US Egg Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 25 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: to, too and two 6 5
Nineforty Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Yes - that's what Bannon said. And, during Stone's trial, we learned for a fact this was not true. Stone was representing himself to have contacts which he didn't. He was cribbing news reports and citing them as original. Trump/Russia was never real, Nineforty. It was fiction. There was no wikileaks connection to the campaign, certainly not to Stone. They lied to you for 3 years. I can see you have not read the Mueller Report and and are part of a cult. "Trump/Russia" is very real and it's disheartening you really believe it isn't. I bet you believe there was no collusion when the report is littered with it. And I know the difference between charging someone or a group with Criminal Conspiracy and proving it in a court of law, versus evidence of clear cut collusion. I will not waste any more time on you. Good day. 1 3 1
3rdnlng Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Just now, Nineforty said: Of course, if you want to get bogged down in semantics. Which is why there is a trial where you can weigh certain statements or evidence and seek to determine one's guilt or innocence. Excuse me for thinking it was an important part of his conviction when you have someone on your own team reluctantly admitting you're a god damned traitor. I guess I didn't realize that counts for nothing because he couched his RELUCTANT statement in words like "generally believed" and "at that time". Guess the jury was supposed to ignore this. Gotcha. Why do you think the questions eliciting those kinds of responses were asked in the way they were? 1 minute ago, Nineforty said: I can see you have not read the Mueller Report and and are part of a cult. "Trump/Russia" is very real and it's disheartening you really believe it isn't. I bet you believe there was no collusion when the report is littered with it. And I know the difference between charging someone or a group with Criminal Conspiracy and proving it in a court of law, versus evidence of clear cut collusion. I will not waste any more time on you. Good day. Please include me in that statement too. 2
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Didn't you claim that you taught a writing class or am I mistaking you with Tiberius? ok, the idea of Tibs teaching anything, let alone a writing class, has me laughing out loud. Honestly. I am still laughing. 6 minutes ago, Nineforty said: I can see you have not read the Mueller Report and and are part of a cult. "Trump/Russia" is very real and it's disheartening you really believe it isn't. I bet you believe there was no collusion when the report is littered with it. And I know the difference between charging someone or a group with Criminal Conspiracy and proving it in a court of law, versus evidence of clear cut collusion. Oh my goodness. You may want to lay of the LSD. There is no way anyone not tripping on hallucinogenics could believe those things. IF you really read Part 1 of the Mueller report, you could know Trump/Russia was pure nonsense. Part 1 was the portion was not based on feelz. Part 2 was #OrangeManBad and we have to justify spending millions and wasting a ton of time after we figured out there was no there, there. 2 2
Nineforty Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: ok, the idea of Tibs teaching anything, let alone a writing class, has me laughing out loud. Honestly. I am still laughing. Oh my goodness. You may want to lay of the LSD. There is no way anyone not tripping on hallucinogenics could believe those things. IF you really read Part 1 of the Mueller report, you could know Trump/Russia was pure nonsense. Part 1 was the portion was not based on feelz. Part 2 was #OrangeManBad and we have to justify spending millions and wasting a ton of time after we figured out there was no there, there. You didn't read it. It's really okay because I don't know many on either side of the issue that have. I read it and listened to it twice actually. If anyone reads Part I and comes away with the conclusion that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was false, misleading, or part of a coup/deep-state/election reversal, or "nonsense" as you put it, then you are as bad as Trump, Stone, Flynn, Manafort. You are not a patriot. You are ignorant of the truth. Of what is right. And I view on the same level as these traitors. Except, you're not an actual traitor like them. You live in an echo chamber filled with QAnon twitter, Fox News TV, Breitbart news and it's all bull#### just recycled and regurgitated. You will live with your shame for a long time. It's just a matter of time before you realize it. And Part II proves obstruction of justice. Also, you do realize that the Mueller report turned a profit after Manafort's seizures? Of course, I highly doubt that money goes into funding the investigation, but I find it newsworthy nonetheless when people like yourself play the "this investigation cost taxpayers _____ argument". Even if they didn't make more off the seizures, this is a dumb comment filled with many. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Just now, Nineforty said: You didn't read it. It's really okay because I don't know many on either side of the issue that have. I read it and listened to it twice actually. If anyone reads Part I and comes away with the conclusion that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was false, misleading, or part of a coup/deep-state/election reversal, or "nonsense" as you put it, then you are as bad as Trump, Stone, Flynn, Manafort. You are not a patriot. You are ignorant of the truth. Of what is right. And I view on the same level as these traitors. Except, you're not an actual traitor like them. You live in an echo chamber filled with QAnon twitter, Fox News TV, Breitbart news and it's all bull#### just recycled and regurgitated. You will live with your shame for a long time. It's just a matter of time before you realize it. And Part II proves obstruction of justice. Also, you do realize that the Mueller report turned a profit after Manafort's seizures? Of course, I highly doubt that money goes into funding the investigation, but I find it newsworthy nonetheless when people like yourself play the "this investigation cost taxpayers _____ argument". Even if they didn't make more off the seizures, this is a dumb comment filled with many. Lot of crazy folk out today. Seek help. ? 2
Numark3 Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Lot of crazy folk out today. Seek help. ? avoid reading legal documents for the love of god
transplantbillsfan Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: It may very well be that no one is held accountable for the soft coup and subversion. It may mean that this summer, there is a world of hurt for the soft coup plotters. Time will tell. OR... maybe you guys over here are just a wee bit delusional on occasion... potentially from some of the pretty poor places some of you seek your news and information And I mean that as a friend because with the exception of only one or 2 posters, I like all you guys over here and don't think anyone's a lost cause 1 1 1
US Egg Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Nice to see Tibs has some company in here. No one should be alone on Valentine's Day. 3
njbuff Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Nineforty said: You didn't read it. It's really okay because I don't know many on either side of the issue that have. I read it and listened to it twice actually. If anyone reads Part I and comes away with the conclusion that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was false, misleading, or part of a coup/deep-state/election reversal, or "nonsense" as you put it, then you are as bad as Trump, Stone, Flynn, Manafort. You are not a patriot. You are ignorant of the truth. Of what is right. And I view on the same level as these traitors. Except, you're not an actual traitor like them. You live in an echo chamber filled with QAnon twitter, Fox News TV, Breitbart news and it's all bull#### just recycled and regurgitated. You will live with your shame for a long time. It's just a matter of time before you realize it. And Part II proves obstruction of justice. Also, you do realize that the Mueller report turned a profit after Manafort's seizures? Of course, I highly doubt that money goes into funding the investigation, but I find it newsworthy nonetheless when people like yourself play the "this investigation cost taxpayers _____ argument". Even if they didn't make more off the seizures, this is a dumb comment filled with many. Simple question. Why isn’t Trump impeached and in jail? 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Just now, transplantbillsfan said: OR... maybe you guys over here are just a wee bit delusional on occasion... potentially from some of the pretty poor places some of you seek your news and information And I mean that as a friend because with the exception of only one or 2 posters, I like all you guys over here and don't think anyone's a lost cause I do not think so, @transplantbillsfan . People can read. I have read all the text messages, the OIG reports, etc. It is fairly evident what happened. McCabe not being indicted for lying is distressing in light of so many manufactured process crimes that have been litigated to this point. Does it mean no one (or that McCabe himself) will not be indicted? No. But, it is disheartening. 1
Numark3 Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I do not think so, @transplantbillsfan . People can read. I have read all the text messages, the OIG reports, etc. It is fairly evident what happened. McCabe not being indicted for lying is distressing in light of so many manufactured process crimes that have been litigated to this point. Does it mean no one (or that McCabe himself) will not be indicted? No. But, it is disheartening. it’s because you do not have the whole picture, you are looking at only a portion of it. And you are not qualified to analyze any of it legally. it is distressing? Grow up. It is absolutely crazy that someone can form a conclusion over pieces of evidence, and then get distressed when actual professionals with the whole picture disagree. Stop pretending to be a prosecutor based on what pieces of information Twitter feeds you. Get a job or life or something Edited February 14, 2020 by Crayola64 1
Nineforty Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, njbuff said: Simple question. Why isn’t Trump impeached and in jail? Simple answer: 1. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution (there is a pdf if you'd like to read the OLC Memo) 2. Here is an explainer: https://www.vox.com/2019/7/24/20708393/robert-mueller-report-trump-olc-justice-department-indictment-charge-sitting-president 3. Trump was impeached. Forever impeached. He was acquitted by the Senate. 2 2
Deranged Rhino Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 31 minutes ago, Nineforty said: I can see you have not read the Mueller Report and and are part of a cult. I've not only read both volumes, I’ve interviewed (in depth) several people involved in its creation and several of those named in it. 31 minutes ago, Nineforty said: "Trump/Russia" is very real and it's disheartening you really believe it isn't. To be sure we are talking about the same thing, and not past one another, what about Trump / Russia is real in your mind. Please be specific. 32 minutes ago, Nineforty said: I bet you believe there was no collusion when the report is littered with it. Please show me the indictments, and/or bits of volume one which claim there was collusion and conspiracy between US persons and Russian agents. How can the above be true when not a single person was indicted for it? Not one? 34 minutes ago, Nineforty said: And I know the difference between charging someone or a group with Criminal Conspiracy and proving it in a court of law, versus evidence of clear cut collusion. What is the standard of justice in this country? What is it’s bedrock? Is it innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Do you disagree with this standard of justice? If not, how can you hold the above to be true while believing in it? 2 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: it’s because you do not have the whole picture, you are looking at only a portion of it. And you are not qualified to analyze any of it legally. it is distressing? Grow up. It is absolutely crazy that someone can form a conclusion over pieces of evidence, and then get distressed when actual professionals with the whole picture disagree. Stop pretending to be a prosecutor based on what pieces of information Twitter feeds you. Get a job or life or something I retired at 40. I do not ever plan on heading back to work. But thanks for the life-advice! Edited February 14, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal 1
Numark3 Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: retired at 40. I do not ever plan on heading back to work. But thanks for the life-advice! that explains a lot lol Continue getting distressed because professionals who have the whole picture disagree with your interpretation of some texts and reports. you might want to get a different hobby, make-pretend cop is stressing you out. Edited February 14, 2020 by Crayola64
njbuff Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Nineforty said: Simple answer: 1. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution (there is a pdf if you'd like to read the OLC Memo) 2. Here is an explainer: https://www.vox.com/2019/7/24/20708393/robert-mueller-report-trump-olc-justice-department-indictment-charge-sitting-president 3. Trump was impeached. Forever impeached. He was acquitted by the Senate. How about forever acquitted if you wanna play that game. So, an opinion piece and a vox piece are your sources? This is just another reason I can’t take politics seriously. 1 1
Deranged Rhino Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, Nineforty said: Simple answer: 1. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution (there is a pdf if you'd like to read the OLC Memo) 2. Here is an explainer: https://www.vox.com/2019/7/24/20708393/robert-mueller-report-trump-olc-justice-department-indictment-charge-sitting-president 3. Trump was impeached. Forever impeached. He was acquitted by the Senate. So your argument is even if they KNEW and could PROVE collusion, they wouldn’t be able to charge the president? So instead they let him serve a full term, appoint two supremes and over 100+ federal judges... Because of the olc? They got you GOOD, nineforty. You’re so lost you don’t know up from down on this topic. You realize the OLC opinion is not law. It’s not binding. It’s not required to be followed. 2
Numark3 Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I've not only read both volumes, I’ve interviewed (in depth) several people involved in its creation and several of those named in it. this cracks me up too much
Nineforty Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, njbuff said: How about forever acquitted if you wanna play that game. So, an opinion piece and a vox piece are your sources? This is just another reason I can’t take politics seriously. I don't disagree with the bolded. Of course. Did you click on the ***** links? lol I can tell you didn't. The first one is no an opinion piece as you put it. Sure it has the word "opinion" in the link title lol... ROBERT MUELLER'S OWN WORDS: We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted,” he said. The OLC policy itself is relatively straightforward: Most recently reevaluated in 2000, it argues that the executive branch would be incapacitated by a criminal prosecution: The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. In his report, Mueller did not ultimately charge the president. He made clear during his afternoon testimony that because of the OLC opinion, his team did not even reach a conclusion about “whether the president committed a crime.” This point was a major clarification of an earlier exchange in which Mueller seemed to signal that he would have potentially charged the president, were it not for the OLC opinion.
Recommended Posts