Russiagate

[turtlespeed 212]

38 minutes ago, yoink said:

Couldn't you accept that it might be both?

I am open to consider it - this was a while ago - what is it in reference to?

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, normiss said:

You still need a reading comprehension skill.

 

That's the best retort you have?

An attempt to insult me?

Shame.

[yoink 321]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

I am open to consider it - this was a while ago - what is it in reference to?

Yeah - this new quote system needs some work.

 

A while ago Bill said: "Update - now over 800 former federal prosecutors have signed the letter making it clear that Trump obstructed justice to try to hide his misdeeds."

You rightly replied that it might be politically motivated.

 

That people are speaking out about something is probably mostly politically motivated. You wouldn't get 800 professional prosecutors speaking out if it was about someone less notorious. BUT, that doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of their statement.

Either there was obstruction of justice according to law, or there wasn't. 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

9 minutes ago, yoink said:

Yeah - this new quote system needs some work.

 

A while ago Bill said: "Update - now over 800 former federal prosecutors have signed the letter making it clear that Trump obstructed justice to try to hide his misdeeds."

You rightly replied that it might be politically motivated.

 

That people are speaking out about something is probably mostly politically motivated. You wouldn't get 800 professional prosecutors speaking out if it was about someone less notorious. BUT, that doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of their statement.

Either there was obstruction of justice according to law, or there wasn't. 

 

OK - I see where you are with this.

I believe that the signators, indeed, believe their statements.

Here is why: In my very limited knowledge of the law, just about any law can be argued.  In my very limited experience, you can be indicted for just about anything as well. (More of a belief than of fact)

I think that the petition more closely resembles a wish.  If there is ANY possibility that the petition could get the case to be heard, or even entertained by a grand jury, the political backlash would be unprecedented.  I believe this is the goal of the petition.

 

[yoink 321]

45 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

OK - I see where you are with this.

I believe that the signators, indeed, believe their statements.

Here is why: In my very limited knowledge of the law, just about any law can be argued.  In my very limited experience, you can be indicted for just about anything as well. (More of a belief than of fact)

I think that the petition more closely resembles a wish.  If there is ANY possibility that the petition could get the case to be heard, or even entertained by a grand jury, the political backlash would be unprecedented.  I believe this is the goal of the petition.

 

Fair enough. I appreciate the reply.

I agree that there always seems to be some avenue for argument in law, so this petition representing a belief of an interpretation is a fair comment.

I think that at some point for an individual an external situation has to sway from ‘that’s just a couple of guys wishing something’ to ‘wow, a LOT of people are saying this - maybe there’s something to it’.

If their belief aligns with yours the critical number to reach that mental tipping point will be very low, and vice versa if you hold a different position. I think that there are some people in here for whom that number will approach infinity though... 

 

 

At this point I’m almost less concerned about impeachment (not that I was ever for it) or prosecution than a clear answer so that maybe next time SOME Trump supporters might get behind someone else.

I have no problem with a Republican being president. I DO have an issue with a proven mass liar and potential criminal being re-elected. I think conservative voters deserve a better option.

Edited May 30, 2019 by yoink

[turtlespeed 212]

16 minutes ago, yoink said:

Fair enough. I appreciate the reply.

I agree that there always seems to be some avenue for argument in law, so this petition representing a belief of an interpretation is a fair comment.

I think that at some point for an individual an external situation has to sway from ‘that’s just a couple of guys wishing something’ to ‘wow, a LOT of people are saying this - maybe there’s something to it’.

If their belief aligns with yours the critical number to reach that mental tipping point will be very low, and vice versa if you hold a different position. I think that there are some people in here for whom that number will approach infinity though... 

 

 

At this point I’m almost less concerned about impeachment (not that I was ever for it) or prosecution than a clear answer so that maybe next time SOME Trump supporters might get behind someone else.

I have no problem with a Republican being president. I DO have an issue with a proven mass liar and potential criminal being re-elected. I think conservative voters deserve a better option.

We are of the same mind in all of that.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

3 hours ago, normiss said:

We're told a sitting President can't be charged with a crime.

According to who?

Has this been determined in a court of law?

Does a "memo" stand up in court?

I say arrest Trump and let it play out from there.

Hi Mark,

I agree.  I have never read where it has been determined by any court in our land that a Pres. cannot be charged with a crime.  Just because I have never read this does not make it true.

It seems to be like the big lie:  Keep saying & eventually people consider it the truth; shades of the Third Reich.

Jerry Baumchen

[Stumpy 256]

OK so he has admitted today that Russia did help him get elected, in a particularly unhinged set of tweets.

[TriGirl 268]

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 11:14 AM, gowlerk said:

Yes, nothing new. NPR is hammering away on the point that charging Trump was never an option. We already knew that, but Mueller seems to have emphasized it.

 

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 11:20 AM, gowlerk said:

Maybe someday. But unlikely, former POTUSi are golden.  Edit to add:

 

'If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

  Robert Mueller, May 29, 2019

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 12:21 PM, Coreece said:

That was in the original report, so nothing new.

The difference is out of whose mouth the words came.  Sure, Mr. Mueller wrote them in his report, but fewer than 1% of people actually read it.  Media outlets reported these facts, but we know how the media has been criticized these past few years. The only official voice has been the AG, who has repeatedly lied about the findings in the report.  Therefore, it needed to be heard in Mueller's own voice, making him the unequivocal source of the conclusion.  There is no disputing that these are the findings, regardless of what Mr. Barr says (in fact, the contradictory and propagandizing statements by the AG now can be used as grounds for his impeachment, should Congress decide to hold him to conventional standards). 

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Barr said that DOJ guidelines did not prevent Mueller from charging Trump.

Mueller says DOJ guidelines prevented him from charging Trump.

Who should be believed?

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, TriGirl said:

On 5/29/2019 at 3:20 PM, gowlerk said:

On 5/29/2019 at 4:21 PM, Coreece said:

That was in the original report, so nothing new.

The difference is out of whose mouth the words came.  Sure, Mr. Mueller wrote them in his report, but fewer than 1% of people actually read it.  Media outlets reported these facts, but we know how the media has been criticized these past few years. The only official voice has been the AG, who has repeatedly lied about the findings in the report.  Therefore, it needed to be heard in Mueller's own voice, making him the unequivocal source of the conclusion.  There is no disputing that these are the findings, regardless of what Mr. Barr says (in fact, the contradictory and propagandizing statements by the AG now can be used as grounds for his impeachment, should Congress decide to hold him to conventional standards). 

He just did this hoping it would get the dems off his back about testifying.

[rushmc 18]

The fun stuffs coming!

[lippy 771]

1 hour ago, rushmc said:

The fun stuffs coming!

If you keep saying it long enough, one of these days it'll come true!

[kallend 1,623]

10 hours ago, rushmc said:

The fun stuffs coming!

 Aesop's Fables, number 210

[normiss 622]

The government office that oversees compliance with the Hatch Act has recommended that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway be removed from federal service.

This office has never before made such a recommendation for a White House official.

[rushmc 18]

You guys are so sucked in by the media it's hilarious to watch

 

[kallend 1,623]

It is indeed sad the way "the media" use Trump's own words to illustrate his inability to tell the truth, and remarkable ability to contradict himself, often within minutes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/only-a-very-stable-genius-could-make-sense-of-trumps-self-contradictions/2019/06/17/e4272ea0-9144-11e9-aadb-74e6b2b46f6a_story.html?utm_term=.b55bc9f90391&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

Edited June 18, 2019 by kallend

[billvon 2,398]

To sum up the notes from that article:

Trump claimed the NYT committed a “virtual act of Treason” by reporting on a U.S. cyber campaign against Russia.  Then seconds later he said “ALSO, NOT TRUE!”  So it's not true, but it's true and treasonous.

Polls showed Trump trailing Biden.  Trump immediately claimed “Those polls don’t exist.”  Then he fired the people who created the polls he said didn't exist.

Trump called Bob Woodward a writer of "fiction."  None of what he wrote was true.  Then he attacked his aides for leaking to Woodward.

Trump says he wouldn't tell the FBI if a foreign country gave him dirt on an opponent.  Then he said "perhaps" he would.  Then he said "of course" he would.  Then he said “Russia did not help me get elected.”.  Then he said “I had nothing to do with Russia helping me get elected.” 

And of course when the Mueller report came out he claimed that the comprehensive report fully vindicated and exonerated him.  Then he claimed that the report was "total bullshit" "fabricated" and "pure political garbage."  So his vindication was total bullshit.

Trump claimed "MEXICO IS PAYING FOR THE WALL.”   A few minutes later, he blamed Democrats for not paying for the wall.

Truly he has a dizzying intellect.

[normiss 622]

A dizzying something, that's for sure. Intellect? Highly doubtful.

[billvon 2,398]

2 minutes ago, normiss said:

A dizzying something, that's for sure. Intellect? Highly doubtful.

You missed a Princess Bride quote?  For shame!

[ryoder 1,384]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

You missed a Princess Bride quote?  For shame!

I didn't recall it, but there it is.

[normiss 622]

2 hours ago, ryoder said:

I didn't recall it, but there it is.

Nor did I, but I never really "got" that movie like so many others did.

[ryoder 1,384]

Exclusive: Security reports reveal how Assange turned an embassy into a command post for election meddling

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html

[turtlespeed 212]

9 hours ago, ryoder said:

Exclusive: Security reports reveal how Assange turned an embassy into a command post for election meddling

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html

Did he have anyone in particular he was backing?

[mr2mk1g 10]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Did he have anyone in particular he was backing?

You didn't read it did you?