Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cabbage said:
Not really sure why you're having a hard time with this:

It's a fact they lied. Hence, probable cause.

QED
Click to expand...
The Great Zaganza said:
If there was nothing to hide, why did Trump dictate his son's statement and then lied about it?
Plenty of probable cause.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
No, the Republicans made no secret of this. If you missed it, it's because you deliberately ignored it.

What does that say about your convictions?
Click to expand...

P.J. Denyer said:
It's not over until the fat lady convicted co-conspiritor sings.
Click to expand...
You can't argue with someone after the talking-points-memo has adhered to the brain.
 
Last edited:
River said:
The point I'm trying to make is: Nothing you linked ties this to Trump personally.
Click to expand...

P-dop, who was involved with the Trump campaign, tells a third party he has knowledge of Russians having possession of illegally obtained emails from Hillary. It doesn't take any imagination to wonder if this knowledge, possessed by a Trump campaign team member, implicates the Trump campaign. Hence: Probable cause for an investigation.

Let me ask you a question: Australia's ambassador contacts US authorities on what P-dop told him. Doesn't this knowledge *obligate* them to discover if a candidate for the highest office in the country is involved in illegal activity? How do YOU think US authorities should have responded to this knowledge?

Remember, the threshold for beginning an investigation is "probable cause", not "proof". You keep using the word "proof" as if that is the threshold for beginning an investigation. That is simply laughable: Under your criteria, the only conditions under which an investigation is merited is when you have PROOF, meaning an investigation is unnecessary to begin with. LOL
 
Cabbage said:
P-dop, who was involved with the Trump campaign, tells a third party he has knowledge of Russians having possession of illegally obtained emails from Hillary. It doesn't take any imagination to wonder if this knowledge, possessed by a Trump campaign team member, implicates the Trump campaign. Hence: Probable cause for an investigation.

Let me ask you a question: Australia's ambassador contacts US authorities on what P-dop told him. Doesn't this knowledge *obligate* them to discover if a candidate for the highest office in the country is involved in illegal activity? How do YOU think US authorities should have responded to this knowledge?

Remember, the threshold for beginning an investigation is "probable cause", not "proof". You keep using the word "proof" as if that is the threshold for beginning an investigation. That is simply laughable: Under your criteria, the only conditions under which an investigation is merited is when you have PROOF, meaning an investigation is unnecessary to begin with. LOL
Click to expand...

It. Takes. More. Than. Suspicion.

;)
 
I have to keep reminding the Trump cultists that just because Mueller hasn't *yet* dropped charges or issued a report on Trump and or the Campaign does *not* mean there exists *no* evidence of a conspiracy. After all, Mueller has indicted a passel of Putinists for interference in the 2016 election, and we know the Trump Campaign was connecting with Russkies and lying out both sides of their mouths about it.

Hell, even the AG, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the traitor elf, had to recuse himself from all things Russia because he was caught out lying about his meetings with Ambassador Kislyak while a Trump surrogate, under questioning during his freaking confirmation hearing!

Around the entire Trump Campaign, whenever a tree is shaken a Russian falls out.

Remember as well; we're all several steps/months behind Mueller because he runs a tight ship. (Unlike the freak show that is the Trump White House, where the schizophrenic boot-lickers cum back-stabbers are tripping over each other in their haste to leak everything. Due to the warranted lack of trust Dear Leader instills.)
 
Remember how long the Starr investigation went? As well as all the tangents it went off on?

I certainly do.
 
River said:
It. Takes. More. Than. Suspicion.

;)
Click to expand...

You. Keep. Using. That. Word. In. A. Different. Way. Than. It. Is. Used. Here:

Probable cause is a reasonable belief that a person has committed or will commit a crime. For probable cause to exist, a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of facts to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime. The belief must be based on factual evidence, not just on suspicion
Click to expand...

The belief (a crime has been committed by the Trump campaign) is based on the factual evidence that P-dop was running his mouth about knowledge indicative of a crime. No suspicion involved. The belief is based on factual evidence, not suspicion.

Now, it is not improper to label that belief in and of itself a suspicion, but it is not based on just suspicion.

Seriously, what part of "factual evidence" (note: *Proof* is not needed) do you think is missing in this scenario?

And are you too much of a coward to give an honest answer to the question I posed?

Let me ask you a question: Australia's ambassador contacts US authorities on what P-dop told him. Doesn't this knowledge *obligate* them to discover if a candidate for the highest office in the country is involved in illegal activity? How do YOU think US authorities should have responded to this knowledge?
Click to expand...

That avoidance of the question, in and of itself, tells me that you're afraid it will expose the flaw in your position.
 
River said:
It. Takes. More. Than. Suspicion.

;)
Click to expand...
Let's see where these words fall on a continuum:

0) No evidence at all ------ 1) suspicion -------- 2) probable cause to investigate -------- 3) probable cause for a warrant -------- 4) probable cause to file charges ------- 5) proof

For Trump specifically, Mueller is at least at 2, and for the rest of the top Trump campaign staff, Mueller is between 2 and 5.

Now of course Mueller may very well have a lot more on Trump than has been revealed to the public.

Bottom line, you really should stop claiming no evidence, everyone that isn't swayed by Trump's propaganda campaign knows better.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Let's see where these words fall on a continuum:

0) No evidence at all ------ 1) suspicion -------- 2) probable cause to investigate -------- 3) probable cause for a warrant -------- 4) probable cause to file charges ------- 5) proof

For Trump specifically, Mueller is at least at 2, and for the rest of the top Trump campaign staff, Mueller is between 2 and 5.

