Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
You mean documents about an ongoing investigation into Trump's obstruction of justice and conspiracy with the Russians that Nunes will give to Trump and his legal team like the good dog he is? Gee, can't imagine what the hold up is.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Nunes is a liar and a cheat - demonstrably.
He made a big show of briefing the White House on intel he got from the White House.
He recused himself and then pretended that he didn't.

And the memo he released shows exactly the opposite of what he said it did.
Click to expand...

Well, if you get your news from Fox News, you aren't exposed to these facts. All they know is that Nunes was releasing a damaging memo.
 
If the Republicans had uncovered even a tenth of the dirt on Hillary Clinton that has been so far revealed about Trump and his sleazy and corrupt administration, this website would take 20 minutes to load from all the celebratory threads started by the forum conservatives.

All of this “Nothing to see here”- ism is a sad and desperate charade.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
River, it doesn't matter one bit what you consider the evidence to be.

A Republican Senate tasked a Republican Deputy AG to start an investigation run by a life-time Republican ex-Prosecutor, ex-FBI chief.

You think they did that without without a shred of evidence?
Click to expand...

You sure about the highlighted? I don't think the Senate played a role.
 
River said:
Even if you are to accept both him and JR lied about this meeting -- it still does not prove anything illegal took place there.
Click to expand...

There you go again, confusing evidence with proof. Lies do, in fact, suggest that something illegal is being covered up. Probable cause.
 
Cabbage said:
There you go again, confusing evidence with proof. Lies do, in fact, suggest that something illegal is being covered up. Probable cause.
Click to expand...

Suspicions suggestions are not factual evidence a crime took place or is going to. You're mistaken. If you'd like to change the legal definition the term probably cause -- feel free to try and get that threshold you've suggested accepted.
 
River said:
Factual evidence a crime has been committed, or will be. Not suspicion alone, which is all youve been able to link.
Click to expand...

You're misrepresenting your own contributed definition of probable cause:

"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"

A lie is factual evidence on which you can base a reasonable belief that a crime is being covered up.
 
River said:
We are in agreement there. I'd like to see it all. Not just one sides story.
Click to expand...

For someone who supposedly wants "not just one side's story," you've done a damn good job of isolating yourself in the pro-Trump echo chamber.
 
Cabbage said:
You're misrepresenting your own contributed definition of probable cause:

"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"

A lie is factual evidence on which you can base a reasonable belief that a crime is being covered up.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're mistaken in this case. There is no evidence a crime has taken place or is going to. If you feel otherwise, show this evidence. (and no, what you've shown so far is not that threshold)
 
River said:
Sorry, you're mistaken in this case. There is no evidence a crime has taken place or is going to. If you feel otherwise, show this evidence. (and no, what you've shown so far is not that threshold)
Click to expand...

That's like, your opinion, man. But if you're still not satisfied, have you not heard of this, too?

During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/...-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html
 
Cabbage said:
Tell me: What is in that link that you think I should be aware of?
Click to expand...

It's the actual statement of the offense filed on Papadopolus concerning the meeting. (i crack up every time i say his name!) Slightly more informative than 3 writers spin on it.
 
River said:
It's the actual statement of the offense filed on Papadopolus concerning the meeting. (i crack up every time i say his name!) Slightly more informative than 3 writers spin on it.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on what he said? I'm a bit busy and don't have time to read it thoroughly, myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom