Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

Now's the time to re-negotiate, from a position of economic & military strength.

Yeah, it's really the ideal time to renegotiate a major treaty with Russia. Can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be.

Prove it (...already). tick, tock.

[Chips O'Toole]

Now's the time to re-negotiate, from a position of economic & military strength.

Yeah, it's really the ideal time to renegotiate a major treaty with Russia. Can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be.

Prove it (...already). tick, tock.

Look, I've been mostly in agreement with you that Mueller needs to get on with it (this situation being a good example why). But no one can credibly say that now is a good time to renegotiate a treaty with Russia.

[dislaxxic]

But...But... But...the mean ol' Dems will just tar it with the "collusion" brush.

..

[old salt]

Now's the time to re-negotiate, from a position of economic & military strength.

Yeah, it's really the ideal time to renegotiate a major treaty with Russia. Can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be.

Prove it (...already). tick, tock.

Look, I've been mostly in agreement with you that Mueller needs to get on with it (this situation being a good example why). But no one can credibly say that now is a good time to renegotiate a treaty with Russia.

When is ? What if Trump's re-elected ? Do you prefer it be done by Pres Harris & Sec State ACO ?
Pompeo's a hard ass. Bolton's an arms control expert. I prefer them to John Kerry & Wendy Sherman.
I'm talking about a treaty that would pass a Senate full of (R) Russia hawks, not an EA scam like the JCPOA.

We need to nip hypersonic ballistic/cruise hybrid missile development in the bud.
We're already behind. Every year matters.
Trump's opponents need to make their case or let him be the President -- he was elected.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Now's the time to re-negotiate, from a position of economic & military strength.

Yeah, it's really the ideal time to renegotiate a major treaty with Russia. Can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be.

Prove it (...already). tick, tock.

Look, I've been mostly in agreement with you that Mueller needs to get on with it (this situation being a good example why). But no one can credibly say that now is a good time to renegotiate a treaty with Russia.

When is ? What if Trump's re-elected ? Do you prefer it be done by Pres Harris & Sec State ACO ?
Pompeo's a hard ass. Bolton's an arms control expert. I prefer them to John Kerry & Wendy Sherman.
I'm talking about a treaty that would pass a Senate full of (R) Russia hawks, not an EA scam like the JCPOA.

We need to nip hypersonic ballistic/cruise hybrid missile development in the bud.
We're already behind. Every year matters.
Trump's opponents need to make their case or let him be the President -- he was elected.

Rachel and Don Lemon should just leave Trump alone and let him govern!

[Chips O'Toole]

Look, I've been mostly in agreement with you that Mueller needs to get on with it (this situation being a good example why). But no one can credibly say that now is a good time to renegotiate a treaty with Russia.

When is ?
[/quote]
When the very serious and legitimate concerns about Trump's relationship with Russia are resolved, one way or the other.

Let me throw this out: If at this stage in the investigation, Mueller doesn't have very strong evidence of "collusion" by Trump, I think he needs to publicly say so. I would add that Mueller, recognizing the difficulty this all creates for Trump's presidency and ability to govern, probably would agree with this sentiment. I would further speculate that Mueller faces a constant barrage of pressure to issue such a statement. If it were accurate, would it really be so difficult and controversial for Mueller to issue a statement saying something like, "At this time, our investigation has not uncovered compelling evidence that the POTUS committed any crimes in connection with Russia's interference with the 2016 election." I would sincerely hope, under these incredibly difficult circumstances, that if Mueller could accurately issue that statement, he would do so without hesitation.

If you agree with all of that, it leads to the next question: Why has such a statement not been issued? See, if Mueller does have compelling evidence, the same logic doesn't really apply to issuing a statement to that effect.

[old salt]

Look, I've been mostly in agreement with you that Mueller needs to get on with it (this situation being a good example why). But no one can credibly say that now is a good time to renegotiate a treaty with Russia.

When is ?

When the very serious and legitimate concerns about Trump's relationship with Russia are resolved, one way or the other.

Let me throw this out: If at this stage in the investigation, Mueller doesn't have very strong evidence of "collusion" by Trump, I think he needs to publicly say so. I would add that Mueller, recognizing the difficulty this all creates for Trump's presidency and ability to govern, probably would agree with this sentiment. I would further speculate that Mueller faces a constant barrage of pressure to issue such a statement. If it were accurate, would it really be so difficult and controversial for Mueller to issue a statement saying something like, "At this time, our investigation has not uncovered compelling evidence that the POTUS committed any crimes in connection with Russia's interference with the 2016 election." I would sincerely hope, under these incredibly difficult circumstances, that if Mueller could accurately issue that statement, he would do so without hesitation.

If you agree with all of that, it leads to the next question: Why has such a statement not been issued? See, if Mueller does have compelling evidence, the same logic doesn't really apply to issuing a statement to that effect.

I suspect that Mueller still has unresolved doubts, ...that may never be resolved to his satisfaction, such that he could bring himself to make such a statement.

If it's all circumstantial evidence, how does Trump prove a negative ? I would hope that Mueller would look to what Trump has actually done in office. Mueller' is savvy enough to filter out the political white noise about Trump's rhetoric. The fact that he dispatched Strzok & Page tells me he understands why Trump is paranoid toward the IC & DoJ.

Trump is an anathema to everything Mueller has done in the service of his country & the institutions in which he has served. I hope he can remain an honest broker & rise above the contempt for Trump which he is entitled to feel, based on what he is seeing in such gruesome detail.
Is Mueller a Constitutionalist or a pragmatist ?

[foreverlax]

I believe that Mueller is first and foremost a honorable man. He follows the facts where they led and prosecutes those cases he believes can produce an appropriate result.

I also believe he respects the constitutions. I also believe he is a "practical" person in both his thoughts and actions.

Not sure it's an either or....

[Typical Lax Dad]

Look, I've been mostly in agreement with you that Mueller needs to get on with it (this situation being a good example why). But no one can credibly say that now is a good time to renegotiate a treaty with Russia.

When is ?

When the very serious and legitimate concerns about Trump's relationship with Russia are resolved, one way or the other.

Let me throw this out: If at this stage in the investigation, Mueller doesn't have very strong evidence of "collusion" by Trump, I think he needs to publicly say so. I would add that Mueller, recognizing the difficulty this all creates for Trump's presidency and ability to govern, probably would agree with this sentiment. I would further speculate that Mueller faces a constant barrage of pressure to issue such a statement. If it were accurate, would it really be so difficult and controversial for Mueller to issue a statement saying something like, "At this time, our investigation has not uncovered compelling evidence that the POTUS committed any crimes in connection with Russia's interference with the 2016 election." I would sincerely hope, under these incredibly difficult circumstances, that if Mueller could accurately issue that statement, he would do so without hesitation.

If you agree with all of that, it leads to the next question: Why has such a statement not been issued? See, if Mueller does have compelling evidence, the same logic doesn't really apply to issuing a statement to that effect.

I suspect that Mueller still has unresolved doubts, ...that may never be resolved to his satisfaction, such that he could bring himself to make such a statement.

If it's all circumstantial evidence, how does Trump prove a negative ? I would hope that Mueller would look to what Trump has actually done in office. Mueller' is savvy enough to filter out the political white noise about Trump's rhetoric. The fact that he dispatched Strzok & Page tells me he understands why Trump is paranoid toward the IC & DoJ.

Trump is an anathema to everything Mueller has done in the service of his country & the institutions in which he has served. I hope he can remain an honest broker & rise above the contempt for Trump which he is entitled to feel, based on what he is seeing in such gruesome detail.
Is Mueller a Constitutionalist or a pragmatist ?

You don't let the guy that robbed the bank keep the money because he used it to build a school......

[ggait]

Let me throw this out: If at this stage in the investigation, Mueller doesn't have very strong evidence of "collusion" by Trump, I think he needs to publicly say so. If it were accurate, would it really be so difficult and controversial for Mueller to issue a statement saying something like, "At this time, our investigation has not uncovered compelling evidence that the POTUS committed any crimes in connection with Russia's interference with the 2016 election." I would sincerely hope, under these incredibly difficult circumstances, that if Mueller could accurately issue that statement, he would do so without hesitation.

No. Horrible idea. Mueller wouldn't do this in a million years.

You are asking Mueller to do something even worse than what Comey (who was in a much tougher situation) did.

Rule #1 -- You don't comment on an ongoing investigation.

Rule #2 -- See rule #1.

You only speak when the investigation is 100.00% over. No exceptions.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Butina nuzzling up to Clarke....I wonder of this was before or after the "excursion"...

[a fan]

You think this is cyber warfare ? You ain't seen nothin' yet (unless you examine what China's been up to).

You have no appreciation of how dangerous & expensive the Cold War was. How close we came, how many times.
How many US troops were killed by AK-47's, RPG's & SAM's in the hands of Russian proxies (or advisers). Recall Vietnam ?

I do. Vietnam had nothing to do with the Cold War. We entered Vietnam because some idiot cooked up the "domino theory".

Vietnam was by any measure, a pointless country as far as American interests are concerned. But the domino theory turning a molehill into a mountain. We could have EASILY chosen, instead, to trade with Vietnam and the Soviet Union as we did with China. But we didn't because we didn't have anyone in power that was as smart as Nixon. So instead, we fought useless, pointless wars in Korea and Vietnam.

I want our troops out of Poland & back in the US, & Ivan's subs back pier side.

Nothing keeping NATO from negotiating just that.

We've strengthened NATO. Now we need to demilitarize a buffer zone on both sides of NATO's E border.

We have strengthened NATO militarily, sure, but NATO has never been weaker, diplomatically speaking. You know this.

INF needs to be updated, renegotiated & China included.

Yep. Too bad Russia keeps messing with us, and we're busy executing a pointless trade war with China. Maybe each side will
wake up at some point, and stop both of those things, eh?

We need to push our EU allies back to the table at the Minsk accords (Ukraine & Crimea).

Nothing about Trump and Putin is keeping us from doing that. What's keeping us from doing that is that EU leaders can't stand Trump. They wouldn't follow him anywhere. His idiocy has consequences, and yet you're falling all over yourself to blame everyone else but Trump for a failure to get things done. It's always someone else's fault....and I know you're not wired to think like this.

We need to be part of the political settlement in Syria.

No, we don't. Speaking of Syria and the supposed strength of NATO, how come Trump or any of our NATO allies can't call Turkey and demand that they stand down, and not hit the Kurds?

[a fan]

And to take this back to Mueller---you're making excuses for Trump. Has Trump managed any deals worth mentioning? Best he could manage were pointless tweaks to NAFTA. He pulled out of the Paris Accords, the TPP, open Trade with China, open Trade with the EU, the Iran nuke Deal, and managed to get exactly nothing done with N Korea. Then add in the threats to leave NATO and threats/insults to most of our allies in one form or another.

So I'm sorry, but the idea that Mueller is somehow "in the way" of some spectacular dealmaking from Trump is.....totally ridiculous.

The man is an idiot, and all other leaders are right to just wait him out, and hope he doesn't get reelected.

[Typical Lax Dad]

And to take this back to Mueller---you're making excuses for Trump. Has Trump managed any deals worth mentioning? Best he could manage were pointless tweaks to NAFTA. He pulled out of the Paris Accords, the TPP, open Trade with China, open Trade with the EU, the Iran nuke Deal, and managed to get exactly nothing done with N Korea. Then add in the threats to leave NATO and threats/insults to most of our allies in one form or another.

So I'm sorry, but the idea that Mueller is somehow "in the way" of some spectacular dealmaking from Trump is.....totally ridiculous.

The man is an idiot, and all other leaders are right to just wait him out, and hope he doesn't get reelected.

What people have known for years..... He had a $400MM head start and did next to nothing other than put his name on stuff. He is Paris Hilton / Kim Kardashian. Actually, Kardashian is probably a better business person, sadly.

[foreverlax]

Butina nuzzling up to Clarke....I wonder of this was before or after the "excursion"...

The whole thing with Clark makes zero sense to me.....

[old salt]

And to take this back to Mueller---you're making excuses for Trump. Has Trump managed any deals worth mentioning? Best he could manage were pointless tweaks to NAFTA. He pulled out of the Paris Accords, the TPP, open Trade with China, open Trade with the EU, the Iran nuke Deal, and managed to get exactly nothing done with N Korea. Then add in the threats to leave NATO and threats/insults to most of our allies in one form or another.

So I'm sorry, but the idea that Mueller is somehow "in the way" of some spectacular dealmaking from Trump is.....totally ridiculous.

The man is an idiot, and all other leaders are right to just wait him out, and hope he doesn't get reelected.

I'm not making excuses for Trump. I'm pointing out the obvious -- he's the only President we have.

Trump won't negotiate an arms control treaty. Officials like Pompeo & Bolton will. To be binding, it'll have to ratified by a Senate full of Russia hawks, from both parties.

