Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 1 minute ago, Crayola64 said: People analyzing a case’s strength over indictments and criminal complaints are really silly. It’s a complete misunderstanding of the legal system. i doubt there was collusion by trump as well, and they seem to be gunning for a different charge, but come on. Reading indictments can can be VERY illuminating and revealing. There's a wealth of information available in them for the many here who work or worked in the legal field. To suggest otherwise is just incorrect. https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1089499176101134336 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Reading indictments can can be VERY illuminating and revealing. There's a wealth of information available in them for the many here who work or worked in the legal field. To suggest otherwise is just incorrect. Sure, but applying it to the strength of a case against trump is silly though. Saying it absolves him, for example, is silly. It’s taking out-of-context allegations and applying them to a different case, that we don’t know anything about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Sure, but applying it to the strength of a case against trump is silly though. Saying it absolves him, for example, is silly. It’s taking out-of-context allegations and applying them to a different case, that we don’t know anything about. Again, that's incorrect. Muellers indicmtents to date offer a very clear roadmap of what he's doing, what avenues he's determined are bunk, and which ones he's still chasing down. Not to mention the specific language and charges brought can be used as a mirror to see how Trump fit in. Reading material for yourself is 10000x more informative than reading headlines or relying on the media to report back what their anonymous/never wrong sources say mueller is up to. Take Stone's indictment as an example. It's a torpedo for collusion or conspiracy charges - not to mention sinks the dossier's main thrust. Edited January 27, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Again, that's incorrect. Muellers indicmtents to date offer a very clear roadmap of what he's doing, what avenues he's determined are bunk, and which ones he's still chasing down. Not to mention the specific language and charges brought can be used as a mirror to see how Trump fit in. Reading material for yourdelf is 10000x more informative than reading headlines or relying on the media to report back what their anonymous/never wrong sources say mueller is up to. Thanks for letting me know reading can be helpful! What I am saying is, in my experience, reading complaints and indictments and predicting investigations can be difficult or near impossible. It’s because they aren’t even a full roadmap, at times, of their case against the person being indicted. With such a large and complex investigation, I wouldn’t dare attempt it here. And if you think any road map from it is “clear,” then you are probably seeing what you want to see. You need to be more aware of the very small snapshot of information you have into the investigation. Again, I doubt there is any collusion. And I haven’t seen anything to suggest there is. But these allegations don’t clear trump of collusion. That’s silly talk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Thanks for letting me know reading can be helpful! What I am saying is, in my experience, reading complaints and indictments and predicting investigations can be difficult or near impossible. It’s because they aren’t even a full roadmap, at times, of their case against the person being indicted. With such a large and complex investigation, I wouldn’t dare attempt it here. And if you think any road map from it is “clear,” then you are probably seeing what you want to see. You need to be more aware of the very small snapshot of information you have into the investigation. Again, I doubt there is any collusion. And I haven’t seen anything to suggest there is. But these allegations don’t clear trump of collusion. That’s silly talk. Mueller is pulling strings. His goal is not Trump but includes investigating ties between the campaign and Russia. Impeaching Don is the goal of the Trump Deranged folks. Mueller’s goal is to root out collusion. 24 indictments and counting, I believe, after Stone. Stone is just a phony blowhard friend of Trump. Hardly shocking that he obstructed justice given his tenuous relationship with the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 5 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: 24 indictments and counting, I believe, after Stone. Not one of which have anything to do with collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 17 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Not one of which have anything to do with collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. I haven’t seen anything to make me believe that Trump colluded without Russia as I’ve said many times. But our president does surround himself with a lot of bad actors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 21 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Thanks for letting me know reading can be helpful! Your first post implied reading indictments is not helpful. It is. Much more helpful than the media coverage on this subject. 22 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: What I am saying is, in my experience, reading complaints and indictments and predicting investigations can be difficult or near impossible. No one is predicting anything, or using the indictments to "predict" anything. We do not need to "predict" Mueller, his initial mandate (and the subject of this thread) is known. He was tasked with finding whether or not there was any Russian/Trump collusion or conspiracy with regards to illegally tilting the 2016 election. With that frame work, and reading not just one indictment but all of them to date - plus congressional testimony, plus the dossier - you can glean quite a bit about what is actually happening with Mueller's probe. Far more than you can if you rely on the news media to do it for you. 24 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: It’s because they aren’t even a full roadmap, at times, of their case against the person being indicted. There's a ton of evidence in open source already, including the previous indictments, which when stitched together can be very illuminating. Arguing otherwise is just laziness or ignorance. No one is claiming it shows the whole picture, but in terms of the major points of contention in this matter it's extremely helpful to do your own work and reading. 26 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: And if you think any road map from it is “clear,” then you are probably seeing what you want to see. You need to be more aware of the very small snapshot of information you have into the investigation. Then it's a good thing I've been up to my eyeballs in the minutia of this matter since October 2016. The entire premise of the dossier, it's main thrust when you strip away the salacious tinkle tape material, is that Trump - not his campaign or his people, but Trump himself - coordinated a hack-and-release operation with Russian intelligence agents to hack and release Hillary's, the DCCC's and Podesta's emails through WikiLeaks. That's what the dossier claims happened. That's what the media has pushed (as fact) for two years. That's what was promised to the American people by Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. That charge in the dossier is what lead to not one or two but several FISA warrants on multiple people in and around POTUS while he was POTUS. And the eventual appointment of an SCO. Stone's indictment makes it crystal clear, in the SCO's own words, that no such scheme existed. It makes clear that no one on the campaign, let alone Trump himself, knew of the emails being hacked before they went public, nor did they have any direct contacts to WikiLeaks. They had to rely on Stone's contacts to WikiLeaks - which this indictment makes clear he did not have. Which begs the question, if Trump is coordinating directly with Russian intelligence to leak this material, why does he not know about its existence until after it's made public, and why would he need to go through Stone to find a backchannel to WikiLeaks who - we are supposed to believe from the media and Brennan/Clapper, are Russian intelligence themselves? It doesn't add up to the original story. At all. And this isn't being reported on in the MSM... but it is all there for anyone to see for themselves in the indictments. If you've paid attention to the minutia from the beginning, you'd see how this is a very, very, very, damaging blow to the dossier and the main foundation of the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. And that can be gleaned from the indictments directly. So, you're wrong. The indictments are incredibly helpful if you know what you're reading and have the context to help guide you through it. 31 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Again, I doubt there is any collusion. And I haven’t seen anything to suggest there is. But these allegations don’t clear trump of collusion. That’s silly talk. You're lacking context and again trying to force a conclusion that no one is making. The indictment mortally wounds the Dossier's central claims. > Without the dossier there's no FISA or SCO. > Now fruit from the poisonous tree becomes a real problem because the dossier material was relied upon so heavily in the kick off of this investigation. What we've been told publicly since day one about this from the USIC has been proven to be complete and utter bull#### at nearly every turn since the ICA was released. These indictments are evidence to that as well. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 38 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Thanks for letting me know reading can be helpful! What I am saying is, in my experience, reading complaints and indictments and predicting investigations can be difficult or near impossible. It’s because they aren’t even a full roadmap, at times, of their case against the person being indicted. With such a large and complex investigation, I wouldn’t dare attempt it here. And if you think any road map from it is “clear,” then you are probably seeing what you want to see. You need to be more aware of the very small snapshot of information you have into the investigation. Again, I doubt there is any collusion. And I haven’t seen anything to suggest there is. But these allegations don’t clear trump of collusion. That’s silly talk. Let me say what DR was saying in a more simple and direct manner. If you are following a vehicle and they turn on their right turning signal, what do you think they might do? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Let me say what DR was saying in a more simple and direct manner. If you are following a vehicle and they turn on their right turning signal, what do you think they might do? Move over to the right lane, then make a sudden left turn, but stop halfway through the turn to check Mapquest, then try to back up in traffic to get to the turn they missed three blocks earlier. But I'm in DC, so... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-baby! Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Let me say what DR was saying in a more simple and direct manner. If you are following a vehicle and they turn on their right turning signal, what do you think they might do? Huh spike, huh spike, can we? Can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 13 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Move over to the right lane, then make a sudden left turn, but stop halfway through the turn to check Mapquest, then try to back up in traffic to get to the turn they missed three blocks earlier. But I'm in DC, so... drives me freaking nuts. they are the only thing that matters in a sea of flowing traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 43 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Mueller is pulling strings. His goal is not Trump but includes investigating ties between the campaign and Russia. Impeaching Don is the goal of the Trump Deranged folks. Mueller’s goal is to root out collusion. 24 indictments and counting, I believe, after Stone. Stone is just a phony blowhard friend of Trump. Hardly shocking that he obstructed justice given his tenuous relationship with the truth. There will be no serious attempt to impeach the President. It's the continued narrative of all things Trump bad and the continued talk of impeachment that is of value to Democrats until the next election. People like you (10's of millions of voters) are simply pawns in the game. The D party wants you whipped into an angry frenzy for election season. The D party doesn't want you thinking about what should be done about $22T in debt, illegal immigration, the solvency of entitlements, the fair application of the law or any successes that Trump administration achieves. The D party doesn't want to solve the big problems we face as a nation. The R party in terms of governing isn't much better on the big stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1089133611226415105 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 15 minutes ago, Foxx said: https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1089133611226415105 What does Bashar al Assad have on Nancy? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 12 minutes ago, DC Tom said: What does Bashar al Assad have on Nancy? A better record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: A better record? He certainly has more respect for rural America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: There will be no serious attempt to impeach the President. It's the continued narrative of all things Trump bad and the continued talk of impeachment that is of value to Democrats until the next election. People like you (10's of millions of voters) are simply pawns in the game. The D party wants you whipped into an angry frenzy for election season. The D party doesn't want you thinking about what should be done about $22T in debt, illegal immigration, the solvency of entitlements, the fair application of the law or any successes that Trump administration achieves. The D party doesn't want to solve the big problems we face as a nation. The R party in terms of governing isn't much better on the big stuff. Neither party wants a calm considered electorate. Why do you think Trump won? His calm collected well laid it plans? Nice of you to make me out to be a D, or D voter, neither of which I am. I’ve voted D at the top of a pres election fewer times than I’ve voted R. Edited January 27, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Just now, BeginnersMind said: Nice of you to make me out to be a D, or D voter, neither of which I am. I’ve voted D at the top of a pres election fewer times than I’ve voted R. D? dumb? i know, i know... low hanging fruit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts