Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are the odds that the Durham investigation is for real and will bring the bad actors to justice?

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Hoot Owl View Post
    Even taking that meeting at Trump tower was illegal because it's illegal to solicit information on a political opponent from a foreign source. So they got off easy, super easy - they walked...so far.
    Trump Jr. was in contact with Wikileaks directly (p. 60 of Mueller vol. I), and of course he eagerly wanted help from "Russia and its government," among other things.

    The two reasons Mueller gave for not indicting Trump Jr. and other Trump Tower participants were:
    1. Questions about first amendment rights and what constituted "a thing of value" would be resolved in court. (p. 187), though Mueller provides plenty of past cases and legal citations suggesting that team Trump did indeed seek a "thing of value."

    2. "On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable
    doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful." (p. 187).

    Yep, that's right. Trumpsters got away with a crime because they seemingly didn't know it was unlawful.
    For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
    https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


    My (old dead) band!:
    www.steelphantoms.com/
    PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

    Comment


    • #17
      With the past as prologue, I anticipate Look Over There Gate will produce a similar number of indictments and convictions as Whitewater and Benghazi.
      __________________________________________________

      Is This Thing On?

      https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

        Trump Jr. was in contact with Wikileaks directly (p. 60 of Mueller vol. I), and of course he eagerly wanted help from "Russia and its government," among other things.

        The two reasons Mueller gave for not indicting Trump Jr. and other Trump Tower participants were:
        1. Questions about first amendment rights and what constituted "a thing of value" would be resolved in court. (p. 187), though Mueller provides plenty of past cases and legal citations suggesting that team Trump did indeed seek a "thing of value."

        2. "On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable
        doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful." (p. 187).

        Yep, that's right. Trumpsters got away with a crime because they seemingly didn't know it was unlawful.
        A simple question:
        Imagine a guy that doesn't know that selling cocaine out of the back of your white van is illegal. Imagine he sets up a meeting with a guy that claims to have cocaine for him to sell but, in reality, only has corn flakes, so there is no deal.

        Did he break the law?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

          That one was just completed. I'm talking about the one that just started.
          This misguided theoriy has no explanation for the indictments, convictions and guilty pleas produced by the Mueller investigation.
          __________________________________________________

          Is This Thing On?

          https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

            This misguided theoriy has no explanation for the indictments, convictions and guilty pleas produced by the Mueller investigation.
            Make of it what you will.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

              Make of it what you will.
              The facts of the numbers of indictments convictions and guilty pleas produced as a result of the Mueller investigation speak for themselves.

              same with Watergate, same with Iran Contra.

              as you can see I am proposing a quantifiable standard for measurement as opposed then everybody having their own varying opinions on the matter.

              let's take the Benghazi investigations as an example. No indictments no convictions no guilty pleas.

              successful or unsuccessful? How you answer this simple question will reveal perhaps more than you are willing to.

              so the safest thing would be to withdraw and not answer the question.
              😀
              __________________________________________________

              Is This Thing On?

              https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

                A simple question:
                Imagine a guy that doesn't know that selling cocaine out of the back of your white van is illegal. Imagine he sets up a meeting with a guy that claims to have cocaine for him to sell but, in reality, only has corn flakes, so there is no deal.

                Did he break the law?
                If I understand correctly, attempting to purchase drugs is a crime whether the drugs were purchased or not. For that reason, people can be arrested during drug busts where police set up fake sales. Do you know which statutes you're referring to? Could you point me to them?

                I would think that if someone is trying to purchase and sell drugs and police had evidence that the person was trying to purchase and sell drugs, they would investigate the person. If the police and/or courts found the person NOT guilty on the grounds that he didn't know it was wrong (and I doubt those are legitimate grounds in the case of drug dealing*), I don't think that would make an investigation of the subject illegitimate or criminal.

                Do you think the police would have done something illegal by investigating the person in your analogy?

                *Mueller points to specific statutes applying specifically to campaign law. These statutes are different than statutes surrounding drug purchase and dealing. Hence, your analogy doesn't lead to a conclusion that applies the same way to both cases. This is a problem with your constant use of analogies.

                If it is illegal or illegitimate to investigate people for whom there is evidence of attempt to do wrong, then we lose a whole lot of investigative power, and a lot more crimes for which evidence exists would go uninvestigated and unpunished. This is similar to the conversation the judge had with Trump's lawyers this week over subpoenas. The judge's questions led Trump's lawyers to the point where they either had to 1) admit they themselves are wrong, or 2) agree that it was wrong for Congress to investigate Nixon.
                For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                My (old dead) band!:
                www.steelphantoms.com/
                PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

                  The facts of the numbers of indictments convictions and guilty pleas produced as a result of the Mueller investigation speak for themselves.

                  same with Watergate, same with Iran Contra.

                  as you can see I am proposing a quantifiable standard for measurement as opposed then everybody having their own varying opinions on the matter.

                  let's take the Benghazi investigations as an example. No indictments no convictions no guilty pleas.

                  successful or unsuccessful? How you answer this simple question will reveal perhaps more than you are willing to.

                  so the safest thing would be to withdraw and not answer the question.
                  😀
                  You are literally STILL arguing the Mueller investigation. You should send your resume to CNN. They are looking for people just like you!
                  Last edited by Easy Listener; 05-15-2019, 01:07 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

                    You are liteally STILL arguing the Mueller investigation. You should send your resume to CNN. They are looking for people just like you!
                    It's more than a little bit funny how quickly the attitude change from Trump supporters.

                    before the release of the report when all we had was the 4-page summary and press conference by the Attorney General, folks on the right were proclaiming the Mueller report to be complete exoneration.

                    and once we got the release of even the unredacted portions of that report all of a sudden That Tune has changed!

                    Surprise!
                    __________________________________________________

                    Is This Thing On?

                    https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Trump did recently call the Mueller report “the Bible.” It might be worth a read.

                      Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-15-2019, 01:10 PM.
                      For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                      https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                      My (old dead) band!:
                      www.steelphantoms.com/
                      PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Got bad news for all. The players on the Hill are all playing the American people. Nothing will come of any of it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

                          If I understand correctly, attempting to purchase drugs is a crime whether the drugs were purchased or not.
                          That may be true. But I compare it to having a bag of garbage in your car to take to the dump, and in it is an empty bourbon bottle. You get pulled over by a cop and he sees the bottle and arrests you for having an open container in the car.

                          It's one of those "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" things. Laws have a reason for existing. And preventing someone from including a bourbon bottle in their garbage bag is not why the open container law exists.

                          A guy trying to do a thing that seems to him to be perfectly innocent, and failing at doing it, is not something law enforcement should be wasting their time with. They could always tell the guy that what he was trying to do would have been illegal if he had done it.

                          But then, with this situation, are we even sure that what he was trying to do was illegal, or are we straining at technicalities to make it appear illegal?

                          If I talk to a person who is a member of a hostile government that it is illegal for me to talk to (what about the first amendment), but I don't know he is a representative of that government, am I doing anything illegal?

                          It is quite muddy if you want to get steeped in technical law interpretations, yet oddly clear if you take a reasonable "real world" approach to it. And that suggests it's probably not worth pursuing legally.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post
                            That may be true. But I compare it to having a bag of garbage in your car to take to the dump, and in it is an empty bourbon bottle. You get pulled over by a cop and he sees the bottle and arrests you for having an open container in the car.

                            It's one of those "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" things. Laws have a reason for existing. And preventing someone from including a bourbon bottle in their garbage bag is not why the open container law exists.

                            A guy trying to do a thing that seems to him to be perfectly innocent, and failing at doing it, is not something law enforcement should be wasting their time with. They could always tell the guy that what he was trying to do would have been illegal if he had done it.

                            But then, with this situation, are we even sure that what he was trying to do was illegal, or are we straining at technicalities to make it appear illegal?

                            If I talk to a person who is a member of a hostile government that it is illegal for me to talk to (what about the first amendment), but I don't know he is a representative of that government, am I doing anything illegal?

                            It is quite muddy if you want to get steeped in technical law interpretations, yet oddly clear if you take a reasonable "real world" approach to it. And that suggests it's probably not worth pursuing legally.
                            Does “probably not worth pursuing legally” mean “illegal”?

                            Do you really want to equate numerous attempts to coordinate with an adversarial foreign power to win an election (plus lying and trying to cover up the attempt) while having knowledge that the foreign power was indeed working to thwart your opponents to throwing an empty bottle of booze in the car?*

                            Do you notice the same pattern I notice in which I often answer your questions but you avoid my questions and instead turn around with long posts that elude my pointed questions?

                            Yes. The law is muddy, and that’s why these analogies are often inapplicable.

                            Here's an analogy for ya: You know a guy is going around murdering people in your neighborhood. The guy offers to give your family a million bucks. Do you take the money and keep quiet? Or do you reject the money and go to the police?........ If I tried to use that to discuss the campaign and Russian interference, you and I would both easily see the gigantic differences between that situation and the campaign/Russia situation.
                            Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-15-2019, 01:49 PM.
                            For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                            https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                            My (old dead) band!:
                            www.steelphantoms.com/
                            PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post
                              Article here: What are the odds that the Durham investigation is for real and will bring the bad actors to justice?

                              Folks, this is a really good read with excellent analysis. The core premise is along these lines (from the article):



                              The article then goes on to offer some fascinating tidbits that support the argument that it might actually be different this time. An example:
                              Zero. Just look at how General Flynn is being treated. That`s all you need to know.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by redEL34 View Post

                                Zero. Just look at how General Flynn is being treated. That`s all you need to know.
                                I need to know more. Your posts lack detail, IMO.

                                George Washington was the man who never told a lie. Richard Nixon was the man who never told the truth. Donald Trump is the man who doesn't know the difference.
                                Venezuela is what happens when you have Trump without the Madison.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X