Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Many people are saying that Roger Stone believes a Donald Trump Jr. indictment and arrest for lying to the FBI is right around the corner. I doubt it's true as I saw it on Newsweek, but I'd be pouring a glass of excessively expensive bourbon if it does happen.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The point being I used your analogy the way it was actually analogous.

The umpire's word is not the final word, so what?
Click to expand...

I see where this is going. I would turn it around and say that the umpire's decision is the only one that influences the game, so what? Other debates on that decision are just as meaningful.

And then this just becomes a pretty standard debate about the meaning of meaningz and will be a derail. So we can skip it.
 
plague311 said:
Many people are saying that Roger Stone believes a Donald Trump Jr. indictment and arrest for lying to the FBI is right around the corner. I doubt it's true as I saw it on Newsweek, but I'd be pouring a glass of excessively expensive bourbon if it does happen.
Click to expand...

Can I tempt you to swap that for a large glass of Glenlivet 12 on the rocks? :D
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Many people are saying that Roger Stone believes a Donald Trump Jr. indictment and arrest for lying to the FBI is right around the corner. I doubt it's true as I saw it on Newsweek, but I'd be pouring a glass of excessively expensive bourbon if it does happen.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he will be, but he should be.
 
The Big Dog said:
The prosecutors had him (and his wife) dead to rights on the tax claims. However, if Cohen wanted a deal, the prosecutors required him to plead to all their charges, given the fact that they have bigger fish in mind.
Click to expand...

This makes zero sense whatsoever. If they had him dead to rights on the tax charges, and the campaign financing wasn't a crime, and they wanted him to plead out, then they charge him with a lessor Tax crime charge, you know the one that they have him dead to rights on. There is no reason, and in fact becomes dangerous due to double jeopardy, to charge him for something that he didn't actually commit a crime doing.
 
President Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski on Sunday slammed Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, after he pleaded guilty last week to federal charges and implicating the president in a crime.
Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Lewandowski sought to distance Trump from his former attorney and denied that Cohen played any significant role in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/26/lewandowski-warned-trump-about-cohen.html



"Michael was very good at certain things and one of the things he was very good at, and we have now seen it, is intimidating people," Lewandowski responded. "I didn't like to work with Michael, I didn't like to interact with Michael, and that's why he had no role in the campaign, even when he wanted one," he added. "I was very clear when I was in charge of the campaign, Michael was not somebody who we wanted at the campaign. He would go out and make statements that we had to walk back afterwards because he would say things which were factually untrue. I warned everybody at the organization that Michael was going to become a problem."
Click to expand...


No sense of irony.
 
PhantomWolf said:
This makes zero sense whatsoever. If they had him dead to rights on the tax charges, and the campaign financing wasn't a crime, and they wanted him to plead out, then they charge him with a lessor Tax crime charge, you know the one that they have him dead to rights on. There is no reason, and in fact becomes dangerous due to double jeopardy, to charge him for something that he didn't actually commit a crime doing.
Click to expand...
But the crimes they charged him with implicate Trump, suggesting the crimes they didn't charge him with damn Trump.

Unless there was no crime at all and he was railroaded through the system on trumped up charges like all of these innocent black youths which they will stop referring to as "thugs" just for the time being so they can make the argument that the legal straits of a poor kid with a public defender facing a biased system is in any way comparable to the lawyer of the President of the United States of America and that lawyer's lawyer.

You know, it could really go either way.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh dear, again, you appear to be laboring under a misapprehension. You see, as I explained proving intent is part of the prosecutor’s case, not the defendant’s case. Further, if there is a trial, then the judge has to instruct the jury, so what happens is that the legal beagles draft up a jury instruction, so they will take the FEC guidance and write one that says something like “to find that DonnyTrump violated the statute, the government must prove that the sole purpose of the payment was to benefit the campaign.”
Click to expand...

How deluded does one have to be to think that the worst attorney to ever work for a president and the biggest liar to ever sit in the oval office were not on record clearly stating that the only reason they were paying this money was because of the stupid campaign?

Arguing about the law is irrelevant when the facts are this bad. No nuance can save these idiots from their own worts impulses.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
How deluded does one have to be to think that the worst attorney to ever work for a president and the biggest liar to ever sit in the oval office were not on record clearly stating that the only reason they were paying this money was because of the stupid campaign?

Arguing about the law is irrelevant when the facts are this bad. No nuance can save these idiots from their own worts impulses.
Click to expand...

did one just make up a "fact," state that one would be deluded if one did not believe the "fact," and declare that the law is irrelevant because of the "fact" you just made up?

Oh dear.
 
The Big Dog said:
did one just make up a "fact," state that one would be deluded if one did not believe the "fact," and declare that the law is irrelevant because of the "fact" you just made up?

Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Dunno. You claimed to understand law better than lawyers. That's a made up "fact".
 
The Big Dog said:
did one just make up a "fact," state that one would be deluded if one did not believe the "fact," and declare that the law is irrelevant because of the "fact" you just made up?

Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Which facts?

Clearly stated:
1) Worst attorney to ever work for a president
2) biggest liar to ever sit in the oval office

Add in from the thread:
3) hundreds of secret recording by said attorney
4) hundreds of thousands of documents seized from said attorney
5) said attorney plead guilty
6) prosecutors referenced documents seized and recordings to support the plea agreement

Yeah, no need for nuance.

You can stand their and smirk all day, but those aren't freckles, the fan has already been thoroughly introduced to the ****.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom