Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (84293)	7/17/2018 9:11:17 PM
From: Steve Lokness	1 Recommendation Recommended By J_F_Shepard Respond to of 361667

Katelew, I don't read any of this stuff .........because Mueller is not showing his hand. It is nuts to think anyone can ferret out any truths when he discloses nothing. He is a republican who EVERYONE said was a man of unscrupulous reputation as being fair and thorough. He is - or least was a republican. If you cannot let him do his work and rely on the outcome - there is no single person on earth who you will believe. Would you rather have a democrat doing this investigation? I'm willing to wait and if Mueller clears Trump - I'll accept that. Why can't you? Afraid of the truth? (Not bad for a liberal who likes scotch - huh?) Since I do not read this one sided crap - from either side - you are wasting your time writing it all out.

To: Katelew who wrote (84293)	7/17/2018 9:26:26 PM
From: Steve Lokness	5 Recommendations Recommended By bentway Ivan Inkling J_F_Shepard pocotrader Smart_Asset Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361667

Did you see Obama speaking about Mandela today? What an inspirational speaker - a man able to do his own thinking in a way that is easily understood and informative. (Compared to Trump reading the script of changing the word from would - to wouldn't - Yikes!!!) That Obama was speaking in South Africa to a sizable crowd shows just how respected on the world stage he is. He is a good man Katelew. .......(No scotch - yet........but still liberal).

To: Katelew who wrote (84293)	7/18/2018 8:00:10 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361667

The reality is that those campaign officials were being set up. One might call it entrapment. Your focus continues to be defending Trump from his antagonists rather than what the Russians were up to. The point of the investigation is the latter. The point of the investigation is the latter. The point of the investigation is the latter. Trump sees the investigation as an attack on him. You see the investigation as an attack on him. Rather than an investigation of Russian doings. Trump cares about Trump's skin, both real and imagined. The Russian activity against the US, who cares. Likewise you, seemingly. The object of the investigation is not criminal prosecution although it has produced criminal charges. Those criminal prosecutions are ancillary, not the objective. If the investigation did not have criminal prosecution powers, setting up someone to provoke activity that would open up investigative channels would be a natural, reasonable approach to finding out how the Russian actors operate, aka getting at the truth. It would be valuable. In a criminal prosecution, entrapment is not cricket. If there is no criminal prosecution, entrapment, if it exists, is moot. I care about the US learning about the tricks and techniques of Russian interference. Your singular focus on entrapment would seem to be all about protecting Trump from prosecution, since that's the only arena in which it matters. But prosecution would not happen in any event. They were subtly maneuvered into doing and saying things that months later became evidence to support the claim that Trump was colluding with Putin. At this point, it hardly matters. Trump, as a result of his reaction to the investigation, has accumulated well more than enough fodder to satisfy his antagonists, more than they ever could have dreamed of. His performance in Helsinki, by itself, is sufficient to support an impeachment were anyone so inclined. And he's not going to be criminally prosecuted for collusion, entrapment or no entrapment. Seems to me that your hobby horse about possible entrapment in collusion is well beside the point, hardly warranting such a focus. I don't find it constructive. It may be satisfying to you, but not of utility.