Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 6 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Why won't Pelosi open an inquiry?
3 months ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 9:33AM #51
bertram
Posts: 10,555

The Dems are looking for the eventual unanimous vote to impeach.  The way Trump is going, it may not be a long wait.  Wink

3 months ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 11:18AM #52
prof. quiz
Posts: 7,928

Oct 16, 2019 -- 11:37AM, NW wrote:


Pelosi would be an idiot to bring up a 2 1/2 year $100M investigation that found no collusion.  




As I understand it she has found new evidence about Russian collusion while digging into the Ukraine.


I have a simple question for you that only requires a yes or no answer.


Do you believe our intel agencies who all overwhelmimgly agree that Russian overtly screwed with our elections in 2016?


3 months ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 11:58AM #53
bertram
Posts: 10,555

Oct 17, 2019 -- 11:18AM, prof. quiz wrote:


Oct 16, 2019 -- 11:37AM, NW wrote:


Pelosi would be an idiot to bring up a 2 1/2 year $100M investigation that found no collusion.  




As I understand it she has found new evidence about Russian collusion while digging into the Ukraine.


I have a simple question for you that only requires a yes or no answer.


Do you believe our intel agencies who all overwhelmimgly agree that Russian overtly screwed with our elections in 2016?





Continuing to deny the Russians' manipulation of our electoral process is a fool's errand and the mark of Trump supporters who are willing to see our democracy undermined and the electoral process compromised.  Right now, we can't take for granted that voting machines were not hacked and that the same thing will not happen in 2020.  I fear for the future of America.

3 months ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 1:49PM #54
NW
Posts: 1,339

Oct 17, 2019 -- 11:18AM, prof. quiz wrote:


Oct 16, 2019 -- 11:37AM, NW wrote:


Pelosi would be an idiot to bring up a 2 1/2 year $100M investigation that found no collusion.  




As I understand it she has found new evidence about Russian collusion while digging into the Ukraine.


I have a simple question for you that only requires a yes or no answer.


Do you believe our intel agencies who all overwhelmimgly agree that Russian overtly screwed with our elections in 2016?





Haha, we're still waiting for Schiff's evidence.


As far as your question which requires a yes or no answer, I'll answer it and pose another to you.  Yes, the Russians overtly screwed with our elections in 2016 and as our intel agencies said, were intent upon creating chaos, promoting information for and against both major candidates.


Here's your question:  Do you believe the intel agencies and the Mueller report that has said there was no collusion with the Trump administration?

3 months ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 1:49PM #55
NW
Posts: 1,339

Oct 17, 2019 -- 11:58AM, bertram wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 11:18AM, prof. quiz wrote:


Oct 16, 2019 -- 11:37AM, NW wrote:


Pelosi would be an idiot to bring up a 2 1/2 year $100M investigation that found no collusion.  




As I understand it she has found new evidence about Russian collusion while digging into the Ukraine.


I have a simple question for you that only requires a yes or no answer.


Do you believe our intel agencies who all overwhelmimgly agree that Russian overtly screwed with our elections in 2016?





Continuing to deny the Russians' manipulation of our electoral process is a fool's errand and the mark of Trump supporters who are willing to see our democracy undermined and the electoral process compromised.  Right now, we can't take for granted that voting machines were not hacked and that the same thing will not happen in 2020.  I fear for the future of America.




Wait, so you want to trust our intel agencies when they say one thing and not another?

3 months ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 2:06PM #56
felipe27point5
Posts: 2,645

Oct 17, 2019 -- 1:49PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 11:18AM, prof. quiz wrote:


Oct 16, 2019 -- 11:37AM, NW wrote:


Pelosi would be an idiot to bring up a 2 1/2 year $100M investigation that found no collusion.  




As I understand it she has found new evidence about Russian collusion while digging into the Ukraine.


I have a simple question for you that only requires a yes or no answer.


Do you believe our intel agencies who all overwhelmimgly agree that Russian overtly screwed with our elections in 2016?





Here's your question:  Do you believe the intel agencies and the Mueller report that has said there was no collusion with the Trump administration?




Except that's not what it said


 “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”


It literally said there was evidence of collusion. It just couldn't establish beyond a reasonable doubt enough evidence to warrant prosecution. For example, Trump Jr colluded with Russia in meeting with Russians to receive information on Hillary, but he wasn't brought to prosecution because he didn't know what he was doing was a crime. 

You are welcome to recall my posts when it becomes that i'm proven wrong as long as we judge it on the merits of what we knew to be true at the time it was posted.
3 months ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 2:11PM #57
NW
Posts: 1,339

Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:06PM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 1:49PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 11:18AM, prof. quiz wrote:


Oct 16, 2019 -- 11:37AM, NW wrote:


Pelosi would be an idiot to bring up a 2 1/2 year $100M investigation that found no collusion.  




As I understand it she has found new evidence about Russian collusion while digging into the Ukraine.


I have a simple question for you that only requires a yes or no answer.


Do you believe our intel agencies who all overwhelmimgly agree that Russian overtly screwed with our elections in 2016?





Here's your question:  Do you believe the intel agencies and the Mueller report that has said there was no collusion with the Trump administration?




