Mueller Investigation pt 6

[alfaniner]

You still have no idea what coup means, eh?

I'd love to see the PDJT try to Tweet about a coup, just to see how he attempts to spell it.

 

[Aridas]

I'd love to see the PDJT try to Tweet about a coup, just to see how he attempts to spell it.

Mmm. You must have happily missed the many, many times he's done so, then. He gets the spelling of coup right, generally, though. Too bad that he makes it clear that he's misusing it. Anything that could possibly lead to his removal is being called a coup, in short. He even calls simply considering whether it's appropriate to invoke the 25th Amendment an illegal, treasonous, and unconstitutional coup attempt.

This is the guy who swore to uphold the Constitution, of course, not that anyone who wasn't conned believed that serial perjurer at all.

 

[Elagabalus]

So you're going with Joseph Mifsud being a Russian agent? ...

Have you perused our fine assortment of Q-Anon threads over in the Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Section? I trust that you will find them ... illuminating

 

[Cabbage]

Members of the Trump campaign were setup by western intelligence assets.

For the sake of debate, let's assume for the moment this is true. So what?

Here's another individual that was setup by authorities:

Authorities: Ashiqul Alam Of Queens Wanted To Attack Times Square With Guns, Suicide Vests And Grenades

Sources say Alam got on law enforcement’s radar after searching for explosives. Authorities then set up a sting.

Sincere questions:

Does the setup negate/void the crime? Should Ashiqul Alam be prosecuted for any crimes committed as a consequence of the setup?

What about Trump campaign members? Should they be prosecuted for any crimes committed as a consequence of the setup?

If your answers for the two situations differ can you justify the difference?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Trump always looked and sounded completely innocent to me. He was aware that it was a coup attempt against his Presidency.

A coup against the Trump presidency that began months before the election at a time when no one thought that he had a chance of winning? Seriously? And the coup plotters didn't take any obvious steps, such as leaking a little info about Russian contacts, before the election to reduce the chance of Trump winning?

 

[smartcooky]

Trump always looked and sounded completely innocent to me.

Is there a big enough laughing dog? Remind me to never accept your judgement of character as a reference for anyone.

Trump has looked, acted and sounded like a very guilty man right from the moment he was elected. More guilty than my older brother was when my parents came home and found him rolling drunk, and he claimed he had not been anywhere near the liquor cabinet when the cabinet door was open with the key still in it, and the once half full bottle of Captain Morgan Rum was empty with the top missing!~

Innocent people don't try to block those people investigating them.
Innocent people don't try to bribe, cajole and coerce people to lie for them.
Innocent people don't lie about facts, the truth of which can be verifiable.
Innocent people don't destroy documentary evidence.

 

[Belz...]

The belief that the Russians attempted to influence the election through the Trump campaign is contingent upon Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor, being a Russian agent.

If you really think that, then you're even more uninformed about this topic than you initially led on.

Seriously, is it that hard to pick up a book, or the Mueller report and read up on the actual evidence for this? Or are you just trolling?

Trump always looked and sounded completely innocent to me.

Trolling it is, then.

I've never seen a human act more guilty than Trump. Even when he's completely innocent he manages to act guilty.

 

[The Shrike]

In my interpretation, the pseudo-FDR had multiple motives.

Of course.

Quashing the murder investigation, though, was still part of the crime of obstruction of justice. The question for the prosecutors and the jury would be whether his overall motive, helping win the war, justified the actions.

Correct. Why should I trust the judgment of a man in a matter of war if he's so weak-minded that he got drunk one night and killed a hobo? Is there any particular reason he wouldn't trust VP Garner as Commander in Chief in his stead? (If not, then he should've shopped around for another VP earlier than he did.)

And look at the logic and the risk he'd be taking in obstruction "for the greater good": If it was so all-fire important to be at the helm to rally the nation to go to war – i.e., we didn't have anyone else capable of that who had not drunkenly murdered a hobo – then imagine how catastrophic it would be for the country (and all the Allied Forces) should the story leak. Therefore you (FDR in this silly scenario) are compromised, and likely to justify all manner of additional crimes and misdeeds to keep the secret buried.

So yeah, were I sitting on such a jury to weigh in on potential justifiable obstruction in this scenario, the Defense would have quite a task on their hands to convince me otherwise.

 

[The Shrike]

Trump always looked and sounded completely innocent to me.

Then I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the words "look", "sound", "innocent", and "complete."

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Is there a big enough laughing dog? Remind me to never accept your judgement of character as a reference for anyone.

Trump has looked, acted and sounded like a very guilty man right from the moment he was elected.

Find the video of him on Air Force One, telling a reporter he knew nothing about payments to Stormy Daniels. Sure looked guilty to me.

 

[pgwenthold]

Then I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the words "look", "sound", "innocent", and "complete."

I think his autocorrect changed the word from "ignorant"

 

[Regnad Kcin]

See my sig. BTW, I love your name.

Thank you, Paul2.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

A coup against the Trump presidency that began months before the election at a time when no one thought that he had a chance of winning? Seriously? And the coup plotters didn't take any obvious steps, such as leaking a little info about Russian contacts, before the election to reduce the chance of Trump winning?

C’mon, they were no doubt still tidying up various loose ends from their 9/11 inside job.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

A coup against the Trump presidency that began months before the election at a time when no one thought that he had a chance of winning? Seriously? And the coup plotters didn't take any obvious steps, such as leaking a little info about Russian contacts, before the election to reduce the chance of Trump winning?

CTs have a tendency to fall apart in the face of logical questions and evidence, don't they .

 

[smartcooky]

CTs have a tendency to fall apart in the face of logical questions and evidence, don't they .

Tendency?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Of course.


