Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[Steve]

If they are not presenting me with the evidence Because they don't think I need to see it, then the skeptical position is to not be convinced by their claims. It is that simple.

Bob, you really do need to understand that your belief, or otherwise, of the claims has absolutely zero relevance to the investigators. You go right ahead being skeptical and they will go right ahead investigating and indicting as they see fit. If and when your opinion becomes crucial to them I am sure they will seek you out. I expect everyone here is looking forward to one day seeing a Trump tweet - "BobTheCoward's opinion is FAKE NEWS"[!!!/I]

 

[Fudbucker]

Stop it.

Just report him. This person adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Bob, you really do need to understand that your belief, or otherwise, of the claims has absolutely zero relevance to the investigators. You go right ahead being skeptical and they will go right ahead investigating and indicting as they see fit. If and when your opinion becomes crucial to them I am sure they will seek you out. I expect everyone here is looking forward to one day seeing a Trump tweet - "BobTheCoward's opinion is FAKE NEWS"[!!!/I]

I never said it had any relevance to the investigators.

 

[Sabrina]

None of the guilty please arising out of Russia (nor for that matter will any of today's indictments result in guilty pleas or verdicts)

Wasn't speaking to you; please stay out of this conversation.

I'm unconvinced by nearly every indictment and conviction (and aquittal) in history.

Wow. So just because YOU haven't seen the evidence for them makes every indictment, conviction, and aquittal in the history of the FBI, or any law enforcement agency, invalid?

Do you even understand how law enforcement works in this country?

 

[The Big Dog]

I corrected my post to say "Obama IMposed." Of course he imposed, not opposed, sanctions.

And at at least one of those meetings, Obama lectured Putin and told him to "cut it out." Nobody is expecting Trump to do the same.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/obama-putin-hacking-news-conference.html

You sure?

During a recent Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing held to review the Obama and Trump administrations’ policy response to Russian election interference, Michael Daniel, the cybersecurity czar for former President Obama, confirmed to Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) that former national security advisor Susan Rice issued a “stand down” order in August 2016 in response to Russian cyber-attacks during the 2016 presidential campaign.

https://ratcliffe.house.gov/media-c...swers-obama-administration-s-stand-down-order

 

[acbytesla]

Sure it does.

Before the Daniels thing came out, people were saying that the pee tape couldn't be credible because Trump was shameless and therefore couldn't be blackmailed over having hookers in in room, or having them pee on the bed. Now the Daniels thing has come out we know that there are things of a sexual nature that Trump is susceptible to blackmail over. This means that the objection that he couldn't be blackmailed over the pee tape is less credible.

Trump cares deeply what people think about him. I don't think he minds if people think that he's a playboy who has had affairs, but he cares if people think he's a freak or that he's weak. Nobody seems to overcompensate more than this guy. This guy has gone on and on about the size of his hands because he's worried that people might think he has a tiny penis. Hates to be referred to as a baby. Won't let a single insult or attack pass without responding.

I also don't think that Trump wants anyone to think he has to resort to paying for it...even though that is what he does.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Wasn't speaking to you; please stay out of this conversation.



Wow. So just because YOU haven't seen the evidence for them makes every indictment, conviction, and aquittal in the history of the FBI, or any law enforcement agency, invalid?

Do you even understand how law enforcement works in this country?

Where did I say it invalidated anything? Saying I'm unconvinced doesn't imply I support the opposite position.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wasn't speaking to you; please stay out of this conversation.

I'm sorry, did you have some basis to quibble with the facts I brought forward?

You know, how none of the 5 guilty please you mentioned were related to Russia and how many of the indictments are absolutely worthless because they were returned against people outside the jurisdiction of the United states??

 

[Sabrina]

Where did I say it invalidated anything? Saying I'm unconvinced doesn't imply I support the opposite position.

Actually, it really does. Hence the reason I and multiple other people in this thread have pointed out that your disbelief in the results of the indictment is immaterial to the outcome. Saying you don't believe in the results of something by default implies that you actually believe the opposite of the result, at the very least.

Perhaps next time be a bit more careful with your wording and people won't make assumptions.

 

[Fudbucker]

Why would we hold her to a different standard than Obama ??

I was unaware Russia hacked the RNC to help Obama win an election.

 

[Sabrina]

I'm sorry, did you have some basis to quibble with the facts I brought forward?

You know, how none of the 5 guilty please you mentioned were related to Russia and how many of the indictments are absolutely worthless because they were returned against people outside the jurisdiction of the United states??

1. Every single one of those indictments came out of an investigation into Russian meddling in a U.S. election, so to say they had nothing to do with Russia is stupid on the face of it.

2. We indicted bin Laden and he was outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. We do that sort of thing all the time. It's a way to let the rest of the world know that this person has done something that violated the laws of the United States and, if they are caught in a country with an extradition treaty, allows for them to be returned to face trial.

And now I'm done talking to you, because you're going to utterly ignore the facts anyway.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Actually, it really does. Hence the reason I and multiple other people in this thread have pointed out that your disbelief in the results of the indictment is immaterial to the outcome. Saying you don't believe in the results of something by default implies that you actually believe the opposite of the result, at the very least.

Perhaps next time be a bit more careful with your wording and people won't make assumptions.

This is simply skepticism 101. I'm simply not asserting the other position. I simply don't know.

ETA: do I honestly have to post the even odd gumball analogy?

 

[Stacyhs]

Because among about 100 reasons, one of them told governmental investigators that they were using their government phones to hide their disgraceful lies from their loved ones.

How deep does the betrayal go?

Sad

I'm curious; does Trump's cheating on all three of his wives engender such moral outrage in you? Or would that only happen if Trump had used a government phone to set up his "tawdry" affairs? If so, you'd be A-OK with Trump having a fling in the Oval Office as long as he didn't use his government phone to call the woman?

 

[The Big Dog]

I was unaware Russia hacked the RNC to help Obama win an election.

Yeah, Hilldawg didn't win either. someone proposed a hypothetical, and I pointed out that here in the real world Obama met with Putin after he knew about the "hacking."

 

[Aridas]

what does Trump's alleged affair have to do with this thread, nothing.

What does Strzok/Page repeated assignations, misfeasance, malfeasance, extraordinary bias and circumvention of the chain of command at the FBI have to do with it?

Everything.

Two guesses what the Leftists want to focus on?

Fantastic

An amusing way to run away from the battles that you can't win. We're left with the fact that your "standards" shift in amazing ways from person to person and the fact that you're seemingly unable to distinguish fact from the nonsensical caricature of the "left" that you've been suckered into believing.

I thought it was the MacGuffin that motivates the leftists...

or perhaps an alleged tryst with Russian prostitutes where Trump watched the deed.

Such a fine joke! You were trying to say something utterly inane, right? Right?

 

[The Big Dog]

An amusing way to run away from the battles that you can't win. We're left with the fact that your "standards" shift in amazing ways from person to person and the fact that you're seemingly unable to distinguish fact from the nonsensical caricature of the "left" that you've been suckered into believing.

What does that have to do with Strzok/Page repeated assignations, misfeasance, malfeasance, extraordinary bias and circumvention of the chain of command at the FBI???

 

[Fudbucker]

Yeah, Hilldawg didn't win either. someone proposed a hypothetical, and I pointed out that here in the real world Obama met with Putin after he knew about the "hacking."

And you missed the obvious point that Russians did not hack us in an attempt to install Obama, nor did Obama ever go out of his way to praise Putin at every opportunity.

I would have no problem with Trump sitting down with Putin had the Russians NOT tried to help Trump get elected, had Trump NOT excessively praised Putin, and had Trump NOT fought tooth-and-nail against the fact that Russia hacked us.

I shouldn't have to point this out.

 

[The Big Dog]

And you missed the obvious point that Russians did not hack us in an attempt to install Obama, nor did Obama ever go out of his way to praise Putin at every opportunity.

I would have no problem with Trump sitting down with Putin had the Russians NOT tried to help Trump get elected, had Trump NOT excessively praised Putin, and had Trump NOT fought tooth-and-nail against the fact that Russia hacked us.

I shouldn't have to point this out.

And it seems that you have no problem with Obama meeting with Putin after he knew the Russians "hacked" the DNC.

 

[Aridas]

What does that have to do with Strzok/Page repeated assignations, misfeasance, malfeasance, extraordinary bias and circumvention of the chain of command at the FBI???

Given your history, first of all, that your accusations are untrustworthy without outside support. When we actually look at the evidence at hand, both a couple of those accusations and the picture that you're trying to paint fall apart and you are shown to be, at best, a sucker.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And it seems that you have no problem with Obama meeting with Putin after he knew the Russians "hacked" the DNC.

Did I miss the posts where people said they had no problem with it?