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

[Fudbucker]

Because it is embarrassing regardless of the nature of the meeting seems like an easy defense.

So Trump knew of the meeting, and is embarrassed by it, and that's why he's lying?

So what is he so embarrassed about? He just tweeted "This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics—and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!”

That is not someone who's embarrassed. Your answer isn't plausible.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So Trump knew of the meeting, and is embarrassed by it, and that's why he's lying?

So what is he so embarrassed about? He just tweeted "This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics—and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!”

That is not someone who's embarrassed. Your answer isn't plausible.

Because lying no longer hides the embarrassment, that involves changing strategies.

Your argument is equivalent of asking, "why did they do a run play one first down?"

"Because they thought it would gain more yards."

"But they ran a passing play on second down. Your answer isn't plausible."

Different time, different down

 

[acbytesla]

What does the meeting change if it is information that can be given out? What if is documents that can be obtained via the Russian equivalent of the FOIA? What is the crime it is conspiracy to commit?

I'm done responding to your posts Bob. I think your posts are willfully moronic. This isn't the Socratic method your engaging in, it's sophistry. There is a difference.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm done responding to your posts Bob. I think your posts are willfully moronic. This isn't the Socratic method your engaging in, it's sophistry. There is a difference.

I'm just trying to clarify if your position is that there does not exist a sensitive Russian document that providing it to the campaign would not be a violation of election law. Or is your position that they could not reasonably have suspected it was the benign documents.

 

[Ziggurat]

That isn't what Sally Yates is saying

She isn't credible on the matter.

 

[Fudbucker]

She isn't credible on the matter.

I'm sorry, I LOL'd and spit out a little beer. Seriously, I really did.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm sorry, I LOL'd and spit out a little beer. Seriously, I really did.

That's nice, but Occam's razor points to her firing for insubordination on the travel ban. Anything else is unsupported speculation. And the propensity liberals have for damning people on the basis of speculated motives is one of their worst qualities.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm just trying to clarify if your position is that there does not exist a sensitive Russian document that providing it to the campaign would not be a violation of election law. Or is your position that they could not reasonably have suspected it was the benign documents.

It doesnt matter. Don Jr. clearly thought through the email that he was going to get high level sensitive documents proving Hillary Clinton corruption from the Russian government and he, his brother in law and the Campaign manager were meeting with a bunch of Russians to discuss with them the receipt of those documents. That IS CONSPIRACY! It's also treasonous.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It doesnt matter. Don Jr. clearly thought through the email that he was going to get high level sensitive documents proving Hillary Clinton corruption from the Russian government and he, his brother in law and the Campaign manager were meeting with a bunch of Russians to discuss with them the receipt of those documents. That IS CONSPIRACY! It's also treasonous.

Why would sensitive documents be a crime?

ETA: I know this has been gone over generally. But I am specifically fixating on this idea of sensitive documents. Do you mean because they are things of value?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Further, i meant there is an incredibly easy defense to the email exchange and Trump's statement..."we interpreted the message as legally obtainable information "

Doesn't cut it. Too much other evidence like hiding the meeting then lying about it.

 

[quadraginta]

This is like arguing that since you can't legally threaten to kill someone, the first amendment doesn't actually protect speech. Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue?

Not a particularly convincing evasion. I've seen you do much better.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which goes back to the conversation with Kellyb. Is there any speech activity a foreign national can engage in? If it is personal experience with the subject, can they not share it?

This isn't about free speech. Zig is pushing a theory no one else is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Uh, no. Trump fired Yates for refusing to support his travel ban policy. It had nothing to do with Flynn.

Right, and he fired Comey for how Comey handled the Clinton investigation.

However, in Yate's case, defying the travel ban was also a reason.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Doesn't cut it. Too much other evidence like hiding the meeting then lying about it.

Why wouldn't "we were embarrassed by it but not covering up a crime" be a sufficient excuse?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why wouldn't "we were embarrassed by it but not covering up a crime" be a sufficient excuse?

Because that isn't credible. Trump embarrassed? His snotty spoiled son embarrassed? No, not the least bit credible.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This isn't about free speech. Zig is pushing a theory no one else is.

I'm actually asking what the boundary would be.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Because that isn't credible. Trump embarrassed? His snotty spoiled son embarrassed? No, not the least bit credible.

Is there an actual trial example of a prosecutor arguing that the defendant is not capable of embarrassment? That seems like a hard thing to do.

ETA might be a dumb question

 

[acbytesla]

Why would sensitive documents be a crime?

ETA: I know this has been gone over generally. But I am specifically fixating on this idea of sensitive documents. Do you mean because they are things of value?

Doh! They are also from a hostile foreign government as part of that government's effort to elect a US President. In itself a felony. Meeting with them to further that effort is conspiring with that foreign government. Isn't this so bloody obvious that it doesn't require an explanation?

 

[acbytesla]

Is there an actual trial example of a prosecutor arguing that the defendant is not capable of embarrassment? That seems like a hard thing to do.

ETA might be a dumb question

You think? Does Trump seem capable of embarrassment to you? That's the question. Is embarrassment as an excuse on this subject really sound likely? And don't ask for clarification. This is a question you or what a juror would ask themselves.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You think? Does Trump seem capable of embarrassment to you? That's the question. Is embarrassment as an excuse on this subject really sound likely? And don't ask for clarification. This is a question you or what a juror would ask themselves.

As a juror, I wouldn't ask myself. I would have to rely on the information presented by the prosecutor. So, the prosecutor would have to make the argument that the person isn't capable of embarrassment.