Now of course Mueller may very well have a lot more on Trump than has been revealed to the public.

Bottom line, you really should stop claiming no evidence, everyone that isn't swayed by Trump's propaganda campaign knows better.
Click to expand...


Dare I say if Trump comes out of this Mueller fiasco (and it is one) without being impeached or convicted, liberal heads are going to explode everywhere. The hopes seem so high, yet all of it rides on maybes.

I suspect the next few weeks will bring some interesting documents to the American people. Get ready for the show, and cheap explanations.
 
Stacko said:
Remember that ginned up outrage over Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac?
Click to expand...

It's not really quite the same. Trump is Rosenstein's boss and surely has reason for a private conversation with him. Now, it should be off-limits to discuss the investigation, and Trump surely could have crossed a line (hard to imagine he didn't, honestly.)

Clinton's visit with Lynch had no formal reason at all. It was allegedly a purely friendly visit, and this might be so, but it gave a bad appearance. It was unnecessary and simply looked bad.

I simply can't be upset with Trump flying with Rosenstein, unless news comes out that he discussed cases involving his associates and himself. I'm not particularly upset with Clinton, but the visit was a matter of poor judgment at best. Again, if the conversation crossed a line for Clinton/Lynch, then I would be upset.
 
River said:
Dare I say if Trump comes out of this Mueller fiasco (and it is one) without being impeached or convicted, liberal heads are going to explode everywhere. The hopes seem so high, yet all of it rides on maybes.

I suspect the next few weeks will bring some interesting documents to the American people. Get ready for the show, and cheap explanations.
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm not expecting Trump to be impeached (at least, not yet) and I was skeptical at the outset that anyone would be convicted of anything. Not that I didn't think there was no there there, I just thought Trump had plausible deniability (in the last few weeks I'm less sure of Trump's position). So all this is gravy to me.
 
Elagabalus said:
Not really. I'm not expecting Trump to be impeached (at least, not yet) and I was skeptical at the outset that anyone would be convicted of anything. Not that I didn't think there was no there there, I just thought Trump had plausible deniability (in the last few weeks I'm less sure of Trump's position). So all this is gravy to me.
Click to expand...

This, plus even if overwhelming evidence came out showing Trump not only knew but was active in criminal activities the GOP would still control the Senate and they are just his minions at this point.

His base would ignore any evidence of criminal activities and would be braced for it given his unending whinings about “witch hunts”.
 
River said:
Dare I say if Trump comes out of this Mueller fiasco (and it is one) without being impeached or convicted, liberal heads are going to explode everywhere. The hopes seem so high, yet all of it rides on maybes.

I suspect the next few weeks will bring some interesting documents to the American people. Get ready for the show, and cheap explanations.
Click to expand...

You are conflating two things: One, will there be evidence Trump is a crook, and/or he conspired with the rest of them to use Russian assistance to get elected?

I think the stars pretty clearly point to yes.

And two, will he be impeached? Unless we get 60 Democratic Senators next month, something unlikely to happen, he won't be. We all know that. No surprise, no heart break, Pence is not much better as a POTUS anyway.
 
Prediction - Mueller's results will be Trump's involvement in anything with Russia was indeed a hoax, just like Trump has said all along.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Prediction - Mueller's results will be Trump's involvement in anything with Russia was indeed a hoax, just like Trump has said all along.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
River said:
Dare I say if Trump comes out of this Mueller fiasco (and it is one) without being impeached or convicted, liberal heads are going to explode everywhere. The hopes seem so high, yet all of it rides on maybes.

I suspect the next few weeks will bring some interesting documents to the American people. Get ready for the show, and cheap explanations.
Click to expand...

Fiascos don't result in indictments, prosecutions and convictions; Mueller's investigation has DIRECTLY lead to a very large number of these, and has well and truly paid for itself with punitive confiscation of millions of dollars in assets.

The only reason Trump won't be impeached (and he won't be) will be because his devoted minions in the Senate are the most corrupt politicians since Buz Lukens got caught up in the House Banking Scandal 20 years ago. The serial liar that he has just managed to get onto SCOTUS will protect him from prosecution by placing POTUS above the Law.

However, all things some to an end. Assuming no-one has employed a 2A solution on him, Trump will likely be out on his ear in 2020 (if not then 2024 for certain) and then his umbrella disappears because Kavanaugh, if he hasn't been impeached or convicted of sex crimes or perjury by then (or if someone hasn't taken a 2A solution out on him as well) will no longer be able to protect Trump. I see a loose fitting orange jump suit in Trump's future.


.... play the long game!!
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's possible. However, he will uncover many other crimes Trump has committed.
Click to expand...

As has recently been proved recently with Kavanaugh, wishful thinking and a huge volume of noise on the part of Democrats does not translate to evidence of wrongdoing. That is a different thing entirely.
 
theprestige said:
I agree with all of that.

I'm just trying to clear up my confusion about what exactly Manafort has been indicted for. Do you agree that regardless of what may be revealed in the future, Manafort has not yet been indicted for interfering in the 2016 US election?
Click to expand...

The indictment doesn't but the Plea Deal requires Manafort to tell Mueller all about events during the 2016 election - including the Trump Tower meeting that multiple participants have described as an attempt to obtain dirt on Clinton from Russia, possibly in return for undoing the Magnitsky Act, and that Trump is very, very unlikely not to have been informed about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom