|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 26 2018 16:05 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +if memory serves, because it was eons ago is news time, they were charged with violating FARA; they failed to register as foreign agents in 2007 or there abouts. Maybe also money laundering?
Maybe also this. + Show Spoiler +For both Gates and Manafort. Now, i understand that this isn't in connection with the trump campaign (as of yet). But if you dig a bit and find charges against two members of a campaign including conspiracy, multiple accounts of lying to the FBI and other criminal charges, then it's safe to assume that you're digging at the correct spot and it won't end there. Considerably safer to assume than the opposite being true. Show nested quote +It's significantly less than half the population. The vast majority of Americans want background checks for guns and other common sense regulation. But we've got this terrorist organization called the NRA here so even if a huge majority want it it's not happening.
"The important americans don't want a solution" is probably the more correct statement. By important, i mean rich and influential. edit: sigh, just too dumb to link it by the looks edit2: sidenote, the NRA is just a scapegoat, really. I used to think that they're to blame, but in regards to lobbying, they're small fries. They only try to get pro-gun people elected. They don't buy votes. If you elect these pro-gun peoples, we're back to the "half the population" stuff. edit3: in regards to the ponzicoin, isn't Athene or whatever he's called doing something similar?
This time you ignored part of my post.
But everyone got all excited over the "conspiracy" before all the news outlets had to bring people back to earth. Pretty sure that was in association with lobbying before.
I don't know why you keep taking things from my posts I'm not saying. I didn't say that no one should look. I didn't say that Manafort and Gates didn't do something wrong (a decade ago), I am very narrowly focused on the 2016 election. As of right now we have 2 guys fighting a some charges that involve money laundering and lobbying a decade ago and the other two admitting to lying to the FBI. both bad, but so far neither are displaying this grand conspiracy. Until I can get some evidence otherwise I will maintain this position. if Trump can stick it out, I am more and more confident he will be the winner here. His frustration, however, is understandable.
|
On January 26 2018 12:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Meanwhile on State TV:
This could be a GTA radio station skit. But it's real. That transition is sick. Look a car crash!
|
On January 26 2018 09:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:
2018 and 9/11 truthers are still being entertained.
It's the millennials' JFK shooting. It'll be around for a while.
Also jet fuel can't melt steel beams, man. Don't you know that?!
|
|
|
On January 26 2018 15:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 15:32 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:07 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 14:42 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:36 Doodsmack wrote:On January 26 2018 12:06 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 11:56 zlefin wrote:[quote] quite an assumption that trump will be cleared of collusion  but is indeed no tabout making a sensible case; if sense reigned trump wouldn't be president, and he would've been impeached already. so it's a question of what nonsense a lot of crazy people believe. Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here. Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger. This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct. There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If there's only obstruction, there's no crime! So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%. Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be? Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos. Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation. None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble. No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away. Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals. Second, i asked you something, don't ignore it because it's inconvenient. I'd have to find it again, but no. if you make a deal with someone in the hopes of getting them to cooperate for a bigger takedown, you make them acknowledge the conspiracy in the first place, so that you have established it occurred. I'm not sure what your first slam-dunk question means. Why is it longer? Because Mueller is being careful and has moved to obstruction. I'm not sure what I said that prompted that question. I don't know what's inconvenient about it. The Trump team was stupid and incompetent. Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. That is my current opinion based on what we know. You are so angry and aggressive for some reason. Because I'm known as the great Trump defender. Not necessarily, what? You don't need to make them openly admit to something, and then charge them for a lesser crime - especially considering that it would have a big negative impact on further stages of the investigation. It's longer because Mueller is careful, sure. And he might wait for a certain point in time to reveal something. Moving to obstruction doesn't mean the prior topic turned out to be a dud, it could also mean that there's additional stuff to bring up. You argue as if unarguably because he didn't immediately reveal his cards (and Mueller has proven to not do that, at all), he doesn't have any, so he moved on. Which is simply stupid. We are in agreement about the trump team. The intent for collusion is proof enough. You're acively trying to commit a crime, your incompetence doesn't shield you from repercussions. So yes: just proving the intent already is good enough. Since you answered before i edited, what are the charges for Manafort and Gates? edit: in regards to angry, i have a cheek like a hamster currently - might rub off a little bit, unintentionally though Again from what I've read if you are going after bigger fish then you use the smaller ones to establish something actually happened. A lot of people have the idea that it was just a first step, but there didn't and doesn't appear to be any further steps from where they were. Maybe something for Trump Jr. is coming, but I kinda doubt it. if memory serves, because it was eons ago is news time, they were charged with violating FARA; they failed to register as foreign agents in 2007 or there abouts. Maybe also money laundering? I found the primary article I was thinking of: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment
There is something in this logic I don't get.