Correct. Why should I trust the judgment of a man in a matter of war if he's so weak-minded that he got drunk one night and killed a hobo? Is there any particular reason he wouldn't trust VP Garner as Commander in Chief in his stead? (If not, then he should've shopped around for another VP earlier than he did.)

And look at the logic and the risk he'd be taking in obstruction "for the greater good": If it was so all-fire important to be at the helm to rally the nation to go to war – i.e., we didn't have anyone else capable of that who had not drunkenly murdered a hobo – then imagine how catastrophic it would be for the country (and all the Allied Forces) should the story leak. Therefore you (FDR in this silly scenario) are compromised, and likely to justify all manner of additional crimes and misdeeds to keep the secret buried.

So yeah, were I sitting on such a jury to weigh in on potential justifiable obstruction in this scenario, the Defense would have quite a task on their hands to convince me otherwise.

The FDR in this scenario has full faith in the VP. This is about preventing harm to Churchill because of a US trial of president in an incident he was involved in (which was why I had Churchill in the scenario in the first place).

 

[The Shrike]

The FDR in this scenario has full faith in the VP. This is about preventing harm to Churchill because of a US trial of president in an incident he was involved in (which was why I had Churchill in the scenario in the first place).

That's nice (and yes, that was obvious). Still obstruction.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's nice (and yes, that was obvious). Still obstruction.

It wasn't obvious from your post where you made stuff up about feelings of the vice president.

There is no other party that can weigh the risks of the Constitution. The prosecutor doesn't have the information to make that decision. I don't think Congress can make illegal the president exercising his Constitutional use of executive power.

 

[tanabear]

Thank you, at least there is something. However, one might imagine there are all sorts of ways another country could ******* with the US and chip away at US interests, short of proposing a military alliance to annex US territory, all of which would qualify that country as an adversary.

ETA: and which therefore would kick in efforts to counter that country's efforts to ******* with our elections, including penetrating election computer systems, which is Very Bad.

My issue is with the term "US interests". Why does the US have interests getting involved in the Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia etc...? We don't. These are the interests of the Swamp and the military industrial complex. These are not the interests of most US most citizens. Our provocations against Russia are far more treacherous than Russia "hacking" our computer systems, assuming that actually happened. Regardless, releasing information about the corrupt and internal workings of the DNC benefitted our democracy.

It's quite telling that you think that Trump looked innocent, despite his long history and the massive pile of documented evidence that attests to his distinct lack of trustworthiness.

We are specifically talking about Trump-Russia collusion. He always maintained that it was a witch-hunt(actually a coup attempt) and he was right. It was a fake news story believed only by Trump haters and weak-minded fools.

End of story. Thank you for admitting that you don't know what you're talking about, to the extent that you're unable to form meaningful questions or address the issue in a relevant fashion, likely because of the disinformation and propaganda that you've been fed. Disinformation that likely arose in fair part from Russia and has been echoed and amplified in the right-wing echo chamber by both right-wingers and Russians.

But what false belief did Americans have due to Russian disinformation besides Trump-Russia collusion? The fact that neither you nor anybody else can give one example is an indication that this is just a talking point repeated over and over again. That's how the modern Left works, sloganeering.

You say that while ignoring the actually relevant concerns at hand. Like, for example, what Mifsud actually did that can be demonstrated to a court.

No, it's not. Not even remotely. Here, you've presented yet another example of disinformation at work. Papadopoulos, in general, and thus Mifsud, makes for one of the least influential reasons to think so, for that matter. Page, Stone, and Manafort are all examples that greatly surpass Papadopoulos in importance there, before getting to Trump and his family themselves.

So why did James Comey write in a Washington Post op-ed just two weeks ago,

"In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton."

The reference here is to George Papadopoulos's meeting with Joseph Mifsud. Now if there really isn't enough evidence to even indict Mifsud, don't you think that James Comey should have some qualifiers here instead of stating it as a fact? This is what Trump hater Chris Cillizza tweeted:

"Say it with me: The Steele Dossier was NOT why the Russia probe began. The Russia probe began because George Papadopoulos was bragging to an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton."

So the official story is that the FBI Crossfire Hurricane counter-intelligence investigation started over the Papadopoulos-Mifsud meeting. So the true identity of Mifsud is critical. There is no interest on this forum for uncovering the truth because it is just a distraction from IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT!

Have you perused our fine assortment of Q-Anon threads over in the Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Section? I trust that you will find them ... illuminating

What is Q-Anon?

A coup against the Trump presidency that began months before the election at a time when no one thought that he had a chance of winning? Seriously? And the coup plotters didn't take any obvious steps, such as leaking a little info about Russian contacts, before the election to reduce the chance of Trump winning?

Christopher Steele wanted info from his fake dossier to get out to the public so it could impact the election. And it was leaked to the press before the election! On 09/23/2016 Michael Isikoff published a Yahoo News article about Carter Page's trip to Moscow in July of 2016 based off information in the dossier. New York Magazine published on November 1st, 2016 an article entitled,

Final ‘October Surprises’ Reveal FBI Is Probing Trump’s Alleged Russia Ties

Seriously, people on these forums really need to stop imbibing fake news all the time.

I've never seen a human act more guilty than Trump. Even when he's completely innocent he manages to act guilty.

This tells me that your view of Trump is distorted by all the fake news you consume. Stop ingesting fake news and return to reality.

 

[Elagabalus]

...What is Q-Anon?



Christopher Steele wanted info from his fake dossier...

It's where you've apparently been getting your information.

And speaking of dossier. I've been going over yours. According to your posting history here you've gone from everybody in the US Government is evil* to everybody in the US Government is evil except Donald Trump since you were here last.


*well, they perpetrated 9/11 after all.