Except that's not what it said


 “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”


It literally said there was evidence of collusion. It just couldn't establish beyond a reasonable doubt enough evidence to warrant prosecution. For example, Trump Jr colluded with Russia in meeting with Russians to receive information on Hillary, but he wasn't brought to prosecution because he didn't know what he was doing was a crime. 




This is total b.s.  You may be a bleeding heart liberal, but I consider you to be somewhat smart.  You know that you don't withhold prosecution due to ignorance of the law.

3 months ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 2:26PM #58
felipe27point5
Posts: 2,645

Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:11PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:06PM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 1:49PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 11:18AM, prof. quiz wrote:


Oct 16, 2019 -- 11:37AM, NW wrote:


Pelosi would be an idiot to bring up a 2 1/2 year $100M investigation that found no collusion.  




As I understand it she has found new evidence about Russian collusion while digging into the Ukraine.


I have a simple question for you that only requires a yes or no answer.


Do you believe our intel agencies who all overwhelmimgly agree that Russian overtly screwed with our elections in 2016?





Here's your question:  Do you believe the intel agencies and the Mueller report that has said there was no collusion with the Trump administration?




Except that's not what it said


 “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”


It literally said there was evidence of collusion. It just couldn't establish beyond a reasonable doubt enough evidence to warrant prosecution. For example, Trump Jr colluded with Russia in meeting with Russians to receive information on Hillary, but he wasn't brought to prosecution because he didn't know what he was doing was a crime. 




This is total b.s.  You may be a bleeding heart liberal, but I consider you to be somewhat smart.  You know that you don't withhold prosecution due to ignorance of the law.




I also disagree with that notion, and believe Trump Jr should be shooting hoops in the courtyard with Cohen. Here's a quote from the report


www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mu...


“On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful," the report reads. "The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. The government does not have strong evidence of surreptitious behavior or efforts at concealment at the time of the June 9 meeting."




Let's just say, neither of us are thrilled with the report, but for very different reasons. But the report is very much NOT the nothing burger you keep claiming it is. 


It's part of what makes your logic around it even more surprising. There was PLENTY that Mueller found, and probably should have prosecuted on. But he handled everything with such a narrow definition that even despite the rest of the indictments, he allowed SO much to just happen without punishment. And when it's all said and done, you and the rest of the retrumplicans are throwing over tables and screaming about how unfair he was.


Well, on that i kind of agree with you. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it's unfair of Mueller not to have indicted Trump Jr, Kushner, and the rest of the treasonous trumplicans involved. 

You are welcome to recall my posts when it becomes that i'm proven wrong as long as we judge it on the merits of what we knew to be true at the time it was posted.
3 months ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 2:32PM #59
bertram
Posts: 10,555

So, when Trump publicly invited the Russians to hack the Dems in his speech, he should have been prosecuted because he broke the law whether he knew what he was doing or not.

3 months ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 2:33PM #60
NW
Posts: 1,339

Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:26PM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:11PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:06PM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 1:49PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 11:18AM, prof. quiz wrote:


Oct 16, 2019 -- 11:37AM, NW wrote:


Pelosi would be an idiot to bring up a 2 1/2 year $100M investigation that found no collusion.  




As I understand it she has found new evidence about Russian collusion while digging into the Ukraine.


I have a simple question for you that only requires a yes or no answer.


Do you believe our intel agencies who all overwhelmimgly agree that Russian overtly screwed with our elections in 2016?





Here's your question:  Do you believe the intel agencies and the Mueller report that has said there was no collusion with the Trump administration?




Except that's not what it said


 “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”


It literally said there was evidence of collusion. It just couldn't establish beyond a reasonable doubt enough evidence to warrant prosecution. For example, Trump Jr colluded with Russia in meeting with Russians to receive information on Hillary, but he wasn't brought to prosecution because he didn't know what he was doing was a crime. 




This is total b.s.  You may be a bleeding heart liberal, but I consider you to be somewhat smart.  You know that you don't withhold prosecution due to ignorance of the law.




I also disagree with that notion, and believe Trump Jr should be shooting hoops in the courtyard with Cohen. Here's a quote from the report


www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mu...


“On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful," the report reads. "The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. The government does not have strong evidence of surreptitious behavior or efforts at concealment at the time of the June 9 meeting."




Let's just say, neither of us are thrilled with the report, but for very different reasons. But the report is very much NOT the nothing burger you keep claiming it is. 


It's part of what makes your logic around it even more surprising. There was PLENTY that Mueller found, and probably should have prosecuted on. But he handled everything with such a narrow definition that even despite the rest of the indictments, he allowed SO much to just happen without punishment. And when it's all said and done, you and the rest of the retrumplicans are throwing over tables and screaming about how unfair he was.


Well, on that i kind of agree with you. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it's unfair of Mueller not to have indicted Trump Jr, Kushner, and the rest of the treasonous trumplicans involved. 




I think a lot of the reason why they mentioned "surreptitious behavior" is that there are different levels of campaign finance concerns.  If they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "surreptitious behavior" occurred, this is nothing more than a campaign finance violation.  They happen just about daily, the campaign pays a fine, and it's over with.  I think Mueller would have just referred that to the FEC for dispensation.  To meet misdemeanor or felony charges, the element of "surreptitious behavior or efforts of concealment" must be part of the package.


Page 6 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum