorite foil- the media.

Quote
Who do you think leaked it? This conversation? Reince Preibus? Don McGhan? Somebody did and its likely someone who is very close to the president. The question is why did they leak it?

It could well be they thought Trump's conduct was inappropriate. But if you think that's the ONLY reason it could have been leaked, you are making a common error in judgment and interpretation.

Quote
5. Flynn's guilty plea means Muellers Russia investigation has weight. Did you see all of the charges he could have faced? All the time he could be facing? But won't because of this 1 guilty plea? Flynn's cooperating with Mueller. That means someone higher up is implicated in this Russian collusion case. 

Flynn was convicted of perjury. His testimony contains little weight in a court of law.

Quote
You ever wonder why, out of nowhere, the issue of Ukrainian support was taken off the table RIGHT before the Republican National Convention? Seemingly out of nowhere? Why would the Republican party decide, all of the sudden, to withdraw its stance of support for the Ukraine in the face of Eastern Ukrainian separatists?

Maybe because they realized the stupidity of starting Cold War 2.0? Maybe because it might be a good idea to give Russia free reign in Ukraine and Syria and let them defeat ISIS in exchange for cooperation down the road on say, North Korea?

Quote
When DJT and Mueller sit down it'll all be brought to a light. Mueller has Sessions on record, Hope Hicks, Micheal Flynn, Jared Kushner, Reince Preibus, Sean Spicer, George Papadapolous, Sally Yates, Mike Pompeo, Carter Page,  Don McGhan, Steven Miller, and soon to be Steve Bannon discussing Russian involvement and why and how the firing of Comey and Flynn came to be.

My prediction is that this will end up like a Sandy Berger/Scooter Libby. A few lower-level people charged with stuff. What they'll charged with will not constitute collusion and be barely connected. Trump will escape unscathed. The Democrats will attempt to ram and OoJ charge through congress, fail, and use it as political fodder.

If there's no evidence of collusion, removing Trump on OoJ becomes a political impossibility.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 09:08:05 AM by Mr.DeMartino »

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3219
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1287 on: January 29, 2018, 09:01:23 PM »
So the russkis had nothing to do with bozo bonespurs getting elected?

Quote
Russian bots retweeted Donald Trump messages close to half-a-million times in the weeks leading up to the presidential election, Twitter officials revealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, CNN reports.

Some 50,000 of the automated accounts linked to Russia retweeted Trump 10 times more often than they retweeted messages from his rival, Hillary Clinton, Twitter detailed in a written statement this month expanding on testimony to the committee last fall.

The bots tweeted a total of some 2 million messages related to the election beginning in September 2016 to Nov. 15, according to Twitter.

The bots also retweeted and helped amplify other content seen as harmful to the Democrats — including information about hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee exposed on Wikileaks. When the hashtag #PodestaEmails was launched after Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails were hacked, the Russian bots were responsible for a stunning 5 percent of all the tweets on the hashtag, according to data provided by Twitter.

Twitter revealed the information as Senate and House committees continue to probe the extent of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election. American intelligence officials have concluded that bots under the control of the Kremlin were mobilized in a bid to sway the election toward a Trump victory.

50,000 accounts and 500,000 re-tweets is nothing to sneeze at.

Depends on how those retweets were used. Their effect would have been diluted on the sheer number of tweets out there, plus a lot of stuff gets lost in the soup. Most people just go to verified accts anyways for opinion. The rest is just yelling/liking stuff.
BS. You're worse than trump when it comes to lying.

You just have a raw number without any other numbers to give further analysis to the data. What tweets were they used on? Did they take tweets that had a handful of retweets into ones that had thousands? Did anyone actually view their retweets?

If most people use twitter like I do, they mostly stick to their feed. You might pop over to "trending" or search for something, but it's verified/well-known users who drive twitter. Taking someone from 350 retweets to 390 retweets via bot isn't really going to change things.

This is before we get to the question as to whether people actually are influenced by this. Most things are scrolled through and ignored. People who think one way are going to act another way. Trump's hardcore fans were already going to vote for Trump. Dems were going to vote Dem. And the people who were undecided were NOT glued to twitter getting swayed by the latest tweet.

At the end of the day, the single biggest argument against the "Russian bots swayed the election" hypothesis is this:

Did Russian bots prevent Hillary from campaigning in Wisconsin?
More BS. People are influenced by this kind of stuff:

Quote
A North Carolina man was arrested Sunday after he walked into a popular pizza restaurant in Northwest Washington carrying an assault rifle and fired one or more shots, D.C. police said. The man told police he had come to the restaurant to “self-investigate” a false election-related conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton that spread online during her presidential campaign.

But continue on with your defense of the indefensible, just like you defended the captain of the Sewol.

You sound just like trumpy, and that isn't a compliment.

Online Adel

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1288 on: January 30, 2018, 02:33:10 AM »
So the russkis had nothing to do with bozo bonespurs getting elected?

Quote
Russian bots retweeted Donald Trump messages close to half-a-million times in the weeks leading up to the presidential election, Twitter officials revealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, CNN reports.

Some 50,000 of the automated accounts linked to Russia retweeted Trump 10 times more often than they retweeted messages from his rival, Hillary Clinton, Twitter detailed in a written statement this month expanding on testimony to the committee last fall.

The bots tweeted a total of some 2 million messages related to the election beginning in September 2016 to Nov. 15, according to Twitter.

The bots also retweeted and helped amplify other content seen as harmful to the Democrats — including information about hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee exposed on Wikileaks. When the hashtag #PodestaEmails was launched after Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails were hacked, the Russian bots were responsible for a stunning 5 percent of all the tweets on the hashtag, according to data provided by Twitter.

Twitter revealed the information as Senate and House committees continue to probe the extent of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election. American intelligence officials have concluded that bots under the control of the Kremlin were mobilized in a bid to sway the election toward a Trump victory.

50,000 accounts and 500,000 re-tweets is nothing to sneeze at.

Depends on how those retweets were used. Their effect would have been diluted on the sheer number of tweets out there, plus a lot of stuff gets lost in the soup. Most people just go to verified accts anyways for opinion. The rest is just yelling/liking stuff.
BS. You're worse than trump when it comes to lying.

You just have a raw number without any other numbers to give further analysis to the data. What tweets were they used on? Did they take tweets that had a handful of retweets into ones that had thousands? Did anyone actually view their retweets?

If most people use twitter like I do, they mostly stick to their feed. You might pop over to "trending" or search for something, but it's verified/well-known users who drive twitter. Taking someone from 350 retweets to 390 retweets via bot isn't really going to change things.

This is before we get to the question as to whether people actually are influenced by this. Most things are scrolled through and ignored. People who think one way are going to act another way. Trump's hardcore fans were already going to vote for Trump. Dems were going to vote Dem. And the people who were undecided were NOT glued to twitter getting swayed by the latest tweet.

At the end of the day, the single biggest argument against the "Russian bots swayed the election" hypothesis is this:

Did Russian bots prevent Hillary from campaigning in Wisconsin?
More BS. People are influenced by this kind of stuff:

Quote
A North Carolina man was arrested Sunday after he walked into a popular pizza restaurant in Northwest Washington carrying an assault rifle and fired one or more shots, D.C. police said. The man told police he had come to the restaurant to “self-investigate” a false election-related conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton that spread online during her presidential campaign.

But continue on with your defense of the indefensible, just like you defended the captain of the Sewol.

You sound just like trumpy, and that isn't a compliment.

That last piece of trolling by the demented doctor would have even put Aurata to shame.
Best not feed him.

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3219
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1289 on: January 30, 2018, 03:31:09 AM »
Why no bigger uproar over Stormygate?
Fake news.



“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Follow the money. Of course, signing a NDA after being paid off she’s not going to admit to the truth.
Probably not even her letter.

Offline grey

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Gender: Male
  • Cya West Japan aka Baby China
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1290 on: January 30, 2018, 07:37:14 AM »
If it means losing >$100,000, heck yes I'd say he is not an orangutan.
Ko fills half his luggage with instant noodles for his international business travels, a lesson he learned after assuming on his first trip that three packages would suffice for six days. “Man, was I wrong. Since then, I always make sure I pack enough.”
-AP

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5790
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1291 on: January 30, 2018, 09:21:23 AM »
More BS. People are influenced by this kind of stuff:

Quote
A North Carolina man was arrested Sunday after he walked into a popular pizza restaurant in Northwest Washington carrying an assault rifle and fired one or more shots, D.C. police said. The man told police he had come to the restaurant to “self-investigate” a false election-related conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton that spread online during her presidential campaign.

But continue on with your defense of the indefensible, just like you defended the captain of the Sewol.

You sound just like trumpy, and that isn't a compliment.

What you linked there is an example of American domestic conspiracies, /r/TheDonald, as well as 4chan. Not Russian twitter bots.

Answer me this: If Russian online twitter bots are so effective, why aren't they using them to convince people to buy Russian products, and why isn't Russia the next Madison Ave.?

Answer? Because American corporations aren't as dumb as people who believe the Russian bot crap. They know it had zero influence. Entire companies devoted to marketing would laugh at the notion that Russian bots retweeting stuff would have that degree of influence. Otherwise they'd have their own corporate bots out there retweeting "Buy Pepsi".

I say this out of genuine concern, not concern trolling, for the Democrats. The level of fixation on this Russia stuff is preventing you from learning why you lost the election and taking action to win in the future. It's like when the Republicans focused on Birtherism and Benghazi instead of addressing why they lost to Obama.

Now does that mean that the FSB wasn't trying to see what they could do and running some kind of low-level op? Certainly not. Does that mean that some of these bots might not have been Russian government, but Russian-paid bot farm companies? Certainly.

The other problem with this is that if you think "There were Russian bots, therefore they affected the outcome of the election" you are doing an analysis that would be laughed out of any university because it contains only a single variable absent of any others. In order to say it was Russian bots, you need to control for other factors, such as verified twitter users, tv advertising, voter attitudes and turnout history pre-election, pre-bot polls, media coverage, campaign spending and advertising, poll changes in response to specific events (probably the biggest one), and so on.

If you did that you'd realize the influence of Russian bots would have no basis in reality.

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3219
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1292 on: January 30, 2018, 10:34:06 AM »
More BS. People are influenced by this kind of stuff:

Quote
A North Carolina man was arrested Sunday after he walked into a popular pizza restaurant in Northwest Washington carrying an assault rifle and fired one or more shots, D.C. police said. The man told police he had come to the restaurant to “self-investigate” a false election-related conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton that spread online during her presidential campaign.

But continue on with your defense of the indefensible, just like you defended the captain of the Sewol.

You sound just like trumpy, and that isn't a compliment.

What you linked there is an example of American domestic conspiracies, /r/TheDonald, as well as 4chan. Not Russian twitter bots.

Answer me this: If Russian online twitter bots are so effective, why aren't they using them to convince people to buy Russian products, and why isn't Russia the next Madison Ave.?

Answer? Because American corporations aren't as dumb as people who believe the Russian bot crap. They know it had zero influence. Entire companies devoted to marketing would laugh at the notion that Russian bots retweeting stuff would have that degree of influence. Otherwise they'd have their own corporate bots out there retweeting "Buy Pepsi".

I say this out of genuine concern, not concern trolling, for the Democrats. The level of fixation on this Russia stuff is preventing you from learning why you lost the election and taking action to win in the future. It's like when the Republicans focused on Birtherism and Benghazi instead of addressing why they lost to Obama.

Now does that mean that the FSB wasn't trying to see what they could do and running some kind of low-level op? Certainly not. Does that mean that some of these bots might not have been Russian government, but Russian-paid bot farm companies? Certainly.

The other problem with this is that if you think "There were Russian bots, therefore they affected the outcome of the election" you are doing an analysis that would be laughed out of any university because it contains only a single variable absent of any others. In order to say it was Russian bots, you need to control for other factors, such as verified twitter users, tv advertising, voter attitudes and turnout history pre-election, pre-bot polls, media coverage, campaign spending and advertising, poll changes in response to specific events (probably the biggest one), and so on.

If you did that you'd realize the influence of Russian bots would have no basis in reality.
I thought hallucinogens were hard to come by in Korea. Congrats on scoring some wicked stuff.

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5790
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1293 on: January 30, 2018, 10:51:18 AM »
Again, if Russian bots are so effective, why isn't Russia the next Madison Av. and why isn't the Russian economy dominating?

Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1695
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1294 on: January 30, 2018, 11:07:15 AM »
Again, if Russian bots are so effective, why isn't Russia the next Madison Av. and why isn't the Russian economy dominating?

Corruption, power of Putin and the Oligarchs under Putin’s control.

Offline parkerynp

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1295 on: January 30, 2018, 11:31:18 AM »
Mr. Demartino

We've had our fun going back and forth. We disagree on whether DJT obstructed justice. This has been established.

The question we were discussing was whether or not INTENT was a crime or not.  Well I was wrong. Intent is illegal. So here it is.

May 9th. Trump fires Comey

May 11th. “In fact when I decided to just do it,” Trump says, “I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’ ” AKA the Russian investigation was involved in his decision.

Sometime in June he ordered Don McGhan to fire Mueller. McGhan rightfully refused due to there being no legitimate grounds for the decision.

August. Trump says this about thoughts of firing Mueller “I haven’t given it any thought.” He added: “Well, I’ve been reading about it from you people. You say, ‘Oh, I’m going to dismiss him.’ No, I’m not dismissing anybody.”

January 2018. When asked about ordering McGhan to fire Mueller Trump responds "Fake News".

So, he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. His words. He tried to fire Mueller and then lied about it to which Kenn Starr (I'm sure you remember him) has just said “Lying to the American people is a serious issue that has to be explored. I take lying to the American people very, very seriously, so absolutely.”

Why was Bill Clinton impeached again??? Oh yeah for lying about a blow job. Thats right. And just for good measure i'll attach the U.S. statute on what constitutes obstruction of justice.

When DJT goes down I want you personally start a thread on waygook.org saying you were wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503


Offline kyndo

  • Moderator LVL 1
  • The Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 4673
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1296 on: January 30, 2018, 11:43:40 AM »
Why was Bill Clinton impeached again??? Oh yeah for lying about a blow job. Thats right. And just for good measure i'll attach the U.S. statute on what constitutes obstruction of justice.
I'm not American, so I'm a bit vague on the matter, but wasn't Clinton impeached not for lying to the people but rather, for lying under oath?

Offline parkerynp

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1297 on: January 30, 2018, 12:41:38 PM »
You're right about Bill Clinton's impeachment.

When DJT sits down with the Mueller investigation he'll either lie under oath or make the case for obstruction of justice.

Ex 1.

Mueller "Did you try and fire me?"

DJT "No I did not. Fake news."

Lying under oath. Boom

Ex 2.

Mueller "Did you try and fire me?"

DJT "yes"

Mueller "why?"

DJT "Because xyz"

Mueller "Why didn't White House counsel agree to that being a legitimate reason then?"

DJT ".................................." AKA you're trying to impede this investigation which is obstruction of justice.

Firing the head of the FBI because of his investigation of Russian ties and then trying to fire a special counsel isn't  behavior exhibited by someone who is innocent. And to brush this aside as if it is normal behavior of an innocent man is synonymous to to thinking the earth is flat.

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5790
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1298 on: January 30, 2018, 01:36:26 PM »
Again, if Russian bots are so effective, why isn't Russia the next Madison Av. and why isn't the Russian economy dominating?

Corruption, power of Putin and the Oligarchs under Putin’s control.

That doesn't make sense. If you think all those things are true whether it comes to political or economic influence then Russia would either be powerful at both or marginal at both.

I think if you do an analtsis that takes into account all the different cariables of the election, it would show Russian influence did not have an effect on voter's decisions , which would be consistent with it's lack of influence in economics and advertising.

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5790
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #1299 on: January 30, 2018, 01:47:42 PM »
You're right about Bill Clinton's impeachment.

When DJT sits down with the Mueller investigation he'll either lie under oath or make the case for obstruction of justice.

Ex 1.

Mueller "Did you try and fire me?"

DJT "No I did not. Fake news."

Lying under oath. Boom

Ex 2.

Mueller "Did you try and fire me?"

DJT "yes"

Mueller "why?"

DJT "Because xyz"

Mueller "Why didn't White House counsel agree to that being a legitimate reason then?"

DJT ".................................." AKA you're trying to impede this investigation which is obstruction of justice.

Firing the head of the FBI because of his investigation of Russian ties and then trying to fire a special counsel isn't  behavior exhibited by someone who is innocent. And to brush this aside as if it is normal behavior of an innocent man is synonymous to to thinking the earth is flat.

Actually there's a 3rd option:

Trump: I wanted to see what my options were. I press and challenge my advisors and throw out different options (A-B testing, which Trump has consistently used throughout his campaign). Once I was satisfied that it was not advisable/permissible, I moved onto other options.

Now put that i  Trump's own language, but that's certainly plausible and NOT obstruction. You cannot charge a president with obstruction for exploring his options and NOT acting illegally.

Trump didn't "try to have Mueller fired" anymore than if Obama were to ask "Can we take out Kim?" amd his advisers said it would violate international lae would be "tried to have Kim assassinated".

As far as the firings being behavior of someone who is guilty, you ignore the fact that it just as easily could be the behavior of someone who is innocent, particularly if Trump feels its a politically oriented witch-hunt. His behavior is exactly what a guilty person might do. It's also exactly what an innocent person might do.