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

  • arcadesonfire
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hicks
    replied
    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.
    😀

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hicks
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • arcadesonfire
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

    The more proper name of that to which you refer would be Diversiongate.

    or perhaps look over their gate.
    That one was just completed. I'm talking about the one that just started.

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

    The focus of Mueller's inquiry was actually specifically Limited.

    .
    No, it wasn't. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...t-goes/534525/

    Lucky for the maid she had no pending shoplifting arrests.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hicks
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    The real "Russiagate" is just ramping up, IMO.

    Watch and learn how adults investigate a real crime.
    The more proper name of that to which you refer would be Diversiongate.

    or perhaps look over their gate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hicks
    replied
    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.
    The focus of Mueller's inquiry was actually specifically Limited.

    the people that Trump Administration and Fellow Travelers were talking to were not elected Russian government officials.

    like the lady lawyer at the Trump Tower meeting.

    or the red sparrow with the NRA.

    I think the term of art for those type of intermediaries is to call them "cutouts".

    Leave a comment:


  • TCM
    replied
    You state:

    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    Folks, this is a really good read with excellent analysis. The core premise is along these lines (from the article):
    Then you add an excerpt from the opinion piece:

    “The bottom’s gonna fall out tomorrow,” and it never does. “Breaking news! Breaking news! Heads are gonna roll tomorrow,” and they never do. “Breaking news! Breaking news! Full operation exposed, details tomorrow morning,” whatever. Never happens."

    But here's an interesting thing- this excerpt is cut from a quote of Rush Limbaugh, contained in the opinion piece.

    Let's unpack this a little more...

    1. I don't know if it was intentional on your part, but it could be perceived as being a bit deceitful to not identify him as the actual source. Which, given the (IMO) pretty much universal acknowledgement that Limbaugh is nothing more than an entertainer, who has decided to cater to the hyper-partisan far right market, taints the credibility of these words.

    2. But, even a blind squirrel will find an acorn now and then. So let's take it at face value- for years, the hyper-partisans on the far right have been waiting for heads to roll! Exposure of the full operation! And it never happens. Well, using the 9 or 10 congressional hearing on Benghazi as an example of this, it seems reasonable to conclude that the reasons heads don't roll and full exposure doesn't occur is, well, there's no factual basis.

    So, I won't tell you not to get your hopes up, there, little fella. But history really isn't on your side.

    Make of it what you will.

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

    Of course we reasonable folks can probably easily agree that the real standards for the results of Investigations are indictments and convictions.

    using that metric the gold standard for National investigations are as follows:

    Watergate

    Iran Contra

    Russiagate
    The real "Russiagate" is just ramping up, IMO.

    Watch and learn how adults investigate a real crime.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hicks
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    You are still arguing that report?! HAHAHHAHA!
    Of course we reasonable folks can probably easily agree that the real standards for the results of Investigations are indictments and convictions.

    using that metric the gold standard for National investigations are as follows:

    Watergate

    Iran Contra

    Russiagate

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post
    The Mueller report clearly shows the Trump Administration welcomed the interference from Russia on their behalf in the 2016 election.

    when the Russians made their initial contacts and offers team Trump should have immediately notified the FBI.

    of course it makes sense that those within the Trump bubble will not want to focus on this but rather want to focus on investigating the investigators.


    cast suspicion elsewhere, muddy the waters, Poison the Well; use your own analogy for this weak sauce look over there campaign.
    You are still arguing that report?! HAHAHHAHA!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X