DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Logic said:

All three of Trump's new lawyers have spent decades on organized crime cases, racketeering, and complex white collar criminal defenses

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5640043/All-three-Trumps-new-lawyers-experience-organized-crime-racketeering-cases.html


          Trump hired criminal defense attorneys Martin and Jane Raskin 

• Marty Raskin has experience dealing with the mob and complex racketeering cases as a federal prosecutor
• He served on an organized Crime and Racketeering Section
• One case involved a complex securities fraud involving pension fraud and kickbacks
• His wife, Jane,  was a lawyer with Organized Crime and Racketeering Section's Boston Strike Force 
• Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5640043/All-three-Trumps-new-lawyers-experience-organized-crime-racketeering-cases.html#ixzz5DJq1Axw9 
  
  
  
  
  
  Oh, ya know, no big deal. Just the President of the United States hiring a mob lawyer. Nothing to see here.

 

 

It's just the President hiring mob PROSECUTORS, you nitwit.

[Logic]

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's an honest follow up to an original point which is devoid of a real substance.

 

There's over 168 pages in this thread detailing there's no evidence for collision - but a tweet stating a now confirmed fact that Comey leaked classified Intel to kick off the SC is real evidence? Nah. You were taking a shot because you're frustrated. That's fine. But don't act as if you were doing anything more. 

 

Because if you truly believe what you said, then my question is more than fair: what does Comey's embarrassing performance on the first week of is book tour prove in your mind? We have real evidence he committed crimes and lied about it. He lied during his tour about opening the McCabe investigation himself after all - something we know he didn't do. He lied so easy there, don't you think it's possible he lied more than that one time on live tv?

 

Today we learned Logic doesn't know the difference between a defense attorney and a prosecutor. 

 

 

Yeah, I'm not gonna get into a pissing match with you. Saying "What about Comey?" is no different than "what about Hillary?" or "what about Obama?" or any of the other numerous diversion tactics people use to deflect attention away from the indefensible acts of the vile thug in office. Every shred of Trump's behavior -- not to mention plain-as-day signs like the president's own lawyer having being raided by the FBI and the numerous indictments and resignations of Trump cronies -- points to some degree of guilt. If you can HONESTLY look at all the ways in which Trump has tried to shut down the investigation and conclude that this is the behavior of an innocent person, then I don't know what else to say. Time will tell the true tale. Only on a forum like this, with this many Trump apologists, could this tremendous amount of smoke and this amount of unprecedented (or "unpresidented", to use Trump's word) events not make people at least question if there's fire. We'll see.

[Taro T]

53 minutes ago, Logic said:

Yeah, I'm not gonna get into a pissing match with you. Saying "What about Comey?" is no different than "what about Hillary?" or "what about Obama?" or any of the other numerous diversion tactics people use to deflect attention away from the indefensible acts of the vile thug in office. Every shred of Trump's behavior -- not to mention plain-as-day signs like the president's own lawyer having being raided by the FBI and the numerous indictments and resignations of Trump cronies -- points to some degree of guilt. If you can HONESTLY look at all the ways in which Trump has tried to shut down the investigation and conclude that this is the behavior of an innocent person, then I don't know what else to say. Time will tell the true tale. Only on a forum like this, with this many Trump apologists, could this tremendous amount of smoke and this amount of unprecedented (or "unpresidented", to use Trump's word) events not make people at least question if there's fire. We'll see.

 

How has he "tried to shut down the investigation?"

 

If he wants to shut down the investigation, he has the authority to do so by firing Mueller.  That wouldn't be wise IMHO, but he can do so.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

13 minutes ago, Logic said:

Yeah, I'm not gonna get into a pissing match with you. Saying "What about Comey?" is no different than "what about Hillary?" or "what about Obama?" or any of the other numerous diversion tactics people use to deflect attention away from the indefensible acts of the vile thug in office. Every shred of Trump's behavior -- not to mention plain-as-day signs like the president's own lawyer having being raided by the FBI and the numerous indictments and resignations of Trump cronies -- points to some degree of guilt. If you can HONESTLY look at all the ways in which Trump has tried to shut down the investigation and conclude that this is the behavior of an innocent person, then I don't know what else to say. Time will tell the true tale. Only on a forum like this, with this many Trump apologists, could this tremendous amount of smoke and this amount of unprecedented (or "unpresidented", to use Trump's word) events not make people at least question if there's fire. We'll see.

 

The difference between your position and mine is I (clearly) believe in due process. You believe in mob justice. 

 

Then again, your understanding of the legal system was on full display with your previous post about Trump hiring mob lawyers. Most people who understand basic civics would take that comment to mean Trump hired attorneys who defended the mob in court - which would be his right to do constitutionally, but certainly would look bad. The reality though, which you missed in your rush to pronounce wrong doing, is that he hired former federal and state prosecutors who put the mob on trial. 

