TrumPutinGate

#26,905
#26,905
Velo Vol said:
Everything in the indictment is 2015 or later.

Oops.

https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Manafort-Indictment.pdf
Click to expand...
LMFAO! Whatever helps you rationalize it cupcake.

If Paul Manafort had never become associated with Trump he’d be waking around a free man. He wasn’t worth prosecuting before the campaign association. Now he’s being eviscerated as a proxy for Trump. These wise asses dropped the indictment minutes after it was announced he got a light sentence. That’s one butt hurt DA lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and hog88
#26,906
#26,906
Vol8188 said:
So if you agree this is a witch hunt, why do you support it?
Click to expand...
I've maintained since the beginning that I think Trump should be removed from office by any legal means available. However, I never factored in the level of continued support from the redhatters nor Trump's complete lack of consciousness and decency. I still hold out hope that there will be findings that all but the most brain dead Trumpers will view as impeachable. At a minimum, I want his supporters to have to admit that he is absolutely and unquestionably despicable, but they support him nonetheless.
 
#26,908
#26,908
luthervol said:
I've maintained since the beginning that I think Trump should be removed from office by any legal means available. However, I never factored in the level of continued support from the redhatters nor Trump's complete lack of consciousness and decency. I still hold out hope that there will be findings that all but the most brain dead Trumpers will view as impeachable. At a minimum, I want his supporters to have to admit that he is absolutely and unquestionably despicable, but they support him nonetheless.
Click to expand...

So you’re admitting that you really don’t care if he’s committed a crime or not and that is purely political?

Too bad the rest of your party won’t tell the truth
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#26,911
#26,911
EXCLUSIVE: Anderson Cooper, the New York Times and DNC are Sued by financial adviser who claims he received death threats after 'Fake News' reports that he conspired with Trump's campaign to divert attention away from Russian collusion

Financial adviser Ed Butowsky is suing Anderson Cooper, The New York Times and The Democratic National Committee for allegedly peddling 'fake news' about his involvement in Donald Trump's alleged Russian collusion to win him the presidency.

In the lawsuit exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com, Butowsky claims he and his family have been the victims of death threats, rocks were thrown in his windows and he lost a third of his business clients after 'left-wing extremists' engaged in a 'smear campaign' against him.

The suit says Butowsky's life was 'upended' in the summer of 2017 by the the 'false allegations' that he conspired with White House officials to push a fake story about stolen emails in order to divert attention away from allegations that Trump colluded with Russia to 'steal' the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

Butowsky names a dozen attorneys and law offices, three CNN journalists, including Anderson Cooper, a New York Times reporter and Vox Media for damages and legal costs.

10944986-6804679-image-a-33_1552498378551.jpg


Financial adviser Ed Butowsky sues Anderson Cooper over 'fake news' that he conspired with Trump | Daily Mail Online
 
#26,912
#26,912
Vol8188 said:
So you’re admitting that you really don’t care if he’s committed a crime or not and that is purely political?

Too bad the rest of your party won’t tell the truth
Click to expand...
Oh but I do care if Trump has committed a crime; there is no other way to peacefully remove him from office.
I consider his very presidency a crime against humanity, but that's just me. What do I know?
 
#26,916
#26,916
This goose chase bought those gutter rats a couple of years. But now it’s about to get tough on the criminals. Popcorn is ready.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#26,918
#26,918
Orange_Crush said:
I don't think anything's proven. But I don't think that seeing the level of evidence between the two are vastly different. (Yes, evidence, which should be viewed separate and distinct from each other piece of evidence.)

Before today, we had Comey having said that Hillary broke the law but they weren't going to indict, Hillary admitting to the server debacle.

Before today, we had evidence that indicated the FBI had some "insurance policy" against Trump's presidency. We had evidence that the evidence used for the FISA was a politically motivated hit job.

As of today, we have testimony under oath to Congress that the Russian collusion investigation was the insurance policy against Trump.

There is no way you can say that the evidence against Trump and the evidence against Clinton are the same, which is what you are claiming when accusing of a double standard.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the last part.

We don’t have anything close to perfect information in either case, so there’s a degree of guesswork involved in all of it, which allows for variance in the quality of the evidence without requiring complete equivalence of evidence.

To be convinced of either person’s guilt of a crime at this stage requires removing the benefit of the doubt, assuming some unproven facts that form the basis of the allegations, crediting some sworn testimony, and/or assumiing that the alleged behavior meets the legal definition of a crime.

In order to assume that there is no evidence of either, you have to be willing to discount court filings or FBI reports as baseless allegations, question the motives of government institutions, assume that all the people giving sworn testimony are liars, and assume that the conduct can be shown to meet the definition of a crime. Basically, you have to apply something approaching a legal standard to the proof.

The quality of the available evidence in both cases is similar. So if you apply either rubric to both cases, with an equal allowance of variance, you come to the same conclusion, unless you’ve got more perfect information.

You’re applying the “near legal” standard to Trump (you seem to be arguing that the genesis of the investigation is invalid that this has some relevance to the quantity and quality of the evidence available) and refusing to acknowledge any evidence of his wrong doing; meanwhile you’re suspending disbelief to accept an official allegation at face value with respect to Clinton, and simultaneously disregarding Page’s testimony that it was a novel case and that the DOJ didn’t feel they could sustain a charge of gross negligence.

That’s all fine, I’m not saying you’re wrong to do it, but it doesn’t rebut what I said initially about bias being necessary to reach different conclusions.
 
#26,919
#26,919
RockyTop85 said:
I disagree with the last part.

We don’t have anything close to perfect information in either case, so there’s a degree of guesswork involved in all of it, which allows for variance in the quality of the evidence without requiring complete equivalence of evidence.

To be convinced of either person’s guilt of a crime at this stage requires removing the benefit of the doubt, assuming some unproven facts that form the basis of the allegations, crediting some sworn testimony, and/or assumiing that the alleged behavior meets the legal definition of a crime.

In order to assume that there is no evidence of either, you have to be willing to discount court filings or FBI reports as baseless allegations, question the motives of government institutions, assume that all the people giving sworn testimony are liars, and assume that the conduct can be shown to meet the definition of a crime. Basically, you have to apply something approaching a legal standard to the proof.

The quality of the available evidence in both cases is similar. So if you apply either rubric to both cases, with an equal allowance of variance, you come to the same conclusion, unless you’ve got more perfect information.

You’re applying the “near legal” standard to Trump (you seem to be arguing that the genesis of the investigation is invalid that this has some relevance to the quantity and quality of the evidence available) and refusing to acknowledge any evidence of his wrong doing; meanwhile you’re suspending disbelief to accept an official allegation at face value with respect to Clinton, and simultaneously disregarding Page’s testimony that it was a novel case and that the DOJ didn’t feel they could sustain a charge of gross negligence.

That’s all fine, I’m not saying you’re wrong to do it, but it doesn’t rebut what I said initially about bias being necessary to reach different conclusions.
Click to expand...

Even you have to admit that there were unprecedented irregularities in the HC email investigation.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top