Status
Not open for further replies.
Whether he personally thinks that its "good for the U.S." to be a puppet state of Russia is irrelevant. It would still make him a traitor to go against U.S. law (which much of this might be) in order to accomplish the goal. After all, I don't think the defense "I think its best if democracy to be subverted" is really a good argument to make.

And if he really thought it was a good idea? Then why is he not trying to bring about a change in the laws? (If he really thought it was good for the U.S. he could co-author the "Make Putin the president of the U.S." bill.) Instead, he's trying to skirt around the law and subverting it.
Did we read the same article? I didn't see anything about the law there.
Not sure what your point is.

Zanganza brought up the issue of Russian interference in American elections (which is against the law). You stated "How do you know he doesn't think it is good for the US?". Sounded to me like you were suggesting McConnell thought intereference shouldn't be illegal.
 
:eye-poppi

I said it: the man is a traitor. They should bring back hanging for those.

I wonder how far back this goes for McConnell. Might explain his actions under Obama, too.

McConnell is a power hungry anti-democracy crusader desiring a one party state. I think they realized his goals lines up with theirs.
 
Not sure what your point is.

Zanganza brought up the issue of Russian interference in American elections (which is against the law). You stated "How do you know he doesn't think it is good for the US?". Sounded to me like you were suggesting McConnell thought intereference shouldn't be illegal.

I thought the implication was that McConnell did something illegal.
 
Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia
"We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.
 
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1095358723806191617

Senate Intelligence Committee aide tells me, re: NBC story, that right now there is "a common set of facts" that the panel is working with, "and a disagreement about what those facts mean."
They add: "We are closer to the end than the beginning, but we're not wrapping up."

Re: the headline, "Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia," same aide says: "the word 'direct' is doing a lot of work here."
 
TBD is Actually criticizing Mueller and their propaganda stooges cnn, which goes way beyond the alleged minor process violations Stone was charged.

I've been browsing through the US Code, trying to understand how lying under oath and witness tampering are "minor process violations"

The truthfulness of witnesses in testimony is at the core of a civilised society's judicial system; when a witness lies, or encourages other witnesses to lie, it strikes at the very core of that justice system.

Witness tampering and lying under oath are serious crimes, not "minor process violations".
 
Not sure what your point is.

Zanganza brought up the issue of Russian interference in American elections (which is against the law). You stated "How do you know he doesn't think it is good for the US?". Sounded to me like you were suggesting McConnell thought intereference shouldn't be illegal.
I thought the implication was that McConnell did something illegal.
And its quite possible he did. (At least in my non-legal expert opinion.)

For example, if he did in fact end sanctions in exchange for campaign contributions that would probably be considered bribery.

And while its not illegal for American citizens to donate to political causes, its illegal to do so at the direction of foreign entities. That would be considered a campaign finance violation, and if McConnell had knowledge and assisted the transaction he might be considered a co-conspirator.
 
Originally Posted by applecorped
Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia

nothing_to_see_here_naked_gun.gif


Are you really surprised that the people on the same team as Trump "found" nothing to kick him out of the team over?

Do turkeys vote for Christmas?
 
This Buzzfeed article clearly outlines how Trump ran his campaign in order to please Putin to get his Trump Tower Moscow, funding included.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...wer-moscow-the-secret-files-cohen-sater-putin

There can be no doubt that Trump first and foremost had his business in mind, not US interests.
It's a typical case of Russia promising great rewards for cooperation, rewards that never materialize. It's standard spycraft.
 
Worth reading; how the media have failed to inform people about how the criminal justice system really works

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1095355251371196416

No attorney with criminal law experience came into the Trump-Russia probe believing one of the conspirators would confess to Congress or that an explicit contract would be found. That absurd standard was set by non-attorney Trump supporters and was then *adopted by the media*.

There may be confessions in the Russia probe before it's over, but they will come *via Mueller's charges/deals*, not Congress—and no explicit contract for a conspiracy like this would ever be created, let alone found. We knew all this two years ago. The media pretended not to.

The journalists who misreported what Burr said to CBS and what it meant and how evidence works and the fact that most American criminal trials are in fact dominated by circumstantial or indirect evidence should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Rest assured, they are *not*.

The percent of U.S. criminal cases in which one finds a contract agreeing to commit a crime is *virtually zero*. Confessions are *common*—and are *exactly* what Mueller has been getting, behind closed doors, from people like Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulos, Nader, and many others.
 
Worth reading; how the media have failed to inform people about how the criminal justice system really works

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1095355251371196416

No attorney with criminal law experience came into the Trump-Russia probe believing one of the conspirators would confess to Congress or that an explicit contract would be found. That absurd standard was set by non-attorney Trump supporters and was then *adopted by the media*.

There may be confessions in the Russia probe before it's over, but they will come *via Mueller's charges/deals*, not Congress—and no explicit contract for a conspiracy like this would ever be created, let alone found. We knew all this two years ago. The media pretended not to.

The journalists who misreported what Burr said to CBS and what it meant and how evidence works and the fact that most American criminal trials are in fact dominated by circumstantial or indirect evidence should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Rest assured, they are *not*.

The percent of U.S. criminal cases in which one finds a contract agreeing to commit a crime is *virtually zero*. Confessions are *common*—and are *exactly* what Mueller has been getting, behind closed doors, from people like Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulos, Nader, and many others.

He cites no one who has literally ever said that. A "contract"? Is he really claiming that someone asserted that if there is no direct contract there is no direct evidence. That is profoundly specious and idiotic strawman the likes of which I cannot believe anymore. Why do people believe this grifter???
 
I've been browsing through the US Code, trying to understand how lying under oath and witness tampering are "minor process violations"

The truthfulness of witnesses in testimony is at the core of a civilised society's judicial system; when a witness lies, or encourages other witnesses to lie, it strikes at the very core of that justice system.

Witness tampering and lying under oath are serious crimes, not "minor process violations".

If Mueller gets to the bottom of why so many people told so many lies, I bet it won't be "minor."
 
He cites no one who has literally ever said that. A "contract"? Is he really claiming that someone asserted that if there is no direct contract there is no direct evidence. That is profoundly specious and idiotic strawman the likes of which I cannot believe anymore. Why do people believe this grifter???

I thought this month it was "cow farts". Did you get the pages stuck together?
 
Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia
"We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.


As would normally be the expectation. However, given the propensity for some of these people to speak, even publicly, directly to intent, when best left unsaid. Doesn't bode well for what was said privately and potentially recorded or documented. Even if I were amongst them I doubt I could speak in such absolutes given the apparent inability of some of the people to just shut the heck up about their intents when needed. Also given the potential of the Trump tower deal pursuit, a contract signed in something or other may have been an end goal, so also a potential topic of discussion documentation.

ETA: Case in point the recorded conversation between Trump and Cohen about using the other guy for payments. Using a cutout is always a good idea. Having a detailed conversation about using that cutout and their criticality, not such a great idea.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom