Trump and Russia

[TH3]

7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Again, reading comprehension. 

 

The fact that there was malfeasance by the government in the gathering of intelligence means that the investigation needs to halted for that reason alone.

 

The government doesn't get to engage in criminal behavior in violation of the rights of it's citizens. Even if you really don't like the guy they're investigating.  Any other "leaps" don't even matter in this regard.  With what has been factually demonstrated means the investigation itself is fruit from the poisonous tree.

 

That totally makes sense...I mean we have a President - who prior to being President - had Russians finance his endeavors and buy his assets at completely inflated prices,  whose first campaign manager was Putin's bag man, a President who close family and staff members met with Russian counterparts during his campaign, and a President who after being elected completely changed the US narrative on Putin to a completely benign stance and refuses to enforce sanctions that had complete bipartisan support....and who by the way refuses to legitimately acknowledge proven Russian  interference in our elections of do anything about going forward....

 

This investigation needs to stop now.....biggest idiot in the room more like it....

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, baskin said:

 

That totally makes sense...I mean we have a President - who prior to being President - had Russians finance his endeavors and buy his assets at completely inflated prices,  whose first campaign manager was Putin's bag man, a President who close family and staff members met with Russian counterparts during his campaign, and a President who after being elected completely changed the US narrative on Putin to a completely benign stance and refuses to enforce sanctions that had complete bipartisan support....and who by the way refuses to legitimately acknowledge proven Russian  interference in our elections of do anything about going forward....

 

This investigation needs to stop now.....biggest idiot in the room more like it....

Yes but Hillary!! 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, baskin said:

 

That totally makes sense...I mean we have a President - who prior to being President - had Russians finance his endeavors and buy his assets at completely inflated prices,  whose first campaign manager was Putin's bag man, a President who close family and staff members met with Russian counterparts during his campaign, and a President who after being elected completely changed the US narrative on Putin to a completely benign stance and refuses to enforce sanctions that had complete bipartisan support....and who by the way refuses to legitimately acknowledge proven Russian  interference in our elections of do anything about going forward....

 

This investigation needs to stop now.....biggest idiot in the room more like it....

The law doesn't permit illegal intelligence gathering.  Full stop.

 

Explain to me the provision in the law which allows it to be broken with impunity by government actors.

 

Then explain to me the purpose of laws forbidding certain government actions if those actions should be taken by government.

[TH3]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The law doesn't permit illegal intelligence gathering.  Full stop.

 

Explain to me the provision in the law which allows it to be broken with impunity by government actors.

 

Then explain to me the purpose of laws forbidding certain government actions if those actions should be taken by government.

"Illegal" - says who?

 

"Explain to me the provision in the law which allows it to be broken with impunity by government actors"

 

Ask your boy Trump....seems to be the question at hand .....he is the one who is saying he is above the law.....LOL 

 

BTW - A "smartest guy in the room" would not have served up such a softball!!

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, baskin said:

"Illegal" - says who?

 

"Explain to me the provision in the law which allows it to be broken with impunity by government actors"

 

Ask your boy Trump....seems to be the question at hand .....he is the one who is saying he is above the law.....LOL 

 

BTW - A "smartest guy in the room" would not have served up such a softball!!

 

Illegal says the law.  That's why we have laws:  to differentiate between things that are illegal and things that are not.

 

The laws in question, put in place to act as constraints placed on the government, specifically it's policing apparatus, are significant because the people writing the laws have grave concerns about abuse of power.  There are very specific protocols in place to those ends.  The government doesn't get to break them just because they really want to, and when they do, all evidence gathered is considered inadmissible.  Further, illegal investigations are not permitted to continue.

 

What other gross violations of the law are you in favor of?  Are you in favor of planting evidence to influence convictions?  How about torturing someone to elicit a confession?

Edited February 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Bob in Mich]

24 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Illegal says the law.  That's why we have laws:  to differentiate between things that are illegal and things that are not.

 

The laws in question were put in place to act a constraints placed on the government, specifically it's policing apparatus, are significant because the people writing the laws have grave concerns about abuse of power.  There are very specific protocols in place to those ends.  The government doesn't get to break them just because they really want to, and when they do, all evidence gathered is considered inadmissible.  Further, illegal investigations are not permitted to continue.

 

So, you would halt the Trump-Russia investigation now even though you admitted and wrote this about your acceptance of DR's theory:

 

In fact, most such instances have, after much consideration, merited, sometimes begrudgingly, my acceptance that what he is presenting is likely true, given chains of circumstantial evidence, even if I am unwilling to fully commit to a firm "yes" until firm evidence is provided.

 

 

So, after seeing all of DR's tale you are not committed enough to go all in on a Buffalo Bills message board but you are certain that there is enough presented to stop Mueller's investigation immediately, eh?   Do I have that position right?

[B-Man]

Bob.....................................Gator...............................Baskin

 

 

I probably shouldn't have put a "speak no evil'.............considering the bilge that has been presented...............but hey there are three of them why not.

 

 

I mean................if they can't comprehend this;
 

Quote

 

 

The government doesn't get to engage in criminal behavior in violation of the rights of it's citizens. Even if you really don't like the guy they're investigating.  Any other "leaps" don't even matter in this regard.  With what has been factually demonstrated means the investigation itself is fruit from the poisonous tree.

 

 

 

Then they are hopeless.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

So, you would halt the Trump-Russia investigation now even though you admitted and wrote this about your acceptance of DR's theory:

 

In fact, most such instances have, after much consideration, merited, sometimes begrudgingly, my acceptance that what he is presenting is likely true, given chains of circumstantial evidence, even if I am unwilling to fully commit to a firm "yes" until firm evidence is provided.

 

 

So, after seeing all of DR's tale you are not committed enough to go all in on a Buffalo Bills message board but you are certain that there is enough presented to stop Mueller's investigation immediately, eh?   Do I have that position right?

I would halt the Trump-Russia investigation because the intelligence gathering was done illegally.  Nothing else matters beyond that point.  Nothing.

 

The government doesn't get to violate the rights of it's citizens by taking extra-legal action.  Full stop.

 

There is no nuance to be discussed here.  It is, quite literally, the core principal of the founding of our entire type of government.  The government has very specific limits to what it is permitted to do, especially in regards to the individual rights of it's citizens.

 

Nothing else matters.

 

The fact that you're quoting me out of context makes you:  either stupid because you didn't understand the context (the part you quoted was in reference to a coup attempt, which has yet to be proven with direct evidence), or intellectually dishonest as Greg has demonstrated that the intelligence was illegally gathered with evidence that will hold up in a court of law.

[Warren Zevon]

There is zero proof intelligence gathering was done illegally.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, garybusey said:

There is zero proof intelligence gathering was done illegally.

This is a bald-faced lie.  You are a liar.

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

This is a bald-faced lie.  You are a liar.

 

You are Gaslighting. You are a Gaslighter.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, garybusey said:

 

You are Gaslighting. You are a Gaslighter.

 

 

 

Is he?

 

The FISA warrant was granted based on a falsifiable, partisan dossier compiled for the Democratic Party (read: Obama/shrew) by a FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENT.

 

And who was colluding with foreigners again?
 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

You are Gaslighting. You are a Gaslighter.

 

 

I see you got the marching orders delivered by Anderson Cooper.  Your narrative shift won't work.

 

There is no context in which illegal use of our intelligence apparatus in violation of the rights of US citizens by the federal government is acceptable.  None.  It is a criminal act in all contexts, and makes the entire Trump-Russian investigation fruit of the poisonous tree in all contexts. 

[Warren Zevon]

4 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Is he?

 

The FISA warrant was granted based on a falsifiable, partisan dossier compiled for the Democratic Party (read: Obama/shrew) by a FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENT.

 

And who was colluding with foreigners again?
 

 

 

[row_33]

Tasker, the term "illegal" is defined by those with the power to delegate the tap

 

with Watergate the public opprobrium over the use of this power, and the courts ruling it wasn't privileged were exceptional times

 

this isn't happening here...

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I see you got the marching orders delivered by Anderson Cooper.  Your narrative shift won't work.

 

There is no context in which illegal use of our intelligence apparatus in violation of the rights of US citizens by the federal government is acceptable.  None.  It is a criminal act in all contexts, and makes the entire Trump-Russian investigation fruit of the poisonous tree in all contexts. 

 

When's Trump locking them up? 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, garybusey said:

 

When's Trump locking them up? 

 

Not soon enough.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Tasker, the term "illegal" is defined by those with the power to delegate the tap

 

with Watergate the public opprobrium over the use of this power, and the courts ruling it wasn't privileged were exceptional times

 

this isn't happening here...

 

 

The term "illegal" is defined by the law itself.

 

The fact that the law has been violated with impunity in the past does not mean that it should have been, and does not magically wishcast those violations of the law into the realm of legality.

 

We do not live in a monarchy.  We do not have a Sovereign imbued with the just and divine authority to rule by fiat.  Our leaders are subject to law. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

When's Trump locking them up? 

President Trump isn't locking anyone up.  He doesn't have that authority.  Various courts, military and civilian, are.  And to answer your timeline question, very soon.

Edited February 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Bob in Mich]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The term "illegal" is defined by the law itself.

 

The fact that the law has been violated with impunity in the past does not mean that it should have been, and does not magically wishcast those violations of the law into the realm of legality.

 

We do not live in a monarchy.  We do not have a Sovereign imbued with the just and divine authority to rule by fiat.  Our leaders are subject to law. 

 

 

 

Finally, finally after all that over the top BS you actually uttered something I can agree with.  Now let's continue the Trump-Russia investigation.

[Tiberius]

16 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Is he?

 

The FISA warrant was granted based on a falsifiable, partisan dossier compiled for the Democratic Party (read: Obama/shrew) by a FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENT.

 

And who was colluding with foreigners again?
 

 

That's what Trump says, but that doesn't make it true. Also, that warrant against the possible  traitor Page was legal.