Barr affirms Mueller found no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion; report release at 11 a.m.

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,095
5,131
1,743
Katy, TX
OK, all you guys are so convinced everything is on the up and up with Trump and Putin. What if financial records show without question that the Trump organization has been kept afloat with Russian loans, laundered money or otherwise, for several years prior to the election. Would that, coupled with the fact that Putin conducted an all out propaganda campaign and cyber attack with the purpose of getting Trump elected, give any of you cause for pause?? Or would you be ok with that?? I remember when all this started, Carl Bernstein kept saying "follow the money". I'd sure like to know for sure.
A few Russia actions by the Trump Admin:
Approved weapons sales to Ukraine to fight Russian separatists
Expelled 60+ Russian Diplomats
Imposed Sanctions for breaking Intermediate Nuclear Weapons Treaty
Imposed sanctions for Crimea and activity in Ukraine
Imposed sanctions over election meddling
Imposed sanctions for FSB hack
Indicted people over FSB hack
Indicted people of election meddling
Closed 2 or 3 Russian Diplomatic facilities
Condemed Russia for nerve agent attack in UK
The Admin often criticizes Russia in the press

Even PolitFact says that US policy towards Russia has been consistent between the Obama and Trump Admin's with Trump perhaps going a step further than Obama on some decisions, like weapons sales to Ukraine.

Why is it that a portion of this country feels that he is in Russia's pocket?
 
Last edited:

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
16,126
30,244
743
In Pokey's head
A few Russia actions by the Trump Admin:
Approved weapons sales to Ukraine to fight Russian separatists
Expelled 60+ Russian Diplomats
Imposed Sanctions for breaking Intermediate Nuclear Weapons Treaty
Imposed sanctions for Crimea and activity in Ukraine
Imposed sanctions over election meddling
Imposed sanctions for FSB hack
Indicted people over FSB hack
Indicted people of election meddling
Closed 2 or 3 Russian Diplomatic facilities
Condemed Russia for nerve agent attack in UK
The Admin often criticizes Russia in the press

Even PolitFact says that US policy towards Russia has been consistent between the Obama and Trump Admin's with Trump perhaps going a step further than Obama on some decisions, like weapons sales to Ukraine.

Why is it that a portion of this country feels that he is in Russia's pocket?
That's easy. They're low information voters who depend on the alphabet soup media for their talking points. Listening to the choir sing the narratives they want to be true is easier than educating themselves.

Mueller failed them so Trump's a golden shower freak. All they need is his tax returns and financial info from ten years ago to prove it. <eyeroll>
 
Nov 6, 2010
642
259
613
A few Russia actions by the Trump Admin:
Approved weapons sales to Ukraine to fight Russian separatists
Expelled 60+ Russian Diplomats
Imposed Sanctions for breaking Intermediate Nuclear Weapons Treaty
Imposed sanctions for Crimea and activity in Ukraine
Imposed sanctions over election meddling
Imposed sanctions for FSB hack
Indicted people over FSB hack
Indicted people of election meddling
Closed 2 or 3 Russian Diplomatic facilities
Condemed Russia for nerve agent attack in UK
The Admin often criticizes Russia in the press

Even PolitFact says that US policy towards Russia has been consistent between the Obama and Trump Admin's with Trump perhaps going a step further than Obama on some decisions, like weapons sales to Ukraine.

Why is it that a portion of this country feels that he is in Russia's pocket?
Hmmm. I don't know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQPLlKBR2_8
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,095
5,131
1,743
Katy, TX
Hmmm. I don't know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQPLlKBR2_8
So you're confused between his words and his actions?

Many on the right thought Obama was soft on Russia but the left defended his actions and now the left-leaners are saying Trump is too soft when his actions in total have been considered consistent with Obama's.

The actions by his Admin don't seem to be in favor of Russia but he is their shill?
 
Nov 6, 2010
642
259
613
So you're confused between his words and his actions?

Many on the right thought Obama was soft on Russia but the left defended his actions and now the left-leaners are saying Trump is too soft when his actions in total have been considered consistent with Obama's.

The actions by his Admin don't seem to be in favor of Russia but he is their shill?
Beats me. Every admin is going to be somewhat soft on Russia, they have MAD capability. But contrast it with his stance on China, which I support FWIW. The point is, voters have a right to know if there is a financial or other conflict.
 
Sep 29, 2011
499
79
578
59
Breckenridge, CO
I had a seriously long response to your questions but I figure if you're still convinced Trump did something wrong, nothing I say will change that.
I'm not convinced of anything, but you have to admit, so many lies surrounding the whole Russia thing. So much cow towing to Putin from a guy who normally is so confrontational. If there is nothing there, so be it, I still don't like the guy, but from the Mueller report, I don't think he should be impeached and certainly not prosecuted. But if there are obvious financial conflicts of interest, the voters should have access to that info. If the voters still decide there is enough good to outweigh those conflicts, they'll re-elect him and so be it.
Then voters should have had access to all of Obama’s and Clinton’s financial transactions., because, you know, any candidate or elected official could be guilty of something. SMH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 6, 2010
642
259
613
Then voters should have had access to all of Obama’s and Clinton’s financial transactions., because, you know, any candidate or elected official could be guilty of something. SMH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pretty sure Clinton's were, and Obama didn't have a pot to piss in relatively, but go ahead with the whataboutism. I'm fine with all of it, let it all be known.
 
Sep 29, 2011
499
79
578
59
Breckenridge, CO
Then voters should have had access to all of Obama’s and Clinton’s financial transactions., because, you know, any candidate or elected official could be guilty of something. SMH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pretty sure Clinton's were, and Obama didn't have a pot to piss in relatively, but go ahead with the whataboutism. I'm fine with all of it, let it all be known.
Uh, no. Tax returns don’t have a blank for bribery, extortion or illegal activity payments or receipts. Just because someone COULD theoretically be guilty of something doesn’t entitle the voters access to every document or record that could be evidence of a theoretical misdeed.

IMO, Trump is a worthless POS, period. But even a duly elected POS is due the respect of Congress and the respect the Office deserves to enable him to run the country without handcuffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 6, 2010
642
259
613
Uh, no. Tax returns don’t have a blank for bribery, extortion or illegal activity payments or receipts. Just because someone COULD theoretically be guilty of something doesn’t entitle the voters access to every document or record that could be evidence of a theoretical misdeed.

IMO, Trump is a worthless POS, period. But even a duly elected POS is due the respect of Congress and the respect the Office deserves to enable him to run the country without handcuffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair enough. I will add that the Clinton Foundation never smelled right to me, which was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for Hillary in the last election. Even though there were probably no crimes associated with the transactions conducted within the Clinton Foundation, it was pretty evident to me there was influence being exercised. I would have liked more light on that situation too. I'm not sure how we got to the point where we've set the bar so low for our highest elected official to be not a criminal as the litmus test.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,095
5,131
1,743
Katy, TX
Beats me. Every admin is going to be somewhat soft on Russia, they have MAD capability. But contrast it with his stance on China, which I support FWIW. The point is, voters have a right to know if there is a financial or other conflict.
Why contrast the differences. These countries occupy two completely different arenas in geopolitics. One certainly can cause problems (Russia) and the other (China) is a true global competitor.
 
Nov 6, 2010
642
259
613
Why contrast the differences. These countries occupy two completely different arenas in geopolitics. One certainly can cause problems (Russia) and the other (China) is a true global competitor.
Agreed. No need, so lets have a look at the Deutschbank info and remove all doubt.
 
Sep 29, 2011
499
79
578
59
Breckenridge, CO
Why contrast the differences. These countries occupy two completely different arenas in geopolitics. One certainly can cause problems (Russia) and the other (China) is a true global competitor.
Agreed. No need, so lets have a look at the Deutschbank info and remove all doubt.
All I can do is laugh at the press’ obsession with Trumps banking relationships. In my career I had business dealings with banks from Canada, Mexico, Japan, Hong Kong, Germany, UK, Scotland, Norway, France, Netherlands, Italy, Denmark - all of which was for lending for US projects. Foreign banks can be just as competitive and attractive as lenders and/or business partners. They are a massive segment of the US financial industry.

Now, that doesn’t render Trump automatically innocent of everything, but foreign lenders are as common as apple pie. Hell, I have accounts with a French owned bank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
499
79
578
59
Breckenridge, CO
Uh, no. Tax returns don’t have a blank for bribery, extortion or illegal activity payments or receipts. Just because someone COULD theoretically be guilty of something doesn’t entitle the voters access to every document or record that could be evidence of a theoretical misdeed.

IMO, Trump is a worthless POS, period. But even a duly elected POS is due the respect of Congress and the respect the Office deserves to enable him to run the country without handcuffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair enough. I will add that the Clinton Foundation never smelled right to me, which was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for Hillary in the last election. Even though there were probably no crimes associated with the transactions conducted within the Clinton Foundation, it was pretty evident to me there was influence being exercised. I would have liked more light on that situation too. I'm not sure how we got to the point where we've set the bar so low for our highest elected official to be not a criminal as the litmus test.
Fair enough


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
499
79
578
59
Breckenridge, CO
Uh, no. Tax returns don’t have a blank for bribery, extortion or illegal activity payments or receipts. Just because someone COULD theoretically be guilty of something doesn’t entitle the voters access to every document or record that could be evidence of a theoretical misdeed.

IMO, Trump is a worthless POS, period. But even a duly elected POS is due the respect of Congress and the respect the Office deserves to enable him to run the country without handcuffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair enough. I will add that the Clinton Foundation never smelled right to me, which was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for Hillary in the last election. Even though there were probably no crimes associated with the transactions conducted within the Clinton Foundation, it was pretty evident to me there was influence being exercised. I would have liked more light on that situation too. I'm not sure how we got to the point where we've set the bar so low for our highest elected official to be not a criminal as the litmus test.
Fair enough


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,541
23,899
1,743
Tulsa, OK
OK, all you guys are so convinced everything is on the up and up with Trump and Putin. What if financial records show without question that the Trump organization has been kept afloat with Russian loans, laundered money or otherwise, for several years prior to the election. Would that, coupled with the fact that Putin conducted an all out propaganda campaign and cyber attack with the purpose of getting Trump elected, give any of you cause for pause?? Or would you be ok with that?? I remember when all this started, Carl Bernstein kept saying "follow the money". I'd sure like to know for sure.
I've said from the start if he committed a crime, he needs to be removed form office and charged and to that I hold. But I just don't see a crime here and I think by this point we're as sure as we're going to get. If Trump had dirty laundry that could be found, it would have come out by now. Note that I am not implying he has none, quite the contrary I think he is pretty immoral myself, but the government doesn't get to mount a continuous investigation looking for something, anything, to convict a person just because they believe in their heart he is guilty of something, somewhere. That's not how this country is supposed to work and may future generations forgive us if we set that precedent.

Any further investigations are not going to have the same access that Mueller did...Trump gave that investigation complete access but now it seems he's done with that. If his latest actions are any indication, he is going to start doing what any other president would have done from the very beginning of this witch hunt, start claiming executive privilege. The investigation is over for all intents and purposes...only the political theater remains and the media will continue that right up until election night.

About the only thing left are the tax returns and just what exactly do you think they are going to find there? They are tax returns that the federal government must sign off on....don't you think they would have already questioned anything illegal? There aren't going to be secret payments from Russian agents on a W2, and even if there were, the biggest question would be why the Obama administration allowed a registered Democrat at the time to get away with it.
Of course, we all know the real reason they want the tax returns and it's not to look for corruption...it's to remind people how rich he is and show that he uses tax loopholes (that they created BTW) to pay less taxes...then they'll vilify the rich and stoke the feelings of resentment, entitlement and greed that fuel today's Democrat party.

Now since I've answered your completely hypothetical question, how about answering a hypothetical question of mine. If the investigation into the investigation finds out that the federal government did indeed violate the constitution to spy on and hinder an opposition candidate in a presidential election....that they knew all along that there was never any collusion. Would you be OK with that?? Any chance you'd like to know for sure?
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,095
5,131
1,743
Katy, TX
I've said from the start if he committed a crime, he needs to be removed form office and charged and to that I hold. But I just don't see a crime here and I think by this point we're as sure as we're going to get. If Trump had dirty laundry that could be found, it would have come out by now. Note that I am not implying he has none, quite the contrary I think he is pretty immoral myself, but the government doesn't get to mount a continuous investigation looking for something, anything, to convict a person just because they believe in their heart he is guilty of something, somewhere. That's not how this country is supposed to work and may future generations forgive us if we set that precedent.

Any further investigations are not going to have the same access that Mueller did...Trump gave that investigation complete access but now it seems he's done with that. If his latest actions are any indication, he is going to start doing what any other president would have done from the very beginning of this witch hunt, start claiming executive privilege. The investigation is over for all intents and purposes...only the political theater remains and the media will continue that right up until election night.

About the only thing left are the tax returns and just what exactly do you think they are going to find there? They are tax returns that the federal government must sign off on....don't you think they would have already questioned anything illegal? There aren't going to be secret payments from Russian agents on a W2, and even if there were, the biggest question would be why the Obama administration allowed a registered Democrat at the time to get away with it.
Of course, we all know the real reason they want the tax returns and it's not to look for corruption...it's to remind people how rich he is and show that he uses tax loopholes (that they created BTW) to pay less taxes...then they'll vilify the rich and stoke the feelings of resentment, entitlement and greed that fuel today's Democrat party.

Now since I've answered your completely hypothetical question, how about answering a hypothetical question of mine. If the investigation into the investigation finds out that the federal government did indeed violate the constitution to spy on and hinder an opposition candidate in a presidential election....that they knew all along that there was never any collusion. Would you be OK with that?? Any chance you'd like to know for sure?
This was great but I would add that if true they also used knowingly false information and investigative powers to hinder a Presidential Administration.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,603
49,698
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
This was great but I would add that if true they also used knowingly false information and investigative powers to hinder a Presidential Administration.
Exactly. There was nothing to investigate in the first place. Liberals can't seem to grasp that fact.
They would grasp it pretty easily if you changed parties involved.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Nov 6, 2010
642
259
613
I've said from the start if he committed a crime, he needs to be removed form office and charged and to that I hold. But I just don't see a crime here and I think by this point we're as sure as we're going to get. If Trump had dirty laundry that could be found, it would have come out by now. Note that I am not implying he has none, quite the contrary I think he is pretty immoral myself, but the government doesn't get to mount a continuous investigation looking for something, anything, to convict a person just because they believe in their heart he is guilty of something, somewhere. That's not how this country is supposed to work and may future generations forgive us if we set that precedent.

Any further investigations are not going to have the same access that Mueller did...Trump gave that investigation complete access but now it seems he's done with that. If his latest actions are any indication, he is going to start doing what any other president would have done from the very beginning of this witch hunt, start claiming executive privilege. The investigation is over for all intents and purposes...only the political theater remains and the media will continue that right up until election night.

About the only thing left are the tax returns and just what exactly do you think they are going to find there? They are tax returns that the federal government must sign off on....don't you think they would have already questioned anything illegal? There aren't going to be secret payments from Russian agents on a W2, and even if there were, the biggest question would be why the Obama administration allowed a registered Democrat at the time to get away with it.
Of course, we all know the real reason they want the tax returns and it's not to look for corruption...it's to remind people how rich he is and show that he uses tax loopholes (that they created BTW) to pay less taxes...then they'll vilify the rich and stoke the feelings of resentment, entitlement and greed that fuel today's Democrat party.

Now since I've answered your completely hypothetical question, how about answering a hypothetical question of mine. If the investigation into the investigation finds out that the federal government did indeed violate the constitution to spy on and hinder an opposition candidate in a presidential election....that they knew all along that there was never any collusion. Would you be OK with that?? Any chance you'd like to know for sure?
Sorry, just noticed you had a question at the end there. I don't see how in the world you'd ever answer a question like "knew all along that there was never any collusion", but what I would like to see is a bipartisan look at the whole FISA process and a revamp if needed. IMO if you have a problem with how any of this started, it has to be with the FISA process.