Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
The real world situation, as opposed to anyone's narrative, is that we already have clear evidence of collusion. It may not be enough to convict anyone, but evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and agents working for Russia is already public knowledge.



There may be no clear evidence that Trump is guilty. There may be no evidence strong enough to convict anyone of a conspiracy. But, we do have evidence, and such evidence has been posted over and over in this thread as well as many other places.
Click to expand...
All the evidence I've seen so far has been circumstantial at best. You talk about all this evidence, but the fact is that Mueller couldn't find enough evidence to indict *anyone* for the thing itself. None of his vaunted plea deals yielded anything germane to the matter at hand.

A moment ago you were implying that Mueller found evidence against Trump, but couldn't indict him. By corollary, he could indict Trump's co-conspirators, but for lack of evidence.

Now you seem to be falling back on the position that there's a lack of indictable evidence all around.
 
Bogative said:
How dare a Republican use a Nazi comparison against his political opposition, that should be strictly reserved for Democrats and the media.


(The "yeah, but, Trump really is like Hitler" response is going to be lit)
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. The Republican was quoting Hitler, using Hitler's poisonous words about the media of Germany and applying those words to American media. Nice try, though.
 
acbytesla said:
Nonsense. You think just because something may not be illegal makes it right?
Click to expand...

That's classic Republican ideology. If it isn't illegal, then it can't be unethical.........unless a Democrat is doing it. Also, it can be ethical and illegal, as long as it's a Republican breaking the law.
 
wareyin said:
The real world situation, as opposed to anyone's narrative, is that we already have clear evidence of collusion. It may not be enough to convict anyone, but evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and agents working for Russia is already public knowledge.

There may be no clear evidence that Trump is guilty. There may be no evidence strong enough to convict anyone of a conspiracy. But, we do have evidence, and such evidence has been posted over and over in this thread as well as many other places.
Click to expand...

To Trump loyalists, you are absolutely wrong, this is based on the fact that Barr said so. You can't be guilty if you own the head of the DOJ.
 
theprestige said:
All the evidence I've seen so far has been circumstantial at best. You talk about all this evidence, but the fact is that Mueller couldn't find enough evidence to indict *anyone* for the thing itself. None of his vaunted plea deals yielded anything germane to the matter at hand.
Click to expand...

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Plea deals also, pretty much by definition, mean that a party agreed to plea guilty to lesser charges than could have been made.

theprestige said:
A moment ago you were implying that Mueller found evidence against Trump, but couldn't indict him.
Click to expand...
You seem to read a lot into people's posts that simply isn't there. I would advise you to stick with what was said, rather than any strawman you'd like to argue against.
theprestige said:
By corollary, he could indict Trump's co-conspirators, but for lack of evidence.

Now you seem to be falling back on the position that there's a lack of indictable evidence all around.
Click to expand...

My clear and direct statement was that there is evidence. You are adding in the "indictable" qualifier.
 
wareyin said:
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Plea deals also, pretty much by definition, mean that a party agreed to plea guilty to lesser charges than could have been made.
Click to expand...

I don't know when "circumstantial" became a dirty word for evidence.

A literal smoking gun would be circumstantial evidence.

DNA is circumstantial evidence. So are fingerprints. So is just about everything except witness testimony directly about witnessing the crime, direct confession or recording of the crime happening.

This idea that circumstantial evidence is weak is just bizarre.
 
thaiboxerken said:
That's classic Republican ideology. If it isn't illegal, then it can't be unethical.........unless a Democrat is doing it. Also, it can be ethical and illegal, as long as it's a Republican breaking the law.
Click to expand...

I want to know what happened. I want to know the evidence. I've KNOWN they colluded with Russia since I read about Trump Tower meeting. I want to know why Barr said there is no evidence of collusion. Is he saying that meeting never happened and is a figment of our imagination? Or they couldn't find additional evidence of collusion and they weren't going to charge anyone over that meeting?

Barr's opinion means as much as Trump's on the matter. It isn't unbiased.

More troubling to me is this willingness to sweep countless obstruction of justice crimes under the rug. That unless you can prove the crime, the obstruction is meaningless. That's basically saying that its ok to coverup crimess. This is as damaging as the underlying crime. It weakens the justice system and says that POTUS is ABOVE the law.
 
Last edited:
Cavemonster said:
Currently, that's not a practice. They can only be processed after they have presented themselves at the border or within the US. If they are within their home country or Mexico, they cannot apply for asylum.

If they are waiting in Mexico, they are not waiting for their case to be processed, they are waiting for their opportunity to begin the process.

Are you trying to advocate for an overhaul of the current system or are you unaware of how it works?
Click to expand...


I think that the one thing that everyone on every side of the immigration debate supports is an overhaul of the system. The current system is obviously not working in a number of ways. We may not agree on what needs to be done, but the fact that something needs done is pretty clear.

And yes, I would advocate someone seeking asylum to be able to apply at the US embassy in their home country and wait to be processed, unless it can be shown that they are in immediate and present danger. If they are, they could wait in a third country for the time being, or they could wait in detention in the US until their case is processed. Simply illegally living in the country until such time as they are caught and deported is bad for everyone involved. It's bad for the rule of law, and it's bad for the asylum seeker themselves.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Such a horrible candidate that won the popular vote by a wide margin? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Same expectations game problem we're still having, really. The candidate who's time has come vs. the clown from reality TV land? Ends in a squeaker win/technical loss?

That tends to land as performance not living up to the hype. Right or wrong doesn't enter into it, sadly.

In any case, I'm ready for the party to get past the bargaining phase of grief any time.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Some of the media is most definitely questioning Barr's summary. Part of the problem with the mainstream, however, is they are also giving more time to Trump and the Trump propagandists.

For example Kellyanne Conway is out there screaming faux outrage that Congressman Schiff should resign. Not only is the press giving that unwarranted air time, reporters went chasing after Schiff to ask what his reaction to Conway was. Seriously, the press gave Conway credence for that ********.
Click to expand...
I don't think he should resign. He could, out of humility for the process, maybe just shut up and let a deputy step up an organize the next steps.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Same expectations game problem we're still having, really. The candidate who's time has come vs. the clown from reality TV land? Ends in a squeaker win/technical loss?

That tends to land as performance not living up to the hype. Right or wrong doesn't enter into it, sadly.

In any case, I'm ready for the party to get past the bargaining phase of grief any time.
Click to expand...

Wrong thread, not going to get into this **** with you or anyone else. Go re-read what has already been discussed ad nauseum.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I don't think he should resign. He could, out of humility for the process, maybe just shut up and let a deputy step up an organize the next steps.
Click to expand...
What deputies?

So Schiff should shut up? :rolleyes:

Because Trump's top propaganda agent has made ludicrous charges?

He pretty much answered the press question appropriately, he said it was nonsense he'd heard many times before.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What deputies?

So Schiff should shut up? :rolleyes:

Because Trump's top propaganda agent has made ludicrous charges?

He pretty much answered the press question appropriately, he said it was nonsense he'd heard many times before.
Click to expand...
Because he's being outplayed at the moment. Because whether he's been talking out his rear end or can't reveal something he knows, right now his words are choking him. If the mission matters more than the man, he needs a surrogate to shore up the impartiality and legitimacy of the process.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Because he's being outplayed at the moment. Because whether he's been talking out his rear end or can't reveal something he knows, right now his words are choking him. If the mission matters more than the man, he needs a surrogate to shore up the impartiality and legitimacy of the process.
Click to expand...

No, that's ignorant. Just because you or whomever suck up the unsupportable talking points Trump propagandists like Conway spew out doesn't mean anyone they attack have to take them seriously.

Nothing Conway said was backed up by any evidence.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
For example Kellyanne Conway is out there screaming faux outrage that Congressman Schiff should resign.
Click to expand...

Oooh, I don't think there is much need to take any notice of what the Megabitch-in-Chief says....

“The idea that any of us, and me as a campaign manager, would cheat, steal, lie, cut corners, talk to Russians, was an insult from the beginning.”


Really, Kellyanne? Really?

Cheat: Ahem, Paul Manafort was one of you.

Steal: Ahem, Rick Gates was one of you.

Lie: Ahem, Donald "9179 lies and counting" Trump IS one of you!

Cut Corners: ahem, National Emergency to build a vanity project.

Talk to Russians: OMG, who do I begin with? Michael Flynn, Don Jr, Paul Manafort, Ivanka, Jared Kushner.... and there are probably more.

Goodness Kellyanne. It looks to me like you've been taking Lyin' Lessons from The Master of Deceit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom