-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
Can you explain why you treat this persons opinion as fact while other 'legal experts' hold an opposing view?
Opposing views are the reason that any possible illegality would require testing in court which is why no one can provide a definite answer to your question of 'what has he done that is illegal?'Putting aside the question of illegality the main point in this episode is that once again someone connected with the Trump campaign has had a changing story about contact with Russia which they have only admitted to when painted into a corner.
While that doesn't necessarily prove anything illegal has happened it adds fuel to the investigation around Russian influence in the election.His track record is pretty good. His credentials are outstanding. .. he is a democrat who heavily supports Hilary. Plus his arguments are great.
Feel free to point out a counter argument to his point. Some experts and doctors also support homeopathy.....
And no not everything has be decided in courts just because a political party throws a tantrum because they lost.
The main point in this is the left just carrying on about an issue most voters have low down the priority queue as it is beltway bullshit.Are you forgetting the very legitimate investigation into Russian interference in the election?
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
Can you explain why you treat this persons opinion as fact while other 'legal experts' hold an opposing view?
Opposing views are the reason that any possible illegality would require testing in court which is why no one can provide a definite answer to your question of 'what has he done that is illegal?'Putting aside the question of illegality the main point in this episode is that once again someone connected with the Trump campaign has had a changing story about contact with Russia which they have only admitted to when painted into a corner.
While that doesn't necessarily prove anything illegal has happened it adds fuel to the investigation around Russian influence in the election.His track record is pretty good. His credentials are outstanding. .. he is a democrat who heavily supports Hilary. Plus his arguments are great.
Feel free to point out a counter argument to his point. Some experts and doctors also support homeopathy.....
And no not everything has be decided in courts just because a political party throws a tantrum because they lost.
The main point in this is the left just carrying on about an issue most voters have low down the priority queue as it is beltway bullshit.Are you forgetting the very legitimate investigation into Russian interference in the election?
Forget? Unlikely. It is all the left and media seeem to want to talk about.
I think the investigation is just more political games.
Mueller is doing a good job of discrediting it anyway with his hirings and close relationship with a key witness. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
Can you explain why you treat this persons opinion as fact while other 'legal experts' hold an opposing view?
Opposing views are the reason that any possible illegality would require testing in court which is why no one can provide a definite answer to your question of 'what has he done that is illegal?'Putting aside the question of illegality the main point in this episode is that once again someone connected with the Trump campaign has had a changing story about contact with Russia which they have only admitted to when painted into a corner.
While that doesn't necessarily prove anything illegal has happened it adds fuel to the investigation around Russian influence in the election.His track record is pretty good. His credentials are outstanding. .. he is a democrat who heavily supports Hilary. Plus his arguments are great.
Feel free to point out a counter argument to his point. Some experts and doctors also support homeopathy.....
And no not everything has be decided in courts just because a political party throws a tantrum because they lost.
The main point in this is the left just carrying on about an issue most voters have low down the priority queue as it is beltway bullshit.Are you forgetting the very legitimate investigation into Russian interference in the election?
Forget? Unlikely. It is all the left and media seeem to want to talk about.
I think the investigation is just more political games.
Mueller is doing a good job of discrediting it anyway with his hirings and close relationship with a key witness.yeah, that would be mueller the pretty much universally well-regarded republican, fbi director appointed by republican president george bush, with bipartisan support on appointment in his current role, and his limited working relationship with republican comey. paranoid bullshit.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
Can you explain why you treat this persons opinion as fact while other 'legal experts' hold an opposing view?
Opposing views are the reason that any possible illegality would require testing in court which is why no one can provide a definite answer to your question of 'what has he done that is illegal?'Putting aside the question of illegality the main point in this episode is that once again someone connected with the Trump campaign has had a changing story about contact with Russia which they have only admitted to when painted into a corner.
While that doesn't necessarily prove anything illegal has happened it adds fuel to the investigation around Russian influence in the election.His track record is pretty good. His credentials are outstanding. .. he is a democrat who heavily supports Hilary. Plus his arguments are great.
Feel free to point out a counter argument to his point. Some experts and doctors also support homeopathy.....
And no not everything has be decided in courts just because a political party throws a tantrum because they lost.
The main point in this is the left just carrying on about an issue most voters have low down the priority queue as it is beltway bullshit.Are you forgetting the very legitimate investigation into Russian interference in the election?
Forget? Unlikely. It is all the left and media seeem to want to talk about.
I think the investigation is just more political games.
Mueller is doing a good job of discrediting it anyway with his hirings and close relationship with a key witness.OK, so the solid intelligence of Russian interference should be ignored because the media want to talk about it?
The investigation is valid and warranted. If Trump campaign associates keep wanting add their names to the investigation scope by denying or not declaring contact then admitting to it later then they are fueling the thing themselves. -
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
Excuse me? If you'd actually read, you'd see that my argument was that any candidate who was offered the dirt on an opponent would at least find out what that dirt was. Again if you could read, you would see that the naive part relates to the claims that they wouldn't and would immediately call the feds.
So please address that rather than make ignorant cracks from the sideline.
Ok - so you've got evidence of that?
-
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
Excuse me? If you'd actually read, you'd see that my argument was that any candidate who was offered the dirt on an opponent would at least find out what that dirt was. Again if you could read, you would see that the naive part relates to the claims that they wouldn't and would immediately call the feds.
So please address that rather than make ignorant cracks from the sideline.
Ok - so you've got evidence of that?
Is this a wind-up?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
Excuse me? If you'd actually read, you'd see that my argument was that any candidate who was offered the dirt on an opponent would at least find out what that dirt was. Again if you could read, you would see that the naive part relates to the claims that they wouldn't and would immediately call the feds.
So please address that rather than make ignorant cracks from the sideline.
Ok - so you've got evidence of that?
Is this a wind-up?
Is there evidence of candidates being offered dirt in this manner and then going and trying to find out what it is?
-
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
Excuse me? If you'd actually read, you'd see that my argument was that any candidate who was offered the dirt on an opponent would at least find out what that dirt was. Again if you could read, you would see that the naive part relates to the claims that they wouldn't and would immediately call the feds.
So please address that rather than make ignorant cracks from the sideline.
Ok - so you've got evidence of that?
Is this a wind-up?
Is there evidence of candidates being offered dirt in this manner and then going and trying to find out what it is?
The candidates themselves? I very much doubt it.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
Excuse me? If you'd actually read, you'd see that my argument was that any candidate who was offered the dirt on an opponent would at least find out what that dirt was. Again if you could read, you would see that the naive part relates to the claims that they wouldn't and would immediately call the feds.
So please address that rather than make ignorant cracks from the sideline.
Ok - so you've got evidence of that?
Is this a wind-up?
Is there evidence of candidates being offered dirt in this manner and then going and trying to find out what it is?
The candidates themselves? I very much doubt it.
But they've obviously done it?
-
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
Excuse me? If you'd actually read, you'd see that my argument was that any candidate who was offered the dirt on an opponent would at least find out what that dirt was. Again if you could read, you would see that the naive part relates to the claims that they wouldn't and would immediately call the feds.
So please address that rather than make ignorant cracks from the sideline.
Ok - so you've got evidence of that?
Is this a wind-up?
Is there evidence of candidates being offered dirt in this manner and then going and trying to find out what it is?
The candidates themselves? I very much doubt it.
But they've obviously done it?
The candidates themselves? I very much doubt it.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
Can you explain why you treat this persons opinion as fact while other 'legal experts' hold an opposing view?
Opposing views are the reason that any possible illegality would require testing in court which is why no one can provide a definite answer to your question of 'what has he done that is illegal?'Putting aside the question of illegality the main point in this episode is that once again someone connected with the Trump campaign has had a changing story about contact with Russia which they have only admitted to when painted into a corner.
While that doesn't necessarily prove anything illegal has happened it adds fuel to the investigation around Russian influence in the election.His track record is pretty good. His credentials are outstanding. .. he is a democrat who heavily supports Hilary. Plus his arguments are great.
Feel free to point out a counter argument to his point. Some experts and doctors also support homeopathy.....
And no not everything has be decided in courts just because a political party throws a tantrum because they lost.
The main point in this is the left just carrying on about an issue most voters have low down the priority queue as it is beltway bullshit.Are you forgetting the very legitimate investigation into Russian interference in the election?
Forget? Unlikely. It is all the left and media seeem to want to talk about.
I think the investigation is just more political games.
Mueller is doing a good job of discrediting it anyway with his hirings and close relationship with a key witness.yeah, that would be mueller the pretty much universally well-regarded republican, fbi director appointed by republican president george bush, with bipartisan support on appointment in his current role, and his limited working relationship with republican comey. paranoid bullshit.
He can be all those things and still not the right choice for the role as soon as Comey became a key witness....
-
Is there any evidence to support the claim that Comey and Mueller are friends and have a close relationship?
-
@phoenetia
There would have been a lot of people who could have done this who were not regarded by Comey as his "mentor" and Mueller regarding Comey as his "protege". Rosenstein also could have chosen someone who had not worked closely with Comey for many years. It is absurd he was even considered. There should not even be a hint of a personal relationship. In this case, you are asking are they good buds? That is a very low standard. There is doubt, so he should never have been chosen.
-
@Kirwan did you see the Vice tv series on hacking etc? It was pretty cool, and farking scary at all sorts of levels. Interesting that the US managed to track down some Chinese hackers (Chinese ARMY hackers, ahem) and they even issued warrants for them. Didn't have any traction but showed that they could find and identify some of the perpetrators - not without a lot of effort though.
-
It is worth remembering the only actual crimes that have been committed so far is the leaking of classified information - committed by anti-Trump leakers.
In addition to this, there is the issue of unmasking. According to the headline in Fox today, - "The source said more than a half-dozen former senior Obama administration officials are now of interest to House committee investigators.". This is an expansion.
The question will be whether the unmasking of names in the Trump team was legal, or not.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
There would have been a lot of people who could have done this who were not regarded by Comey as his "mentor" and Mueller regarding Comey as his "protege". Rosenstein also could have chosen someone who had not worked closely with Comey for many years. It is absurd he was even considered. There should not even be a hint of a personal relationship. In this case, you are asking are they good buds? That is a very low standard. There is doubt, so he should never have been chosen.
BSG stated they had a close relationship - Im asking if theres any evidence of such a relationship.
Im happy to entertain the foxnews article as factual if theres evidence to support their claims. -
Far left activist gives a good summation of Trumps Russia scandal.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
There would have been a lot of people who could have done this who were not regarded by Comey as his "mentor" and Mueller regarding Comey as his "protege". Rosenstein also could have chosen someone who had not worked closely with Comey for many years. It is absurd he was even considered. There should not even be a hint of a personal relationship. In this case, you are asking are they good buds? That is a very low standard. There is doubt, so he should never have been chosen.
That would be the rosenstein who 'fired' comey? Whose credentials and decision making was strongly defended by trump supporters on here at that time? Or are we accepting trump's own words that he was just going to do it regardless anyway now, because of the Russia thing?
Comey is a witness. He's not under investigation.
There's no reason Mueller isn't qualified for the job, it is just typical undercutting of the people investigating something in case they find something you don't like. -
@reprobate said in US Politics:
Comey is a witness. He's not under investigation.
We'll see about that
US Politics