Do you think Flynn made a deal with the investigation, possibly to also protect his son?
If yes, what could he have offered the investigation if not evidence to something deeper that has yet to come out?
|
On January 26 2018 11:29 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +In one phone conversation during 2017, Trump complained to May over the criticism he’d been getting in British newspapers. Amid warnings that Trump would face protests in the streets when he arrived, he told the prime minister he would not be coming to the U.K. until she could promise him a warm welcome.
May responded to say such treatment was simply the way the British press operate, and there wasn’t much she could do. In the secure bunker underneath the prime minister’s office, her advisers listened in to the call in astonishment at Trump’s demand. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-24/inside-the-dysfunctional-relationship-of-donald-trump-and-theresa-mayGuess touting how you could've fucked the still very beloved Diana, including taking an HIV test, months after she died isn't as forgotten as he thinks. I actually could understand if the british have a special kind of hatred towards trump. Not just the usual one. Disclaimer: sorry if it was mentioned somewhere earlier, i just couldn't be arsed to go through the conspiracy shit.
Actually, since you mentioned us, we do have a special kind of hatred towards Trump.
British politics is mostly a pretty dry affair, still quite stentorian, steeped in tradition, and held to a certain standard. It's been slowly eroded over time, but even our 'rowdy' at PMQs is formalised. Trump is just a lout. It's like having a drunk man wander into our political sphere and tell us we need to respect him, when a big part of our basic politics is that the press give our politicians endless crap and they politely don't address the matter as best as possible, because we expect a certain standard of behaviour from them.
It's also why Nigel Farage is a special kind of hated, even outside the UKIP stuff; he played a role in damaging the political process and messed with the traditions that we're used to. His whole appeal 'that of being the man in the pub' is the exact antithesis of our politics: Our politicians AREN'T THAT, that's the whole point.
Or shouldn't be.
So Trump's another symptom of tacitly accepted British traditions eroding, and we're not fond of that, culturally speaking. We're quite cross about it, actually (and indeed, Brexit was rooted in a fear of that alongside all the other concerns).
|
On January 26 2018 20:13 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 11:29 m4ini wrote:In one phone conversation during 2017, Trump complained to May over the criticism he’d been getting in British newspapers. Amid warnings that Trump would face protests in the streets when he arrived, he told the prime minister he would not be coming to the U.K. until she could promise him a warm welcome.
May responded to say such treatment was simply the way the British press operate, and there wasn’t much she could do. In the secure bunker underneath the prime minister’s office, her advisers listened in to the call in astonishment at Trump’s demand. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-24/inside-the-dysfunctional-relationship-of-donald-trump-and-theresa-mayGuess touting how you could've fucked the still very beloved Diana, including taking an HIV test, months after she died isn't as forgotten as he thinks. I actually could understand if the british have a special kind of hatred towards trump. Not just the usual one. Disclaimer: sorry if it was mentioned somewhere earlier, i just couldn't be arsed to go through the conspiracy shit. Actually, since you mentioned us, we do have a special kind of hatred towards Trump. British politics is mostly a pretty dry affair, still quite stentorian, steeped in tradition, and held to a certain standard. It's been slowly eroded over time, but even our 'rowdy' at PMQs is formalised. Trump is just a lout. It's like having a drunk man wander into our political sphere and tell us we need to respect him, when a big part of our basic politics is that the press give our politicians endless crap and they politely don't address the matter as best as possible, because we expect a certain standard of behaviour from them. It's also why Nigel Farage is a special kind of hated, even outside the UKIP stuff; he played a role in damaging the political process and messed with the traditions that we're used to. His whole appeal 'that of being the man in the pub' is the exact antithesis of our politics: Our politicians AREN'T THAT, that's the whole point. Or shouldn't be. So Trump's another symptom of tacitly accepted British traditions eroding, and we're not fond of that, culturally speaking. We're quite cross about it, actually (and indeed, Brexit was rooted in a fear of that alongside all the other concerns).
To be honest that has been the case everywhere and it's a process that goes way beyond Trump even though America has really overdone it by electing such a moron.
But take the example of France. If Trump speaks like a 4th grader, Sarkozy spoke like a 6th grader. When he was elected it was a complete shock: he doesn't master French at a high level, can't actually really speak english or any foreign language, is vulgar, not well read, uninterested in culture, doesn't master etiquette or even elementary rules of courtesy, and doesn't even have any kind of control over his own body. Compare to Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Francois Mitterand or Charles De Gaulle, who all had really something of a prince's aura, and you could see that something had really changed.
The transition, in France, was done by Chirac. It was said that he would read Beaudelaire inside a playboy cover. He was an old fashioned, cultured, informed, high quality politician (not that he was an angel, very, very far from it), but he had understood that times were changing and was trying to appear more vulgar than he really was.
I think the movement is not irreversible. If anything (and I don't like him either), Macron is the proof that new generations of successful politicians don't need to speak and behave like drunkards at the pub to appeal to people. That's good news.
|
So now he supports the TPP.
|
Up means down and left means right, average out Trump's words and then you'll have true insight.
|
TPP nations be like: don’t call us, we will call you Big D.
|
On January 26 2018 22:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 20:13 iamthedave wrote:On January 26 2018 11:29 m4ini wrote:In one phone conversation during 2017, Trump complained to May over the criticism he’d been getting in British newspapers. Amid warnings that Trump would face protests in the streets when he arrived, he told the prime minister he would not be coming to the U.K. until she could promise him a warm welcome.
May responded to say such treatment was simply the way the British press operate, and there wasn’t much she could do. In the secure bunker underneath the prime minister’s office, her advisers listened in to the call in astonishment at Trump’s demand. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-24/inside-the-dysfunctional-relationship-of-donald-trump-and-theresa-mayGuess touting how you could've fucked the still very beloved Diana, including taking an HIV test, months after she died isn't as forgotten as he thinks. I actually could understand if the british have a special kind of hatred towards trump. Not just the usual one. Disclaimer: sorry if it was mentioned somewhere earlier, i just couldn't be arsed to go through the conspiracy shit. Actually, since you mentioned us, we do have a special kind of hatred towards Trump. British politics is mostly a pretty dry affair, still quite stentorian, steeped in tradition, and held to a certain standard. It's been slowly eroded over time, but even our 'rowdy' at PMQs is formalised. Trump is just a lout. It's like having a drunk man wander into our political sphere and tell us we need to respect him, when a big part of our basic politics is that the press give our politicians endless crap and they politely don't address the matter as best as possible, because we expect a certain standard of behaviour from them. It's also why Nigel Farage is a special kind of hated, even outside the UKIP stuff; he played a role in damaging the political process and messed with the traditions that we're used to. His whole appeal 'that of being the man in the pub' is the exact antithesis of our politics: Our politicians AREN'T THAT, that's the whole point. Or shouldn't be. So Trump's another symptom of tacitly accepted British traditions eroding, and we're not fond of that, culturally speaking. We're quite cross about it, actually (and indeed, Brexit was rooted in a fear of that alongside all the other concerns). To be honest that has been the case everywhere and it's a process that goes way beyond Trump even though America has really overdone it by electing such a moron. But take the example of France. If Trump speaks like a 4th grader, Sarkozy spoke like a 6th grader. When he was elected it was a complete shock: he doesn't master French at a high level, can't actually really speak english or any foreign language, is vulgar, not well read, uninterested in culture, doesn't master etiquette or even elementary rules of courtesy, and doesn't even have any kind of control over his own body. Compare to Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Francois Mitterand or Charles De Gaulle, who all had really something of a prince's aura, and you could see that something had really changed. The transition, in France, was done by Chirac. It was said that he would read Beaudelaire inside a playboy cover. He was an old fashioned, cultured, informed, high quality politician (not that he was an angel, very, very far from it), but he had understood that times were changing and was trying to appear more vulgar than he really was. I think the movement is not irreversible. If anything (and I don't like him either), Macron is the proof that new generations of successful politicians don't need to speak and behave like drunkards at the pub to appeal to people. That's good news.
France seems a special case, as weren't you dodging Marine Le Pen? I think a great many evils can be forgiven to avoid that fate. Though I say that, I obviously only saw bits and pieces of her. She seemed almost moustache-twirling in her obvious evilness. How did she seem from your side?
The sticking point for us is that the US is our 'special relationship' partner. We weren't happy about hanging out with Bush, but he always handled himself well when over here. Trump's just everything we're not and everything we don't want to accept in our politics. The closest we can get to Trump's level of BS is probably Boris Johnson, and I'm sure the US folks here would consider him pretty mild compared to... well, not just Trump, but a lot of politicians in the US. The genius with the immaculate conception metaphor, for example.
|
Wait, why exactly do you assume that wrapping up/doing interviews for the obstruction component means the collusion investigation is wrapped up, Introvert? They can and should multitask in investigations like this.
I'd be inclined to think it means they've been splitting their time and are about to go full blast into the collusion, personally. Especially since this is already the fastest moving special prosecutor on record w.r.t. charges/etc.
(Also, attempted obstruction of justice and obstruction of justice are the same thing)
(It's unfortunate this didn't come out after he testified to Mueller or he almost certainly would have lied about it; he still might, he's that delusional)
|
I am going to keep harping on this one because it matters: Collusion is not a crime. It isn’t even a legal term to describe what is being investigated. What is a crime is receiving material assistance from a foreign government to influence an election. And soliciting material assistance from a foreign government is conspiracy to commit a crime. Like meeting with a known lawyer with known connections to the Russian government offering “dirt on Clinton” and then never telling anyone about it. Or being aware of when wikileaks was going to drop the DNC emails.
Most of that might not matter for Trump himself. But it totally matters for folks like Flynn and Don Jr. What will matter for Trump is how he attempted to kill the investigation several times. Just like Bill Clinton and Nixon, it won’t be the crime itself, but the cover up.
|
On January 26 2018 19:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 09:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:
2018 and 9/11 truthers are still being entertained. It's the millennials' JFK shooting. It'll be around for a while. Also jet fuel can't melt steel beams, man. Don't you know that?!
I just logged on to start reading these. I expected TL to be a more intelligent place than this.
You know what really bothers me? When a conspiracy theory actually gets proven right, they hate it. Because they no longer have the ability to feel superior to everyone for knowing something they don't.
|
On January 26 2018 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 15:53 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:32 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:07 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 14:42 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:36 Doodsmack wrote:On January 26 2018 12:06 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Given that Mueller wants to talk to the man at the top about obstruction, I assume that not only are we near the end of "collusion" but that Mueller is most of the way through "obstruction" too. I take most of this from columns by Andrew McCarthy who has already pointed out why it's no longer about collusion, I posted those articles here.
Moreover, it's not clear that firing the special counsel is outside his authority, McGahn thinks it is not. Honestly if it turns out this investigation was predicated on a crime that didn't happen you aren't going to get support for a (rightfully) angry president firing someone in a moment of anger.
This happened LAST JUNE. That's so long ago and Trump has done nothing so far as we know to actually obstruct.
There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If there's only obstruction, there's no crime! So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%. Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be? Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos. Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation. None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble. No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away. Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals. Second, i asked you something, don't ignore it because it's inconvenient. I'd have to find it again, but no. if you make a deal with someone in the hopes of getting them to cooperate for a bigger takedown, you make them acknowledge the conspiracy in the first place, so that you have established it occurred. I'm not sure what your first slam-dunk question means. Why is it longer? Because Mueller is being careful and has moved to obstruction. I'm not sure what I said that prompted that question. I don't know what's inconvenient about it. The Trump team was stupid and incompetent. Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. That is my current opinion based on what we know. You are so angry and aggressive for some reason. Because I'm known as the great Trump defender. Not necessarily, what? You don't need to make them openly admit to something, and then charge them for a lesser crime - especially considering that it would have a big negative impact on further stages of the investigation. It's longer because Mueller is careful, sure. And he might wait for a certain point in time to reveal something. Moving to obstruction doesn't mean the prior topic turned out to be a dud, it could also mean that there's additional stuff to bring up. You argue as if unarguably because he didn't immediately reveal his cards (and Mueller has proven to not do that, at all), he doesn't have any, so he moved on. Which is simply stupid. We are in agreement about the trump team. The intent for collusion is proof enough. You're acively trying to commit a crime, your incompetence doesn't shield you from repercussions. So yes: just proving the intent already is good enough. Since you answered before i edited, what are the charges for Manafort and Gates? edit: in regards to angry, i have a cheek like a hamster currently - might rub off a little bit, unintentionally though Again from what I've read if you are going after bigger fish then you use the smaller ones to establish something actually happened. A lot of people have the idea that it was just a first step, but there didn't and doesn't appear to be any further steps from where they were. Maybe something for Trump Jr. is coming, but I kinda doubt it. if memory serves, because it was eons ago is news time, they were charged with violating FARA; they failed to register as foreign agents in 2007 or there abouts. Maybe also money laundering? I found the primary article I was thinking of: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment There is something in this logic I don't get. Do you think Flynn made a deal with the investigation, possibly to also protect his son? If yes, what could he have offered the investigation if not evidence to something deeper that has yet to come out?
Yes, and also Flynn was broke. Mueller isn't going to walk away empty-handed so he'll take what he can, especially, as the article notes, if he's perusing obstruction.
***
Remember when Mueller was brought on it was in the guise of a counter intelligence operation about Russian interference. Super broad. To me it makes no sense to say that they are still seriously perusing some kind of conspiracy because that's where they started, not where they are ending. Lots of people are projecting and are going to be really, really sad when they find out the election wasn't "stolen" in even a small degree. You can also take the clue from the hack politicians that stopped talking about "collusion" for the most part. I can't help everyone if they are coming up with justifications in their own heads about what is going on. It's remarkable that I'm saying the same thing and at least citing some knowledgeable source and meanwhile people keep repeating the same things st me over and over, especially things that pieces I've linked to discuss.
Again I'm 90% on all this, not 100%.
|
There seems to be a lot of projecting going around when it comes to the Mueller investigation. It’s not limited to those who dislike Trump.
|
On January 27 2018 00:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On January 26 2018 15:53 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:32 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:07 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 14:42 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:36 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
There's definitely nothing underlying attempts at obstruction. If there's only obstruction, there's no crime! So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%. Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be? Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos. Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation. None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble. No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away. Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals. Second, i asked you something, don't ignore it because it's inconvenient. I'd have to find it again, but no. if you make a deal with someone in the hopes of getting them to cooperate for a bigger takedown, you make them acknowledge the conspiracy in the first place, so that you have established it occurred. I'm not sure what your first slam-dunk question means. Why is it longer? Because Mueller is being careful and has moved to obstruction. I'm not sure what I said that prompted that question. I don't know what's inconvenient about it. The Trump team was stupid and incompetent. Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. That is my current opinion based on what we know. You are so angry and aggressive for some reason. Because I'm known as the great Trump defender. Not necessarily, what? You don't need to make them openly admit to something, and then charge them for a lesser crime - especially considering that it would have a big negative impact on further stages of the investigation. It's longer because Mueller is careful, sure. And he might wait for a certain point in time to reveal something. Moving to obstruction doesn't mean the prior topic turned out to be a dud, it could also mean that there's additional stuff to bring up. You argue as if unarguably because he didn't immediately reveal his cards (and Mueller has proven to not do that, at all), he doesn't have any, so he moved on. Which is simply stupid. We are in agreement about the trump team. The intent for collusion is proof enough. You're acively trying to commit a crime, your incompetence doesn't shield you from repercussions. So yes: just proving the intent already is good enough. Since you answered before i edited, what are the charges for Manafort and Gates? edit: in regards to angry, i have a cheek like a hamster currently - might rub off a little bit, unintentionally though Again from what I've read if you are going after bigger fish then you use the smaller ones to establish something actually happened. A lot of people have the idea that it was just a first step, but there didn't and doesn't appear to be any further steps from where they were. Maybe something for Trump Jr. is coming, but I kinda doubt it. if memory serves, because it was eons ago is news time, they were charged with violating FARA; they failed to register as foreign agents in 2007 or there abouts. Maybe also money laundering? I found the primary article I was thinking of: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment There is something in this logic I don't get. Do you think Flynn made a deal with the investigation, possibly to also protect his son? If yes, what could he have offered the investigation if not evidence to something deeper that has yet to come out? Yes, and also Flynn was broke. Mueller isn't going to walk away empty-handed so he'll take what he can, especially, as the article notes, if he's perusing obstruction. *** Remember when Mueller was brought on it was in the guise of a counter intelligence operation about Russian interference. Super broad. To me it makes no sense to say that they are still seriously perusing some kind of conspiracy because that's where they started, not where they are ending. Lots of people are projecting and are going to be really, really sad when they find out the election wasn't "stolen" in even a small degree. You can also take the clue from the hack politicians that stopped talking about "collusion" for the most part. I can't help everyone if they are coming up with justifications in their own heads about what is going on. It's remarkable that I'm saying the same thing and at least citing some knowledgeable source and meanwhile people keep repeating the same things st me over and over, especially things that pieces I've linked to discuss. Again I'm 90% on all this, not 100%.
Is this what its like living in the conservative bubble?
Things that are known to be true
1. Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC and the Podesta emails
2. Russia was specifically targeting key swing districts with false stories and false accusations (a tactic that has been shown to swing votes before)
Knowing both of those to be true (considering that the intelligence agencies have said that for number 1 they have the go between between wikileaks and Russia and number 2 is super easy to prove) it is impossible for any reasonable person to say Russia did not play a part in influencing the election. Were they the sole cause? Impossible to say, way too many variables and its likely it did not matter but that is not the point.
Mueller's job is to investigate links between those attacks and the Trump campaign of which there seemed to be many odd coincidences not least of which being that the president preferred to attack america itself rather than to attack Putin. Of course there was also going to be investigations into the Tower meeting and Flynn meeting and it is also worth mentioning Flynn is pleading guilty because he is guilty. He lied to the FBI about it and there is no workaround and it is completely standard for them to use that to get a deal.
An investigation into this was always going to revolve around money which unfortunately for Trump is a big problem considering he has historically had some lets be kind and say controversial ties to Russian money going back decades which is most likely the reason he wanted to fire Mueller before it got to this point because there was most likely no colluding for the assistance that Russia provided but once the investigation turned to money that becomes a lot harder to cover up.
|
On January 27 2018 00:36 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 00:18 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On January 26 2018 15:53 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:32 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:07 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 14:42 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
So far we know of no collusion. I was open in the beginning, but it's been over a year and we got nada. And that's what matters. Democrats were screaming about an illegitimate election. Funny how that has morphed, huh. I am obviously not 100% but prob about 90%.
Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be? Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos. Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation. None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble. No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away. Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals. Second, i asked you something, don't ignore it because it's inconvenient. I'd have to find it again, but no. if you make a deal with someone in the hopes of getting them to cooperate for a bigger takedown, you make them acknowledge the conspiracy in the first place, so that you have established it occurred. I'm not sure what your first slam-dunk question means. Why is it longer? Because Mueller is being careful and has moved to obstruction. I'm not sure what I said that prompted that question. I don't know what's inconvenient about it. The Trump team was stupid and incompetent. Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. That is my current opinion based on what we know. You are so angry and aggressive for some reason. Because I'm known as the great Trump defender. Not necessarily, what? You don't need to make them openly admit to something, and then charge them for a lesser crime - especially considering that it would have a big negative impact on further stages of the investigation. It's longer because Mueller is careful, sure. And he might wait for a certain point in time to reveal something. Moving to obstruction doesn't mean the prior topic turned out to be a dud, it could also mean that there's additional stuff to bring up. You argue as if unarguably because he didn't immediately reveal his cards (and Mueller has proven to not do that, at all), he doesn't have any, so he moved on. Which is simply stupid. We are in agreement about the trump team. The intent for collusion is proof enough. You're acively trying to commit a crime, your incompetence doesn't shield you from repercussions. So yes: just proving the intent already is good enough. Since you answered before i edited, what are the charges for Manafort and Gates? edit: in regards to angry, i have a cheek like a hamster currently - might rub off a little bit, unintentionally though Again from what I've read if you are going after bigger fish then you use the smaller ones to establish something actually happened. A lot of people have the idea that it was just a first step, but there didn't and doesn't appear to be any further steps from where they were. Maybe something for Trump Jr. is coming, but I kinda doubt it. if memory serves, because it was eons ago is news time, they were charged with violating FARA; they failed to register as foreign agents in 2007 or there abouts. Maybe also money laundering? I found the primary article I was thinking of: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment There is something in this logic I don't get. Do you think Flynn made a deal with the investigation, possibly to also protect his son? If yes, what could he have offered the investigation if not evidence to something deeper that has yet to come out? Yes, and also Flynn was broke. Mueller isn't going to walk away empty-handed so he'll take what he can, especially, as the article notes, if he's perusing obstruction. *** Remember when Mueller was brought on it was in the guise of a counter intelligence operation about Russian interference. Super broad. To me it makes no sense to say that they are still seriously perusing some kind of conspiracy because that's where they started, not where they are ending. Lots of people are projecting and are going to be really, really sad when they find out the election wasn't "stolen" in even a small degree. You can also take the clue from the hack politicians that stopped talking about "collusion" for the most part. I can't help everyone if they are coming up with justifications in their own heads about what is going on. It's remarkable that I'm saying the same thing and at least citing some knowledgeable source and meanwhile people keep repeating the same things st me over and over, especially things that pieces I've linked to discuss. Again I'm 90% on all this, not 100%. Is this what its like living in the conservative bubble? Things that are known to be true 1. Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC and the Podesta emails 2. Russia was specifically targeting key swing districts with false stories and false accusations (a tactic that has been shown to swing votes before) Knowing both of those to be true (considering that the intelligence agencies have said that for number 1 they have the go between between wikileaks and Russia and number 2 is super easy to prove) it is impossible for any reasonable person to say Russia did not play a part in influencing the election. Were they the sole cause? Impossible to say, way too many variables and its likely it did not matter but that is not the point. Mueller's job is to investigate links between those attacks and the Trump campaign of which there seemed to be many odd coincidences not least of which being that the president preferred to attack america itself rather than to attack Putin. Of course there was also going to be investigations into the Tower meeting and Flynn meeting and it is also worth mentioning Flynn is pleading guilty because he is guilty. He lied to the FBI about it and there is no workaround and it is completely standard for them to use that to get a deal. An investigation into this was always going to revolve around money which unfortunately for Trump is a big problem considering he has historically had some lets be kind and say controversial ties to Russian money going back decades which is most likely the reason he wanted to fire Mueller before it got to this point because there was most likely no colluding for the assistance that Russia provided but once the investigation turned to money that becomes a lot harder to cover up.
Is this what it's like half-assing a response?
I am content to wait and see. No matter what though, I maintain that Trump will not be impeached and removed unless there was some form of collusion or conspiracy.
|
On January 27 2018 00:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 00:36 Adreme wrote:On January 27 2018 00:18 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On January 26 2018 15:53 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:32 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:07 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be?
Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos.
Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation. None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble. No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away. Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals. Second, i asked you something, don't ignore it because it's inconvenient. I'd have to find it again, but no. if you make a deal with someone in the hopes of getting them to cooperate for a bigger takedown, you make them acknowledge the conspiracy in the first place, so that you have established it occurred. I'm not sure what your first slam-dunk question means. Why is it longer? Because Mueller is being careful and has moved to obstruction. I'm not sure what I said that prompted that question. I don't know what's inconvenient about it. The Trump team was stupid and incompetent. Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. That is my current opinion based on what we know. You are so angry and aggressive for some reason. Because I'm known as the great Trump defender. Not necessarily, what? You don't need to make them openly admit to something, and then charge them for a lesser crime - especially considering that it would have a big negative impact on further stages of the investigation. It's longer because Mueller is careful, sure. And he might wait for a certain point in time to reveal something. Moving to obstruction doesn't mean the prior topic turned out to be a dud, it could also mean that there's additional stuff to bring up. You argue as if unarguably because he didn't immediately reveal his cards (and Mueller has proven to not do that, at all), he doesn't have any, so he moved on. Which is simply stupid. We are in agreement about the trump team. The intent for collusion is proof enough. You're acively trying to commit a crime, your incompetence doesn't shield you from repercussions. So yes: just proving the intent already is good enough. Since you answered before i edited, what are the charges for Manafort and Gates? edit: in regards to angry, i have a cheek like a hamster currently - might rub off a little bit, unintentionally though Again from what I've read if you are going after bigger fish then you use the smaller ones to establish something actually happened. A lot of people have the idea that it was just a first step, but there didn't and doesn't appear to be any further steps from where they were. Maybe something for Trump Jr. is coming, but I kinda doubt it. if memory serves, because it was eons ago is news time, they were charged with violating FARA; they failed to register as foreign agents in 2007 or there abouts. Maybe also money laundering? I found the primary article I was thinking of: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment There is something in this logic I don't get. Do you think Flynn made a deal with the investigation, possibly to also protect his son? If yes, what could he have offered the investigation if not evidence to something deeper that has yet to come out? Yes, and also Flynn was broke. Mueller isn't going to walk away empty-handed so he'll take what he can, especially, as the article notes, if he's perusing obstruction. *** Remember when Mueller was brought on it was in the guise of a counter intelligence operation about Russian interference. Super broad. To me it makes no sense to say that they are still seriously perusing some kind of conspiracy because that's where they started, not where they are ending. Lots of people are projecting and are going to be really, really sad when they find out the election wasn't "stolen" in even a small degree. You can also take the clue from the hack politicians that stopped talking about "collusion" for the most part. I can't help everyone if they are coming up with justifications in their own heads about what is going on. It's remarkable that I'm saying the same thing and at least citing some knowledgeable source and meanwhile people keep repeating the same things st me over and over, especially things that pieces I've linked to discuss. Again I'm 90% on all this, not 100%. Is this what its like living in the conservative bubble? Things that are known to be true 1. Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC and the Podesta emails 2. Russia was specifically targeting key swing districts with false stories and false accusations (a tactic that has been shown to swing votes before) Knowing both of those to be true (considering that the intelligence agencies have said that for number 1 they have the go between between wikileaks and Russia and number 2 is super easy to prove) it is impossible for any reasonable person to say Russia did not play a part in influencing the election. Were they the sole cause? Impossible to say, way too many variables and its likely it did not matter but that is not the point. Mueller's job is to investigate links between those attacks and the Trump campaign of which there seemed to be many odd coincidences not least of which being that the president preferred to attack america itself rather than to attack Putin. Of course there was also going to be investigations into the Tower meeting and Flynn meeting and it is also worth mentioning Flynn is pleading guilty because he is guilty. He lied to the FBI about it and there is no workaround and it is completely standard for them to use that to get a deal. An investigation into this was always going to revolve around money which unfortunately for Trump is a big problem considering he has historically had some lets be kind and say controversial ties to Russian money going back decades which is most likely the reason he wanted to fire Mueller before it got to this point because there was most likely no colluding for the assistance that Russia provided but once the investigation turned to money that becomes a lot harder to cover up. Is this what it's like half-assing a response? I am content to wait and see. No matter what though, I maintain that Trump will not be impeached and removed unless there was some form of collusion or conspiracy.
There pretty clearly was collusion/conspiracy. (un)Fortunately, obstruction and money-laundering are far easier to get Donnie Moscow on. The conspiracy question won't be answered until he is already removed from office. Probably not until after midterms, as the Republican party has no spine anymore. Although the situation devolving into violence in the streets might do it. I'm a pessimist in case you couldn't tell. I see that happening 100%.
|
I really do not understand that point of view given that Nixon was effectively removed from office for obstruction of justice. Again, success is not necessary to be charged. If Trump did the things he claimed to have done, for the reasons he said he did, there is a very clear case that he used his office to undermine the investigation into his election campaign and its links to Russia.
For contrast, previous presidents and FBI directors avoid being in the same room or meetings to avoid even the hint that the president might be influencing an investigation. Any investigation. Members of the Justice department would avoid calls from or speaking with the president for the same reason. That is the perceived influence and power of the office up to this point. And it was the practice before Trump came along and decided to invite directors to dinner and ask acting directors who they voted for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