Cut the BS & give me a straight answer, backed up with specific facts. Is NATO stronger now than when Trump came into office (& don't say it's because of Mattis. Trump is the CinC). Insulting allies ? Poland's begging us to send even more troops (w/ families) & base them there. We just sent a carrier group through the GIUK gap, then above the Arctic Circle, then invaded Norway with Marines, in the biggest NATO exercises since the Cold War.

Even Trump's critics (other than you) concede that USMCA is an improvement over the outdated NAFTA. HRC & all the other candidates bailed on TPP too. We're still ahead of our Paris accords targets, while polluters who stayed in are not. We're just not paying billions to other polluters to miss their targets. Iran's still in compliance with the JCPOA, and they've stopped harassing our ships. We went 7 mos without a carrier in the M East. You whiners still never acknowledge the holes in the JCPOA, like ICBM testing & the inability to inspect IRGC military bases where the nucs are being weaponized into warheads. China & EU trade deals are in work. The big tariffs have yet to kick in. We're still talking with N Korea. They're not testing nucs, shooting missiles over Japan, & sinking S Korean warships. We don't have to keep sending 3 carrier battle groups to the Sea of Japan & sending B-1/B-52's to blow holes in the same S Korean mountains every year.

[old salt]

You think this is cyber warfare ? You ain't seen nothin' yet (unless you examine what China's been up to).

You have no appreciation of how dangerous & expensive the Cold War was. How close we came, how many times.
How many US troops were killed by AK-47's, RPG's & SAM's in the hands of Russian proxies (or advisers). Recall Vietnam ?

I do. Vietnam had nothing to do with the Cold War. We entered Vietnam because some idiot cooked up the "domino theory".
Cold War domino theory. Containing the spread of Comminism

Vietnam was by any measure, a pointless country as far as American interests are concerned. But the domino theory turning a molehill into a mountain. We could have EASILY chosen, instead, to trade with Vietnam and the Soviet Union as we did with China. But we didn't because we didn't have anyone in power that was as smart as Nixon. So instead, we fought useless, pointless wars in Korea and Vietnam.
We demonstrated that we would bleed to stop the spread of Communism.

I want our troops out of Poland & back in the US, & Ivan's subs back pier side.

Nothing keeping NATO from negotiating just that. For that -- we are NATO. Look who's providing the combat power.

We've strengthened NATO. Now we need to demilitarize a buffer zone on both sides of NATO's E border.

We have strengthened NATO militarily, sure, but NATO has never been weaker, diplomatically speaking. You know this.
What does that even mean ? NATO is a military alliance. Trump shamed them into spending more & contributing more effectively. The NATO Secy Gen gives Trump credit, even if you don't.

INF needs to be updated, renegotiated & China included.

Yep. Too bad Russia keeps messing with us, and we're busy executing a pointless trade war with China. Maybe each side will
wake up at some point, and stop both of those things, eh?
Won't matter, if we can't engage with Russia, ...even after Trump's gone, unless we drop our sore loser victimhood.

We need to push our EU allies back to the table at the Minsk accords (Ukraine & Crimea).

Nothing about Trump and Putin is keeping us from doing that. What's keeping us from doing that is that EU leaders can't stand Trump. They wouldn't follow him anywhere. They stalled on Minsk before Trump was even a candidate. He's the only one providing lethal weapons to Ukraine. His idiocy has consequences, and yet you're falling all over yourself to blame everyone else but Trump for a failure to get things done. It's always someone else's fault....and I know you're not wired to think like this.Trump's national security & foreign policies have accomplished a lot. Your critique is based on style, not substance.

We need to be part of the political settlement in Syria.

No, we don't. Speaking of Syria and the supposed strength of NATO, how come Trump or any of our NATO allies can't call Turkey and demand that they stand down, and not hit the Kurds? Same reason = Erdogan. Just as he blocked our invasion of Iraq from the N in 2003.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Butina nuzzling up to Clarke....I wonder of this was before or after the "excursion"...

The whole thing with Clark makes zero sense to me.....

It is remarkable. The number of "Trump" surrogates with Russian contacts is stunning...

[Trinity]

I pointed out that bs Sheriff on Laxpower. Wearing his flair and spouting nonsense. He makes real cops cringe

Btw, the sore losers are all Americans who had a compromised, incoherent idiot installed in the Oval. Jared is the shadow president. How is that ok? We need to haul out the 25th Amendment.

[old salt]

That would have been the result, even if Trump had lost.