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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
Why did Bill Clinton try to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky? The affair was legal.

The answer is obvious: sometimes perfectly legal things are embarrassing. Did you seriously not consider that possibility? Because if you did, then this is a bad faith argument, and if you didn't, you should be embarrassed for missing this rather prosaic possibility.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to picture Trump being embarrassed about anything and it's just not coming to me. Is it possibly because the man has no shame? Or maybe it's my Trump U degree?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Why did Bill Clinton try to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky? The affair was legal.

The answer is obvious: sometimes perfectly legal things are embarrassing. Did you seriously not consider that possibility? Because if you did, then this is a bad faith argument, and if you didn't, you should be embarrassed for missing this rather prosaic possibility.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is obvious: he was married.
 
Ziggurat said:
Legally speaking, what does that even mean? And how exactly do you think it's different than what Steele did?
Click to expand...

You're right that that is a list of all the crimes the Trump team apparently committed, rather than limited to just the Trump Tower meeting. But, for example, Computer Crimes (Espionage) fits for soliciting stolen emails for political gain.
 
Trump Tweeted

"Jenna Ellis “FBI thought they wouldn’t get caught because they thought that Hillary was going to win. There is overt bias and that depends on whether you are Democrat or Republican - a double standard that needs to stop.”"
 
Well he is technically correct about the last part but only due to his amazing powers of projection.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You're right that that is a list of all the crimes the Trump team apparently committed, rather than limited to just the Trump Tower meeting. But, for example, Computer Crimes (Espionage) fits for soliciting stolen emails for political gain.
Click to expand...

No. This had nothing to do with the DNC hack. The dirt was allegedly about Clinton deals with Russians. Such dirt, if it exists, would never have been on the DNC server, and so could not have been obtained by hacking the DNC.
 
smartcooky said:
... and it was the cover-up that got him into trouble per-se
Click to expand...

I know that. And you're still missing the point, which is that the existence of a lie does not prove that the matter lied about was illegal.

In Clinton's case, his lie to the grand jury was illegal. His lie to the press was not. The Trump campaign can only get in legal trouble for lying about the meeting if those lies are to specific people in specific contexts. I have seen no evidence presented that such occurred.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
An example but not an analogy? Seriously, that's where you're going with this?
Click to expand...

Not all examples are analogies. That's why we have a different word for it. That wasn't supposed to be a parallel for what happened with the Trump campaign, therefore it cannot be an analogy for what happened with the Trump campaign.

And you have merely demonstrated again that you aren't good at reading comprehension.

That is how one uses satire to make a point.

:cool:
Click to expand...

You're not good with satire either.
 
smartcooky said:
The essence of conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to engage in some form of prohibited conduct. The crime is complete upon agreement
Click to expand...

And was any agreement reached at the meeting? From all reports I've seen, no. Which means that even if the conduct in question was prohibited (which isn't a given), it still wouldn't qualify as a crime in this case.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. This had nothing to do with the DNC hack. The dirt was allegedly about Clinton deals with Russians. Such dirt, if it exists, would never have been on the DNC server, and so could not have been obtained by hacking the DNC.
Click to expand...

Do you have a citation for that?
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Do you have a citation for that?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the email exchanges with Trump Jr. which set up the meetings.

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

If such information existed (not a given), then it wouldn't have been on the DNC server, because Hillary wouldn't have gone through the DNC to do any such dealings. Furthermore, if such information existed (again, not a given), then the Russian government could have obtained it legally through the Russian side of any such dealings. There is no indication that the information on offer was obtained illegally.
 
Ziggurat said:
And was any agreement reached at the meeting? From all reports I've seen, no. Which means that even if the conduct in question was prohibited (which isn't a given), it still wouldn't qualify as a crime in this case.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't Trump (Sr and Jr), Manafort, etc. agreeing amongst themselves to indulge in illegal behaviour be enough? And the meeting is evidence that they engaged in this crime?

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, the email exchanges with Trump Jr. which set up the meetings.

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

If such information existed (not a given), then it wouldn't have been on the DNC server, because Hillary wouldn't have gone through the DNC to do any such dealings. Furthermore, if such information existed (again, not a given), then the Russian government could have obtained it legally through the Russian side of any such dealings. There is no indication that the information on offer was obtained illegally.
Click to expand...

That's a citation that it was about that information. It's not a citation that the meeting had "nothing to do with the DNC hack."
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, the email exchanges with Trump Jr. which set up the meetings.

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

If such information existed (not a given), then it wouldn't have been on the DNC server, because Hillary wouldn't have gone through the DNC to do any such dealings. Furthermore, if such information existed (again, not a given), then the Russian government could have obtained it legally through the Russian side of any such dealings. There is no indication that the information on offer was obtained illegally.
Click to expand...

Just from what we already know, the Russians were offering TrumpCo a "thing of value" with the hope of getting sanctions relief, and TrumpCo met with them to discuss it. That is solicitation, and it doesn't even matter whether or not the dirt actually existed or how it was obtained, or that TrumpCo didn't think the dirt was worth the price. We don't even know about that last one, since there's no reason to believe TrumpCo's fifth version of what happened. What we do know is that he dictated a lie about that meeting; that there were numerous other secret contacts; that after the election, Trump tried very hard to find ways to lift the sanctions without Congressional action; that he delayed implementing new ones until he was pressured; and that his pattern of kissing Putin's ass includes betraying America's intelligence agencies, Department of Justice and free press in Helsinki.

You should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to defend this, but like Trump himself, the Party of Trump is completely shameless. That is why it must be burned to the ground.
 
Amazer said:
Wouldn't Trump (Sr and Jr), Manafort, etc. agreeing amongst themselves to indulge in illegal behaviour be enough?
Click to expand...

They agreed to listen to the Russians. I don't see how you can criminalize listening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom