Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said:
The legal arguments that you are citing were rejected by the Bolivian Supreme Court which authorized Morales to run again for President.
Not being as conversant with the legal culture and system of Bolivia as you seem to be, could you outline what the basis of that was?
Rep. Omar has an Op-ed in the Washington Post arguing against sanctions. She mentions Venezuela, hence relevance to this thread. I wanted to note this passage in particular:
There’s no question that the bulk of the economic crisis in Venezuela
was caused by Maduro’s government, which inherited fixable problems and
failed to address them. But U.S. sanctions have worsened Venezuela’s
economic disaster — and handed Maduro a propaganda victory. He can now
shift blame to the United States, while retaining his grip on power.
I think Omar's acknowledging Maduro's culpability here makes her argument much more effective, avoiding the traps of false moral equivalence and whataboutism.
paulsurovell said:
Yes, you're a British/Yankee imperialist, supporting a right-wing coup attempt in Latin America that follows a long history of right-wing coups supported by the US government (primarily the CIA) in Latin America. The legal arguments that you are citing were rejected by the Bolivian Supreme Court which authorized Morales to run again for President.
Edited to Add: What you are supporting is the violence by right-wing forces to destroy the voting records to prevent a final tally that everyone agrees will show a Morales victory. Imperialism asserts its power through violence or the threat of violence.
No I'm not.
paulsurovell said:
Chilean soldiers trained by Israel Defense Force to shoot to maim protesters, rather than kill them. Capitalist success story, symbol of democracy. Not like Venezuela.
The article was written by Benjamin Zinevich. Here's a response to the article and Zinevich. Yes, it is on a pro-Israel site. I won't be commenting further.
https://honestreporting.com/guilt-by-false-association-israel-noted-in-particular/
eta - I hadn't looked at this thread for a long time. Now I know why.
nohero said:
ridski said:
Morales running for re-election for a fourth term (even if the first one doesn't count) is unconstitutional. This would be no different than Trump running again in 2024. You're damn right there should be riots in the streets. The democratically enacted constitution of 2009, upheld by democratic referendum in 2016, has been violated and you're calling ME an imperialist?
Can't wait to see what the "whatabout" is going to be for this.
[Edited to add] I posted too slow. The old "what about the CIA" was used.
Idiocy
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
The legal arguments that you are citing were rejected by the Bolivian Supreme Court which authorized Morales to run again for President.
Not being as conversant with the legal culture and system of Bolivia as you seem to be, could you outline what the basis of that was?
This is what was reported in the Deutsche Welle article:
The Tuesday ruling upheld a Constitutional Court ruling from last year
that cited the American Convention on Human Rights, saying there should
be no restriction on elections.
Maybe you can get the full text.
PVW said:
Rep. Omar has an Op-ed in the Washington Post arguing against sanctions. She mentions Venezuela, hence relevance to this thread. I wanted to note this passage in particular:
There’s no question that the bulk of the economic crisis in Venezuela
was caused by Maduro’s government, which inherited fixable problems and
failed to address them. But U.S. sanctions have worsened Venezuela’s
economic disaster — and handed Maduro a propaganda victory. He can now
shift blame to the United States, while retaining his grip on power.I think Omar's acknowledging Maduro's culpability here makes her argument much more effective, avoiding the traps of false moral equivalence and whataboutism.
No one, not even Maduro, denies that his administrations bear much of the responsibility for Venezuela's economic problems.
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:
Chilean soldiers trained by Israel Defense Force to shoot to maim protesters, rather than kill them. Capitalist success story, symbol of democracy. Not like Venezuela.
The article was written by Benjamin Zinevich. Here's a response to the article and Zinevich. Yes, it is on a pro-Israel site. I won't be commenting further.
https://honestreporting.com/guilt-by-false-association-israel-noted-in-particular/
eta - I hadn't looked at this thread for a long time. Now I know why.
The Independent is not an anti-Israel site.
I'm hoping Durham will reveal how, why and by whom the Russia investigation fraud was created.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
Best line:
Some C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed.
paulsurovell said:
I'm hoping Durham will reveal how, why and by whom the Russia investigation fraud was created.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
Don't forget your favorite mystery - Who murdered Seth Rich because he stole the DNC emails?
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
Rep. Omar has an Op-ed in the Washington Post arguing against sanctions. She mentions Venezuela, hence relevance to this thread. I wanted to note this passage in particular:
There’s no question that the bulk of the economic crisis in Venezuela
was caused by Maduro’s government, which inherited fixable problems and
failed to address them. But U.S. sanctions have worsened Venezuela’s
economic disaster — and handed Maduro a propaganda victory. He can now
shift blame to the United States, while retaining his grip on power.I think Omar's acknowledging Maduro's culpability here makes her argument much more effective, avoiding the traps of false moral equivalence and whataboutism.
No one, not even Maduro, denies that his administrations bear much of the responsibility for Venezuela's economic problems.
I believe this is the first time I've seen you concede any culpability on Maduro's part. I'm sure I'm not the only one who got the impression from your posts that you placed the bulk of the responsibility for Venezeula's economic problems on the United States. It's possible that I'm just not doing a good job at reading your posts and came to an erroneous conclusion; OTOH, maybe consider the possibility that it's not just me?
paulsurovell said:
I'm hoping Durham will reveal how, why and by whom the Russia investigation fraud was created.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
Best line:
Some C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed.
Do you have any concerns that this investigation's legitimacy will be undermined by political considerations by Barr and the Trump administration in general?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
I'm hoping Durham will reveal how, why and by whom the Russia investigation fraud was created.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
Don't forget your favorite mystery - Who murdered Seth Rich because he stole the DNC emails?
No, this has more to do with who MIfsud is and why he met with Papadopoulos (allegedly the genesis of the investigation) and how and why the FBI used a fraudulent document (Steele dossier) to apply for a warrant to evesdrop on the Trump campaign. And a number of other matters that will hopefully explain why the American people were subjected to a hoax that poisoned relations and effective communications with the country that we rely on for our survival.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
I'm hoping Durham will reveal how, why and by whom the Russia investigation fraud was created.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
Best line:
Some C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed.Do you have any concerns that this investigation's legitimacy will be undermined by political considerations by Barr and the Trump administration in general?
I think Barr and Trump are capable of doing that, but this is a situation where they don't have to, because the facts are on their side. The Democrats stupidly embraced (and to some extent created) a hoax that falls apart with the slightest scrutiny. That's what this thread demonstrated, confirmed by Mueller (sorry Truthers, he did say he found no collusion). And if Durham does his job he will reveal who, how and why that hoax was created.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Don't forget your favorite mystery - Who murdered Seth Rich because he stole the DNC emails?
No, this has more to do with who MIfsud is and why he met with Papadopoulos (allegedly the genesis of the investigation) and how and why the FBI used a fraudulent document (Steele dossier) to apply for a warrant to evesdrop on the Trump campaign. And a number of other matters that will hopefully explain why the American people were subjected to a hoax that poisoned relations and effective communications with the country that we rely on for our survival.
Oh, please. "There was no Russian hacking" is one of the cornerstones of your point of view. So solving that Seth Rich murder is obviously high on your priorities (albeit not out of concern for poor Mr. Rich and his family).
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
I'm hoping Durham will reveal how, why and by whom the Russia investigation fraud was created.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
Best line:
Some C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed.Do you have any concerns that this investigation's legitimacy will be undermined by political considerations by Barr and the Trump administration in general?
I think Barr and Trump are capable of doing that, but this is a situation where they don't have to, because the facts are on their side. The Democrats stupidly embraced (and to some extent created) a hoax that falls apart with the slightest scrutiny. That's what this thread demonstrated, confirmed by Mueller (sorry Truthers, he did say he found no collusion). And if Durham does his job he will reveal who, how and why that hoax was created.
Do you see any contradiction between relying on Mueller ("sorry Truthers, he did say he found no collusion") and arguing that Mueller's investigation is part of a hoax?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Don't forget your favorite mystery - Who murdered Seth Rich because he stole the DNC emails?
No, this has more to do with who MIfsud is and why he met with Papadopoulos (allegedly the genesis of the investigation) and how and why the FBI used a fraudulent document (Steele dossier) to apply for a warrant to evesdrop on the Trump campaign. And a number of other matters that will hopefully explain why the American people were subjected to a hoax that poisoned relations and effective communications with the country that we rely on for our survival.
Oh, please. "There was no Russian hacking" is one of the cornerstones of your point of view. So solving that Seth Rich murder is obviously high on your priorities (albeit not out of concern for poor Mr. Rich and his family).
I would love for Duhram to interrogate the single group of "analysts" selected by Clapper (in violation of intel community requirements to get multiple assessments) to write their evidence-free assessment that Russia hacked the DNC (which the NYT called a "trust us" document). I would also love for Durham to investigate whether the NSA was ever asked for proof of the alleged Russian hack (which they would have if it happened), but I think his investigation is limited to the collusion hoax.
Durham won't actually find out who leaked the emails to Wikileaks unless he asks Wikileaks, but it's unlikely they will reveal their source.
And you are the one who repeatedly calls out Seth Rich, not me. So it's pretty clear that you couldn't care less about his family.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
I'm hoping Durham will reveal how, why and by whom the Russia investigation fraud was created.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
Best line:
Some C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed.Do you have any concerns that this investigation's legitimacy will be undermined by political considerations by Barr and the Trump administration in general?
I think Barr and Trump are capable of doing that, but this is a situation where they don't have to, because the facts are on their side. The Democrats stupidly embraced (and to some extent created) a hoax that falls apart with the slightest scrutiny. That's what this thread demonstrated, confirmed by Mueller (sorry Truthers, he did say he found no collusion). And if Durham does his job he will reveal who, how and why that hoax was created.
Do you see any contradiction between relying on Mueller ("sorry Truthers, he did say he found no collusion") and arguing that Mueller's investigation is part of a hoax?
I don't rely on Mueller. His report -- regarding collusion -- confirms what I've been saying for more than two years on this thread. I cite Mueller because those who argued against me based their arguments in large part on "wait-and-see what Mueller finds". The Truthers are those who waited-to-see but didn't like what they saw but won't accept it.
paulsurovell said:
I don't rely on Mueller. His report -- regarding collusion -- confirms what I've been saying for more than two years on this thread. I cite Mueller because those who argued against me based their arguments in large part on "wait-and-see what Mueller finds". The Truthers are those who waited-to-see but didn't like what they saw but won't accept it.
Among those who argued for ""wait-and-see what Mueller finds" there were a range of viewpoints, from the conspiratorial "Trump is literally a Russian agent" to the more skeptical "Trump's actions seems suspicious but I'm withholding judgment until there's more info."
I'll agree that Mueller's report contradicts those who hewed to the conspiratorial end of that range -- but I can't say I've seen many of those on MOL, if any.
Speaking for myself, I have no trouble accepting what Mueller found. Russia actively sought to meddle in our election. The Trump campaign does not appear to have actively colluded with these Russian efforts, but were happy enough to benefit from them, and were aware enough of the impropriety of this that they sought to frustrate Meuller's investigation and, were it not for the DOJ guidelines, may well have been charged with obstruction of justice.
In short, while Mueller certainly undercuts the "Trump is literally a Russian agent" view, he certainly does not support your position that the whole thing was a hoax.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
I don't rely on Mueller. His report -- regarding collusion -- confirms what I've been saying for more than two years on this thread. I cite Mueller because those who argued against me based their arguments in large part on "wait-and-see what Mueller finds". The Truthers are those who waited-to-see but didn't like what they saw but won't accept it.
Among those who argued for ""wait-and-see what Mueller finds" there were a range of viewpoints, from the conspiratorial "Trump is literally a Russian agent" to the more skeptical "Trump's actions seems suspicious but I'm withholding judgment until there's more info."
I'll agree that Mueller's report contradicts those who hewed to the conspiratorial end of that range -- but I can't say I've seen many of those on MOL, if any.
Speaking for myself, I have no trouble accepting what Mueller found. Russia actively sought to meddle in our election. The Trump campaign does not appear to have actively colluded with these Russian efforts, but were happy enough to benefit from them, and were aware enough of the impropriety of this that they sought to frustrate Meuller's investigation and, were it not for the DOJ guidelines, may well have been charged with obstruction of justice.
In short, while Mueller certainly undercuts the "Trump is literally a Russian agent" view, he certainly does not support your position that the whole thing was a hoax.
That's correct, although if you read carefully, he doesn't attempt to prove that Russia intervened, in fact on the question of Russian involvement in social media, he specifically did not allege that the IRA troll farm was controlled by the Russian government. The lawsuit by IRA challenging his assertion that they were trying to influence the election, is ongoing.
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
I don't rely on Mueller. His report -- regarding collusion -- confirms what I've been saying for more than two years on this thread. I cite Mueller because those who argued against me based their arguments in large part on "wait-and-see what Mueller finds". The Truthers are those who waited-to-see but didn't like what they saw but won't accept it.
Among those who argued for ""wait-and-see what Mueller finds" there were a range of viewpoints, from the conspiratorial "Trump is literally a Russian agent" to the more skeptical "Trump's actions seems suspicious but I'm withholding judgment until there's more info."
I'll agree that Mueller's report contradicts those who hewed to the conspiratorial end of that range -- but I can't say I've seen many of those on MOL, if any.
Speaking for myself, I have no trouble accepting what Mueller found. Russia actively sought to meddle in our election. The Trump campaign does not appear to have actively colluded with these Russian efforts, but were happy enough to benefit from them, and were aware enough of the impropriety of this that they sought to frustrate Meuller's investigation and, were it not for the DOJ guidelines, may well have been charged with obstruction of justice.
In short, while Mueller certainly undercuts the "Trump is literally a Russian agent" view, he certainly does not support your position that the whole thing was a hoax.
That's correct, although if you read carefully, he doesn't attempt to prove that Russia intervened, in fact on the question of Russian involvement in social media, he specifically did not allege that the IRA troll farm was controlled by the Russian government. The lawsuit by IRA challenging his assertion that they were trying to influence the election, is ongoing.
So, what to make of this statement of yours, then?
"The Democrats stupidly embraced (and to some extent created) a hoax that falls apart with the slightest scrutiny. That's what this thread demonstrated, confirmed by Mueller"
I'm not sure how you can say what I wrote is correct, and simultaneously write that Mueller confirmed the Russian investigation was a hoax, and simultaneous to both of those points hold that you don't rely on Mueller. All three of these positions seem to be at odds with each other.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
I don't rely on Mueller. His report -- regarding collusion -- confirms what I've been saying for more than two years on this thread. I cite Mueller because those who argued against me based their arguments in large part on "wait-and-see what Mueller finds". The Truthers are those who waited-to-see but didn't like what they saw but won't accept it.
Among those who argued for ""wait-and-see what Mueller finds" there were a range of viewpoints, from the conspiratorial "Trump is literally a Russian agent" to the more skeptical "Trump's actions seems suspicious but I'm withholding judgment until there's more info."
I'll agree that Mueller's report contradicts those who hewed to the conspiratorial end of that range -- but I can't say I've seen many of those on MOL, if any.
Speaking for myself, I have no trouble accepting what Mueller found. Russia actively sought to meddle in our election. The Trump campaign does not appear to have actively colluded with these Russian efforts, but were happy enough to benefit from them, and were aware enough of the impropriety of this that they sought to frustrate Meuller's investigation and, were it not for the DOJ guidelines, may well have been charged with obstruction of justice.
In short, while Mueller certainly undercuts the "Trump is literally a Russian agent" view, he certainly does not support your position that the whole thing was a hoax.
That's correct, although if you read carefully, he doesn't attempt to prove that Russia intervened, in fact on the question of Russian involvement in social media, he specifically did not allege that the IRA troll farm was controlled by the Russian government. The lawsuit by IRA challenging his assertion that they were trying to influence the election, is ongoing.
So, what to make of this statement of yours, then?
"The Democrats stupidly embraced (and to some extent created) a hoax that falls apart with the slightest scrutiny. That's what this thread demonstrated, confirmed by Mueller"
I'm not sure how you can say what I wrote is correct, and simultaneously write that Mueller confirmed the Russian investigation was a hoax, and simultaneous to both of those points hold that you don't rely on Mueller. All three of these positions seem to be at odds with each other.
There are two parts to the Mueller investigation -- Russian interference in the election (hacking, social media) and Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.
Mueller was appointed to investigate Trump-Russia collusion but he also investigated alleged Russian election interference:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Pre sident Donald Trump; and
ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).(c)If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
When I say that Mueller confirmed that the Russian investigation was a hoax, I'm referring to the collusion investigation, not the interference investigation. I should have made that clear. I believe that Russian interference is also a hoax but Mueller didn't confirm that in his report.
Mueller asserted that Russian interference took place in the election (hacking and social media) but he didn't prove it: However, I agree with Aaron Mate that the evidence Mueller presented undercuts the allegation of interference: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html
The thread I referenced is the thread we're on which was formerly named, "Who colluded more, Hillary or Trump"? See the OP for the premise of this question.
paulsurovell said:
When I say that Mueller confirmed that the Russian investigation was a hoax, I'm referring to the collusion investigation, not the interference investigation. I should have made that clear. I believe that Russian interference is also a hoax but Mueller didn't confirm that in his report.
Mueller asserted that Russian interference took place in the election (hacking and social media) but he didn't prove it: However, I agree with Aaron Mate that the evidence Mueller presented undercuts the allegation of interference: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html
The thread I referenced is the thread we're on which was formerly named, "Who colluded more, Hillary or Trump"? See the OP for the premise of this question.
Yes, that is clearer now. I still think you're on shaky ground here, though. While Mueller did not conclude that there was outright collusion, he certainly documented enough questionable interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian actors that an investigation was warranted. I hardly see how this supports the idea that questions of collusion were a hoax.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
When I say that Mueller confirmed that the Russian investigation was a hoax, I'm referring to the collusion investigation, not the interference investigation. I should have made that clear. I believe that Russian interference is also a hoax but Mueller didn't confirm that in his report.
Mueller asserted that Russian interference took place in the election (hacking and social media) but he didn't prove it: However, I agree with Aaron Mate that the evidence Mueller presented undercuts the allegation of interference: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html
The thread I referenced is the thread we're on which was formerly named, "Who colluded more, Hillary or Trump"? See the OP for the premise of this question.
Yes, that is clearer now. I still think you're on shaky ground here, though. While Mueller did not conclude that there was outright collusion, he certainly documented enough questionable interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian actors that an investigation was warranted. I hardly see how this supports the idea that questions of collusion were a hoax.
Apart from the June 2016 meeting which involved potential -- not actual - collusion, which interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian actors that Mueller documented do you consider to be "questionable"?
paulsurovell said:
Apart from the June 2016 meeting which involved potential -- not actual - collusion, which interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian actors that Mueller documented do you consider to be "questionable"?
Your phrasing here implies you agree the June 2016 meeting was questionable. You point out that it involved potential rather than actual collusion, but how would this determination be made absent an investigation? And if an investigation makes sense to answer that question, then in this case one can hardly describe it as a "hoax."
The same goes for the other interactions in the report (Volume I, section 4 if you're looking to read and make references to any passages in particular). I don't see how it would be helpful for me to summarize the individual instances cited; my point for each of them is the same as for the June meeting you referenced: there were sufficient questions that could only be answered by an investigation.
But, you're making the strong claim here, not me. You say that "Mueller confirmed that the Russian investigation was a hoax." Can you cite a specific passage or passages that support this assertion?
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
Apart from the June 2016 meeting which involved potential -- not actual - collusion, which interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian actors that Mueller documented do you consider to be "questionable"?
Your phrasing here implies you agree the June 2016 meeting was questionable. You point out that it involved potential rather than actual collusion, but how would this determination be made absent an investigation? And if an investigation makes sense to answer that question, then in this case one can hardly describe it as a "hoax."
The same goes for the other interactions in the report (Volume I, section 4 if you're looking to read and make references to any passages in particular). I don't see how it would be helpful for me to summarize the individual instances cited; my point for each of them is the same as for the June meeting you referenced: there were sufficient questions that could only be answered by an investigation.
But, you're making the strong claim here, not me. You say that "Mueller confirmed that the Russian investigation was a hoax." Can you cite a specific passage or passages that support this assertion?
I set the June 2016 meeting apart because it showed a desire to collude on the election.
But in my opinion, none of the other examples cited by Mueller qualify as collusion, desire to collude, or are "questionable" in that context.
That's why I asked you for examples if you want to challenge my opinion. If you think there are examples of "questionable interactions" you should be able to identify them.
paulsurovell said:
I set the June 2016 meeting apart because it showed a desire to collude on the election.
But in my opinion, none of the other examples cited by Mueller qualify as collusion, desire to collude, or are "questionable" in that context.
That's why I asked you for examples if you want to challenge my opinion. If you think there are examples of "questionable interactions" you should be able to identify them.
You've said that "Mueller confirmed that the Russian investigation was a hoax." If that's true, then you should be able to take an instance cited by Mueller and, using the reports own words, demonstrate this hoax.
You've asked me for specific examples, but I want to make this easier for you. Rather than choosing any specific incident cited by Mueller, take any of them. I think all of those cited in the report made sense to investigate. Go ahead and choose the one you think will be easiest to demonstrate that Mueller proved was a hoax.
Or if that's too much pressure, why not just stick with the June 2016 meeting? If this whole thing is was a hoax, then surely none of the incidents were legitimately worth of investigation (else you would have to qualify and say things like "partly a hoax" or some such, which you didn't). How does Mueller show that the June 2016 meeting was a hoax?
Paul - Warren cited the Mueller report as her reason to impeach the president - do you understand her basis - would you refuse to vote for her because of this?
Bernie cited the Ukraine issue as his basis to impeach Trump - was he wrong as well?
At what point do you concede that things mentioned with Ukraine and the Mueller report - may not be excellent attributes that a US president should have? Are there ANY points in the report you agree with? Or should all indictments be thrown out.
jamie said:
Paul - Warren cited the Mueller report as her reason to impeach the president - do you understand her basis - would you refuse to vote for her because of this?
Did she say what in the report was impeachable? If it was obstruction, I think Mueller's testimony that his investgation wasn't impeded or interfered with cancels that out.
Bernie cited the Ukraine issue as his basis to impeach Trump - was he wrong as well?
As I've written on other threads, I think the best case for the Dems is to censure Trump.
At what point do you concede that things mentioned with Ukraine and the Mueller report - may not be excellent attributes that a US president should have? Are there ANY points in the report you agree with? Or should all indictments be thrown out.
I've said that Trump's request for info on Biden was an abuse of power, but I don't think it's impeachable. Nothing in Volume I of Mueller reflects badly on Trump. In Volume II there are examples of immature and perhaps inappropriate behavior, but nothing that is illegal or impeachable, in my view.
I think there are many attributes that Trump has for which he should be impeached. One example that I posted yesterday is Col. Lawrence Wilkerson's call for his impeachment for carrying out war in Yemen in defiance of Congress's demands to stop. Do you agree?
Rentals
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info -
REVO luggage $100
More info
Can't wait to see what the "whatabout" is going to be for this.
[Edited to add] I posted too slow. The old "what about the CIA" was used.