 

That's a big difference, is it not? Don't you believe in being intellectually honest while trying to incite a mob? 

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

How has he "tried to shut down the investigation?"

 

If he wants to shut down the investigation, he has the authority to do so by firing Mueller.  That wouldn't be wise IMHO, but he can do so.

 

 

He hasn't tried to shut down the investigation. He has the ability to fire both RR and RM and he hasn't. 

 

But people like Logic - as evidenced by their posting in this thread - determined long ago, before any evidence was known, that Trump is guilty of not just obstruction but collusion and treason. We've heard it from him for a year now about "smoke" and we still have nothing. While Logic thinks anyone who's trying to stay behind the evidentiary chain is "delusional", most see Logic's rush to judgement for what it is: 

 

Blind partisanship. 

 

That's a dangerous way to approach a complicated and politically charged scandal such as this. Especially when all the evidence that is found shows that the partisan's conviction lacks any real substance. This is why, of course, our legal system is set up to defend due process. I know one day my former liberals will remember when they too used to care about due process - especially when it's inconvenient to their cause. That's when it really matters. 

 

Simple logic would tell someone this...

Edited April 21, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The difference between your position and mine is I (clearly) believe in due process. You believe in mob justice. 

 

Then again, your understanding of the legal system was on full display with your previous post about Trump hiring mob lawyers. Most people who understand basic civics would take that comment to mean Trump hired attorneys who defended the mob in court - which would be his right to do constitutionally, but certainly would look bad. The reality though, which you missed in your rush to pronounce wrong doing, is that he hired former federal and state prosecutors who put the mob on trial. 

 

That's a big difference, is it not? Don't you believe in being intellectually honest while trying to incite a mob? 

 

He hasn't tried to shut down the investigation. He has the ability to fire both RR and RM and he hasn't.

 

But people like Logic - as evidenced by their posting in this thread - determined long ago, before any evidence was known, that Trump is guilty of not just obstruction but collusion and treason. We've heard it from him for a year now about "smoke" and we still have nothing. While Logic thinks anyone who's trying to stay behind the evidentiary chain is "delusional", most see Logic's rush to judgement for what it is: 

 

Blind partisanship. 

 

That's a dangerous way to approach a complicated and politically charged scandal such as this. Especially when all the evidence that is found shows that the partisan's conviction lacks any real substance. This is why, of course, our legal system is set up to defend due process. I know one day my former liberals will remember when they too used to care about due process - especially when it's inconvenient to their cause. That's when it really matters. 

 

Simple logic would tell someone this...

 

Agree w/ the bolded.  But, he made the assertion that 45 has "tried to shut down the investigation."  Was hoping he'd enlighten us w/ the ways the President has done so & would also like to know why he believes those efforts have been unsuccessful so far.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

 

Agree w/ the bolded.  But, he made the assertion that 45 has "tried to shut down the investigation."  Was hoping he'd enlighten us w/ the ways the President has done so & would also like to know why he believes those efforts have been unsuccessful so far.

 

Oh, I know he did. I was chiming in because I'm annoying like that. 

 

I doubt Logic will answer. He's not really interested in "questioning if there's fire" (as he put it above), if he were he'd be more willing to entertain the possibility (just the possibility) that his position is built on quicksand. No, he's only interested in pieces of information that confirm the conclusion he reached in January of '17 - no matter how much he has to twist that information to make it fit his world view. 

 

... Like he did with the "mob lawyer" article above. 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Logic said:

Yeah, I'm not gonna get into a pissing match with you. Saying "What about Comey?" is no different than "what about Hillary?" or "what about Obama?" or any of the other numerous diversion tactics people use to deflect attention away from the indefensible acts of the vile thug in office. Every shred of Trump's behavior -- not to mention plain-as-day signs like the president's own lawyer having being raided by the FBI and the numerous indictments and resignations of Trump cronies -- points to some degree of guilt. If you can HONESTLY look at all the ways in which Trump has tried to shut down the investigation and conclude that this is the behavior of an innocent person, then I don't know what else to say. Time will tell the true tale. Only on a forum like this, with this many Trump apologists, could this tremendous amount of smoke and this amount of unprecedented (or "unpresidented", to use Trump's word) events not make people at least question if there's fire. We'll see.

You're a !@#$ing retard. Change it from logic to retard, pleease.

[Doc Brown]

13 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Late night tweet:

 

 

 

I know I'm being nit-picky here, but if you're the leader of the free world you may want to check for both spelling and grammatical errors before sending out a tweet that millions of people will read.

[/dev/null]

9 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I know I'm being nit-picky here, but if you're the leader of the free world you may want to check for both spelling and grammatical errors before sending out a tweet that millions of people will read.

 

According to some on the left Trump = Hitler

 

And you just went grammar Nazi on him

 

[Doc Brown]

10 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

According to some on the left Trump = Hitler

 

And you just went grammar Nazi on him

 

Good point.

[DC Tom]

25 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I know I'm being nit-picky here, but if you're the leader of the free world you may want to check for both spelling and grammatical errors before sending out a tweet that millions of people will read.

 

Or maybe you just shouldn't tweet before you've had your morning covfefe.

[B-Man]

Speaking of lawyers...........................Remember back in January ??

 

 

Coincidentally, Comey’s gabby, media-hungry comrade in 2017 magically became his airtight personal attorney in 2018 after news leaked that DOJ/FBI determined a majority of Comey’s memos were classified.

 

Comey ‘Friend’ Who Leaked FBI Memos Now Claims To Be His Attorney

[DC Tom]

18 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Speaking of lawyers...........................Remember back in January ??

 

 

Coincidentally, Comey’s gabby, media-hungry comrade in 2017 magically became his airtight personal attorney in 2018 after news leaked that DOJ/FBI determined a majority of Comey’s memos were classified.

 

Comey ‘Friend’ Who Leaked FBI Memos Now Claims To Be His Attorney

 

All this **** coming so soon after the Cohen-Hannity kerfuffle does nothing but demonstrate how hypocritical they all are.

[Azalin]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 I know one day my former liberals will remember when they too used to care about due process - especially when it's inconvenient to their cause. That's when it really matters. 

 

 

PPP quote of the week.

 

[row_33]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I know I'm being nit-picky here, but if you're the leader of the free world you may want to check for both spelling and grammatical errors before sending out a tweet that millions of people will read.

 

You type it it and it’s what I want and then it changes on me as I continue... sometimes I have to correct three times on my iPhone

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

Speaking of lawyers...........................Remember back in January ??

 

 

Coincidentally, Comey’s gabby, media-hungry comrade in 2017 magically became his airtight personal attorney in 2018 after news leaked that DOJ/FBI determined a majority of Comey’s memos were classified.

 

Comey ‘Friend’ Who Leaked FBI Memos Now Claims To Be His Attorney

@Deranged Rhino

 

Given what we've seen from this Administration laying traps for it's enemies to leap into to strengthen his positions and take away their weapons; and your beliefs about what Robert Mueller is actually doing,  how plausible do you believe it to be that Cohen was put into play in order to get the media to introduce the concept of Of the Crime-Fraud exemption?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

@Deranged Rhino

 

Given what we've seen from this Administration laying traps for it's enemies to leap into to strengthen his positions and take away their weapons; and your beliefs about what Robert Mueller is actually doing,  how plausible do you believe it to be that Cohen was put into play in order to get the media to introduce the concept of Of the Crime-Fraud exemption?

 

It's very possible. 

 

I'm still trying to get a handle on Cohen and how he ties into this in the bigger picture sense, something isn't right about it but I can't quite put my finger on it. But your point is very interesting and entirely possible from where I sit.

[3rdnlng]

I just caught up on this thread and I've come to one conclusion: "Logic" isn't short or a nickname for "Logical".

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, Logic said:

Yeah, I'm not gonna get into a pissing match with you. Saying "What about Comey?" is no different than "what about Hillary?" or "what about Obama?" or any of the other numerous diversion tactics people use to deflect attention away from the indefensible acts of the vile thug in office. Every shred of Trump's behavior -- not to mention plain-as-day signs like the president's own lawyer having being raided by the FBI and the numerous indictments and resignations of Trump cronies -- points to some degree of guilt. If you can HONESTLY look at all the ways in which Trump has tried to shut down the investigation and conclude that this is the behavior of an innocent person, then I don't know what else to say. Time will tell the true tale. Only on a forum like this, with this many Trump apologists, could this tremendous amount of smoke and this amount of unprecedented (or "unpresidented", to use Trump's word) events not make people at least question if there's fire. We'll see.

 

 

if if you really believe that "time will tell the true tale", why are you throwing haymakers? And why throw haymakers if you're going to miss so wildly? 

 

The r investigation has been going on for 25%+ of your president's first term, and while it shows signs of slowing down, after roughly 10,000 leaks we've said good bye to one existing Nixonesque prez, one unbelievably qualified democrat Prezi candidate, multiple FBI high-ranking operatives playing games with the truth and exactly 0 Robert Muellers.  Of those individuals, the easiest to dispatch is Robert Mueller, and he's still working away. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

I just caught up on this thread and I've come to one conclusion: "Logic" isn't short or a nickname for "Logical".

 

 

Liberals

Only

Give

Idiotic

Cliches

 

.