Slog AM: Trump Said He's Open to Colluding in 2020, New 99 Tunnel to Stay Toll-Free Until Fall, Michael Flynn and Rick Gates Subpoenaed

Comments

1

Did Trump say if he would pay Christopher Steel to make up dirt on the Democrats?
Give us a sense of just how low he would go...

2

trump: no collusion!
also trump: got any more of that... collusion?

3

Just another dementiaxample of Prezinazi AntiChrist spouting conspiracy theories, lies, and Kremlin propaganda in the ongoing insider attack against the US. Must be a day that ends in d-a-y. The racists that voted for this POS eat it up.

There’s zero doubt that Tr666p and the RepubliKKKans will (continue to) betray us in order maintain their stranglehold on money, power, and white trash supremacy; most of them are on the payrolls of Ru$$ian oligarchs already. Miss Lindsey Grayuhm and Bitch McConjob don’t even bother to try to hide it anymore as they work to destroy America and line the pockets of the amoral super-rich.

4

Ah, so we don't have proof that Trump's a traitor, but he happily admits he WOULD be a traitor if given the opportunity.

Also @1, but whattabout this? and whattabout that? and whattabout? whattabout?

5

"He learned nothing?" No, he learned there's no consequence for conspiracy with foreign governments. Or committing crimes in front of a microphone, as long as you're using your "just a joke" voice.

6

I love it how Trump has such a badass sense of humour and how he throws the "Russian collusion" conspiracy theory back at the triggered lefties. :). Way to go pres! Let the Russiagaters lap it up with gusto! :). Lol. MAGA!

7

You can never go wrong with Brenton Wood; nice choice, Timothy!

9

@4
Exactly.
What about Hillary, and her collusion and obstruction?
After Our President was elected we decided to be conciliatory and magnanimous and not throw Hillary's fat crooked ass in jail but then she had to go running her lying mouth after Mueller exonerated Our President so we are going to investigate, try and lock her up after all. Her and the corrupt officials at Justice and FBI. We wonder if the malfeasance will reach as far as Obama? Stay tuned.

10

@9 someone apparently doesn't know how to read

13

The sad, depressing reality is that as long as the Senate exists as an institution, the Dems are going to remain powerless to curtail blatant corruption and abuses of power. Shit, we'll be lucky if we can manage to ever get another legitimately nominated and qualified SC justice appointed.

14

The democrats are going to have to get a lot more racist if they want to beat this guy.

15

@14: Elaboration requested

16

@14 Oh they already are (and always were). Blatant anti-semites like Linda Sarsour, Ilhan Omar, and others in leftist media (NY Times, for instance, or BuzzFeed, Vox, etc.) come to mind. Maybe you should crawl out from a rock you have been living under for god knows how long and look at, you know, reality. :)

17

@9: magnanimous? hilarious.

that was the last vestiges of bureaucratic professionalism in the federal government refusing to carry out unlawful orders. now that they're purged, the show trials can commence.

18

@16: Everyone that questions Likud's version of Zionism isn't an Anti-Semite.

19

Why isn't transit free for the same period as the Suburban-Car-Subsidizing 99 Tunnel being free?

It's only fair.

20

"Trump said if another country were to give him dirt on his political opponents, not only would he probably not report it to the FBI, he would also use that dirt to damage Democratic candidates."

You guys do know that is perfectly legal, right? It may be amoral, unpatriotic, unprincipled and so forth, but as long as there is no quid pro quo, there is no crime.

While we're on the subject, don't forget to vote in each and every election for the rest of your life!

21

@ 20,

It is a crime. Even state media/dumFux Nooz admits it’s against the law:

“It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or indirectly to make a donation of money or other thing of value or to make or express an implied promise to make a contribution or donation in connection to a federal, state or local election.”

“A thing of value could be information. It’s against the law and here you have the president in the Oval Office saying maybe I would do it.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/fox-host-points-out-exactly-how-trumps-comments-violate-the-law-after-republican-insists-trump-is-a-president-of-the-law/

22

@1 &@9 and @6 & @16: Don't either of you blow your nose anytime soon. I'm pretty sure your heads would cave in because of all the empty space.
@3 Original Andrew: I know, right? May there be a bloody revolution and Trumpty Dumpty, its evil empire, fixers, yes-men, MAGA rubes, trophy bitches, and snot-nosed brats all get the pig roasting they deserve.
@5, @17 & @18 Max Solomon: Vive la resistance! Like I just commented to @3 Original Andrew...
@9 & @16: Seriously, laughing boy. Stop inhaling nitrous oxide, already. We know there's nobody home where you live. Come up from Mom's basement once in a while.
@10: Leo G. Carroll's holding his RepubliKKKan cue card upside down.
@12 GermanSausage: Thank you. Agreed and seconded, and thanks for beating me to it.

I'm surprised muffy hasn't jumped in yet. Talk about about an empty-headed MAGA barking up the wrong tree...

23

@21 Original Andrew: When state media / dumbFux Nooz declares what Trumpty Dumpty gloats about and does publicly is unlawful, the situation is far beyond bad, indeed. ITMFA!

25

Re: Oil tankers. I'd put money on the operation being Russian funded. It's right up their alley.

26

@20 Nope. Illegal.

From Title 52-VOTING AND ELECTIONS
Subtitle III-Federal Campaign Finance
CHAPTER 301-FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
SUBCHAPTER I-DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

"It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national."

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

27

@25: I would guess Saudi funded, or the Israel or most likely Israel working through the Saudis.

One of the ships, the M/V Front Altair is Norwegian owned, but flagged out of the Marshall Islands.

The other vessel, the M/V Kokuka Courageous, is a small product tanker (19349 GT) flagged out of Panama and managed by a Singaporean company (we'll likely never know who owns this ship as its owners have taken some effort to hide)

Neither would be a likely target of an attack, and at this point we can't even be sure there was an attack, and using torpedoes would be incredibly reckless.

If this (and the attack a few weeks ago) aren't false flags, then a likely culprit would be Yemen, there was also an attack on a Saudi airport, and since all of the ship attacks have happened outside the Gulf, they are likely suspects.

28

@ 21 & 26. The FBI looked at this closely and did not conclude that political dirt constituted an illegal donation. Mueller did establish that that the 2016 info came from Russia and that the Trump campaign knew it. The only illegal activity he identified beyond a reasonable doubt was obstruction of justice.

29

@28 No. Mueller stated openly and plainly that he didn't indict because of the restricted mandate given him by the Barr's DOJ that there can be no indictment of a sitting president. It would be up to congress to "identify" crimes and then to impeach because SP can't indict under those guidelines.

The law states in subparagraph A “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value . . . in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.” ANYTHING of value. Information is extremely valuable. No court has yet prosecuted a president based on this statute because it's never happened before.

30

@27: Yeah, those stock burning oil tanker pics this morning did the trick. Stock market is up because Fed is more likely to cut rates because higher oil prices help temper inflation.

32

@29 I think that the DOJ opinion that a sitting President can't be indicted dates back to the Nixon era. No need to blame Barr for that. Of course there are lefty judicial scholars that disagree with that opinion just as there are those that agree that information is money. The latter is an interesting argument but there is no mainstream legal consensus around that idea.

If you read what Mueller said, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the Trump campaign conspired with or colluded with the Russians. From the way he phrased it, there was evidence in the direction of the hypothesis but nothing sufficient to justify Congressional consideration. If it were otherwise, Mueller would have said so. With respect to obstruction, he did say so.

It is significant that Mueller declined to indict anyone from the Trump campaign on the charge of conspiracy . Mueller didn't reject the conspiracy allegation, he just didn't have enough evidence to proceed with it after two years of intensive investigation. If your understanding of Title 52 is correct, why do you think that Mueller didn't charge anyone in the Trump campaign under that statute?

33

@32: "nothing sufficient to justify Congressional consideration"? no. Mueller did not make recommendations for Congress.

nothing sufficient to indict for criminal conspiracy in court. you have to prove there was an agreement between parties, and that's a tough bar to clear when dealing with spies and Mafiosi.

Congress can Impeach over a mere lie if it wants. As it did to Clinton. But the NDA campaign-violation payment to Daniels alone is plenty sufficient, Cohen's in jail over it, and it is far more egregious a crime than Clinton's perjury over consensual actions with Lewinsky.

34

@22: We don't need a bloody revolution, Madame DeFarge, just a change of presidents will be sufficient.

35

@34: Let me offer you a little history lesson, sugarlips:
Once upon a time, a land dispute between colonists and soldiers on what is now San Juan Island, Washington State, USA and British Columbia, Canada in 1859 escalated into a pig war, however short-lived and bloodless (all because an American farmer shot a Canadian pig; British Columbia had claimed San Juan Island as part of their territory at that time).
I am amazed that in the 21st Century, 160 years later, with as many blatant crimes as Trumpty Dumpty has committed and bragged about, and with as many enemies as the current Pigfucker-in-Chief has, and those with more than enough incriminating evidence to lock his sorry, fat, corrupt white ass up for life that a modern day pig war hasn't erupted yet. RepubliKKKans are doing everything possible to stack the deck in their favor, sugarlips, mainly to ensure that their Pigfucker-in-Chief occupies the White Trash House for life, regardless of how ill-fit it is to serve as #45.

37

@32 oldwhiteguy: From what I have observed, FBI investigator Robert Mueller did indeed have more than enough sufficient evidence in his report to have Trumpty Dumpty and every member of his Krooked Kabinet, including Dencey Pencey impeached, convicted, and incarcerated for life. Since Trumpty Dumpty excels in obstructing justice, with ties to the KGB, mafia, and dystopian foreign dictators, I wonder if someone held a gun to Mueller's head during the investigation. Why else did Trumpty Dumpty threaten to fire Mueller? The GOP is not above issuing death threats or locking people up without reason (ask any U.S. born citizen being detained by ICE). If RepubliKKKans stubbornly insist on playing dirty, maybe it's time Democrats do the same. Viva le Resistance--may the revolution begin, and with as much bloodshed inflicted upon the GOP and their dupes as possible. They have willfully created this mess since Nixon's resignation. They should suffer the consequences. Trumpty Dumpty has done nothing other than to weaken a once strong democracy with a thriving economy. Here's hoping he and his cronies suffer the mother of all paybacks until the end of time.

38

@36 Doofus in Shoreline: Take off that silly MAGA cap before you lose any more brain tissue. FOX-TV and SInclair Broadcasting aren't reliable news sources. Wean yourself from GOP-induced government waste, too, and maybe you'll lose the BigMac-induced potbelly.

39

@33 "nothing sufficient to indict for criminal conspiracy in court." I agree - a better way to phrase it. But the earlier conversation assumed that Trump could not be indicted so I looked for different words.

The high bar was Mueller's task. And he did have enormous resources at his disposal for two years.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath - a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. Also obstruction - probably a misdemeanor as well in the absence of an underlying crime. And as I've noted under a different thread, that impeachment thing didn't work out so well for the emotional, aggrieved Republicans. Predator Bill won reelection in a landslide. (And yes, I voted for him, but I'd prefer that you keep that information to yourself. I had to make a difficult choice.)

Mueller didn't have much to say about Trump's financial activities. I think most of that stuff was referred to the Southern District in New York. We'll see what they can prove. I guess that it goes without saying that we need more than Cohen's word to prove anything...

40

@18. Oh. Nice application of double standard there, buddy. Interesting how when the left is blatantly anti-semetic, they apply a "it is okay to question Zionism" excuse. But when people question the barbaric Islamic practices (you know, throwing gays off buildings, child marriages, genital mutilation, abuse of women), you can't question that, because that makes you an "islamophobe". Funny how that works. Must be nice to have no principles and apply a hypocritical double standard to everything! Oh Democrats....... (Or in Grizelda's childish lexicon, "Demokkkrats"). The more they said they changed, the more they stayed the same. Was a party of bigots, and stayed that way. Lol.