Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
Thought you said you read the Pentagon Papers. If you had you would know that neither the NY Times nor the WA Po were found prosecutable because the First Amendment is specifically about a free press As long as the reporters didn't directly steal the material there was nothing criminal about the press printing it.
Click to expand...

And wikileaks is the press
 
WilliamSeger said:
Your pathetic slander dodges Maddow's question: Why should he override Mueller's considerable expertise in what ought to be redacted? Seems to me, only an idiot wouldn't be suspicious, but suit yourself.
Click to expand...

See folks? This exactly the gaslighting I was talking about.

Folks? Mueller is working with Barr and his staff to redact the statutorily required redactions.

These redactions are required by statute.

Mueller is working with Barr.

Maddow lied.

Resistance grifters are gaslighting you. Get angry "skeptics."
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Regale us then with an explanation why the special counsel and the attorney general of the united states should violate the law.

and if it is because resistance grifter rachel maddow should be deemed to not be an unbelievable lying fraud, I am going to disagree.

regale us
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing what the attorney general should do.
 
smartcooky said:
And that is veeeeeery specific wording. Its just the sort of wording you might use if there was some other entity, not the actual Russian government, that you are trying to sidestep away from talking about.. such as

Viktor Vekselberg
Aleksandr Torshin
The Internet Research Agency
Guccifer 2.0
The Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
Konstantin Kilimnik
Viktor Yanukovych

et al

These entities are not actually the Russian government, but for all intents an purposes, they might as well be.

Remember folks, "plausible deniability".
Click to expand...

And the only crime Al Capone participated in was tax evasion.
 
BobTheCoward said:
At no point did I imply I meant the AG when I said sometimes someone should violate a requirement.
Click to expand...

No, that is true, you did not imply it, you actually flat out said that he was "Required doesn't mean someone should do that is my point."

We are talking about Rachel Maddow getting ******* owned by her own network anything to add?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Thought you said you read the Pentagon Papers. If you had you would know that neither the NY Times nor the WA Po were found prosecutable because the First Amendment is specifically about a free press As long as the reporters didn't directly steal the material there was nothing criminal about the press printing it.
Click to expand...

First, the 1st amendment applies to both speech and the press. Second, the press is not a protected class, it is a protected activity, one which anyone can engage in with equal rights. And third, since Trump’s campaign is not alleged to have stolen anything, the comparison holds.
 
Ziggurat said:
Trump joked that the Russians should release Hillary's state department emails. Are you claiming that the Russians hacked her state department emails? Because that would be a new claim.



There is no indication that the Trump campaign received anything that was hacked. So how did this receiving occur?
Click to expand...

Trump does not joke. He has no idea how. A sense of humor is completely foreign to the man. I doubt he has ever laughed in his entire life (except possibly at someone else's misfortune).
 
Steve said:
Trump does not joke. He has no idea how. A sense of humor is completely foreign to the man. I doubt he has ever laughed in his entire life (except possibly at someone else's misfortune).
Click to expand...

You aren’t doing your credibility any favors here.
 
BobTheCoward said:
And wikileaks is the press
Click to expand...

Does 'the press' do this?

WikiLeaks
WikiLeaks actively solicited the co-operation of Trump Jr., a campaign surrogate and advisor in the campaign of his father. WikiLeaks urged the Trump campaign to reject the results of the 2016 presidential election at a time when it looked as if the Trump campaign would lose... After the election, WikiLeaks also requested that the president-elect push Australia to appoint Assange as ambassador to the US... WikiLeaks also asked Trump Jr. to leak his own e-mails to them days after The New York Times broke a story about e-mail correspondence between Trump Jr. and a Kremlin-affiliated lawyer...

In September 2016, the German weekly magazine Focus reported that according to a confidential German government dossier, WikiLeaks had long since been infiltrated by Russian agents aiming to discredit NATO governments. The magazine added that French and British intelligence services had come to the same conclusion...

In April 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted criticism of the Panama Papers, which had among other things revealed Russian businesses and individuals linked with offshore ties (Vladimir Putin's associates had as much as $2 billion in offshore accounts)... According to The New York Times, both Assange claims are substance-free: "there is no evidence suggesting that the United States government had a role in releasing the Panama Papers."[293] Assange also falsely asserted that the Panama Papers gave Western figures a free pass...

In April 2017, CIA Director Mike Pompeo stated: "It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." Pompeo said that the US Intelligence Community had concluded that Russia's "primary propaganda outlet," RT had "actively collaborated" with WikiLeaks.[298]

In August 2017, Foreign Policy reported that WikiLeaks had in the summer of 2016 turned down a large cache of documents containing information damaging to the Russian government.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry, but is the big Trump defense here: "technically, what he and his campaign did might not have been illegal" ?
Is that really the standard you want to apply to all past, current and future Presidents?
 
The Big Dog said:
No, that is true, you did not imply it, you actually flat out said that he was "Required doesn't mean someone should do that is my point."

We are talking about Rachel Maddow getting ******* owned by her own network anything to add?
Click to expand...

I never said who someone could be or under what conditions that someone should violate a requirement. It is merely a general concept.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I wonder why he and Barr are scared to let the unedited report be seen by congress.
Click to expand...
Not that I want to ascribe too much meaning to Trump's tweets, but I really gotta wonder what message "Behind closed doors the Dems are laughing!" is supposed to convey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom