Hedge Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 19 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: (Boomerang) I hope all of those FBI agents get fired or demoted to the mail room and the reporters go to jail. 7 hours ago, Hedge said: Sounds fair - right? Romney might have been a more even-handed SC than Mueller, and Mittens despises Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 The last 24 hours Trump has pointed out the crimes committed by the Democrats, the witch hunt, etc. He's simply telling people what is to come. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 Chuck Todd didn't challenge it because Chuck Todd is a propagandist, not a journalist. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 2017 article, but worth the trip in the wayback machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 Susan Hennessey and Quinta Jurecic at Lawfare blog write: The Mueller Report describes, in excruciating detail and with relatively few redactions, a candidate and a campaign aware of the existence of a plot by a hostile foreign government to criminally interfere in the U.S. election for the purpose of supporting that candidate’s side. It describes a candidate and a campaign who welcomed the efforts and delighted in the assistance. It describes a candidate and a campaign who brazenly and serially lied to the American people about the existence of the foreign conspiracy and their contacts with it. And yet, it does not find evidence to support a charge of criminal conspiracy, which requires not just a shared purpose but a meeting of the minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Susan Hennessey and Quinta Jurecic at Lawfare blog write: The Mueller Report describes, in excruciating detail and with relatively few redactions, a candidate and a campaign aware of the existence of a plot by a hostile foreign government to criminally interfere in the U.S. election for the purpose of supporting that candidate’s side. It describes a candidate and a campaign who welcomed the efforts and delighted in the assistance. It describes a candidate and a campaign who brazenly and serially lied to the American people about the existence of the foreign conspiracy and their contacts with it. And yet, it does not find evidence to support a charge of criminal conspiracy, which requires not just a shared purpose but a meeting of the minds. Bob Loblaw law blog? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said: Bob Loblaw law blog? Oh no!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 "a candidate and a campaign aware of the existence of a plot by a hostile foreign government to criminally interfere in the U.S. election for the purpose of supporting that candidate’s side. It describes a candidate and a campaign who welcomed the efforts and delighted in the assistance. It describes a candidate and a campaign who brazenly and serially lied to the American people about the existence of the foreign conspiracy and their contacts with it. And yet, it does not find evidence to support a charge of criminal conspiracy, which requires not just a shared purpose but a meeting of the minds." Can someone share with me the evidence of the allegation that Trump and his campaign were aware of Russia wanting to interfere with the elections to assist with his victory? I'm not being coy, I know of a couple stated episodes but none show this. Even if you support Trump but know of what they are talking about, please link it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Bob Loblaw law blog? Lawfare is the heart of the resistance. They're not a serious organization, heavily partisan and got nearly every single thing wrong to date about Trump/Russia. Those who continue to take them seriously are demonstrating their own lack of critical thinking. 2 minutes ago, Magox said: "a candidate and a campaign aware of the existence of a plot by a hostile foreign government to criminally interfere in the U.S. election for the purpose of supporting that candidate’s side. It describes a candidate and a campaign who welcomed the efforts and delighted in the assistance. It describes a candidate and a campaign who brazenly and serially lied to the American people about the existence of the foreign conspiracy and their contacts with it. And yet, it does not find evidence to support a charge of criminal conspiracy, which requires not just a shared purpose but a meeting of the minds." Can someone share with me the evidence of the allegation that Trump and his campaign were aware of Russia wanting to interfere with the elections to assist with his victory? I'm not being coy, I know of a couple stated episodes but none show this. Even if you support Trump but know of what they are talking about, please link it. They're talking about two things: 1) the Trump Tower meeting and 2) "Russia if you're listening, find the emails!" Neither are examples of what they wish them to be, of course, but those are the instances they're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 Again, it's fine when the Dems conspire with Russia through a British intermediary. No hypocrisy there! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Susan Hennessey and Quinta Jurecic at Lawfare blog write: The Mueller Report describes, in excruciating detail and with relatively few redactions, a candidate and a campaign aware of the existence of a plot by a hostile foreign government to criminally interfere in the U.S. election for the purpose of supporting that candidate’s side. It describes a candidate and a campaign who welcomed the efforts and delighted in the assistance. It describes a candidate and a campaign who brazenly and serially lied to the American people about the existence of the foreign conspiracy and their contacts with it. And yet, it does not find evidence to support a charge of criminal conspiracy, which requires not just a shared purpose but a meeting of the minds. This would be like the Ravens being upset with the Bill's for rooting for the Bengals against the Ravens and even though the Bill's never communicated with the Bengals in how to defeat them. But they did cheer them on and there are some Bill's players who know some Bengals, that connection could mean they somehow assisted with the Ravens loss. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Lawfare is the heart of the resistance. They're not a serious organization, heavily partisan and got nearly every single thing wrong to date about Trump/Russia. Those who continue to take them seriously are demonstrating their own lack of critical thinking. They're talking about two things: 1) the Trump Tower meeting and 2) "Russia if you're listening, find the emails!" Neither are examples of what they wish them to be, of course, but those are the instances they're referring to. So the Russia tower meeting was to meet with that lawyer chick. I keep hearing she has "Kremlin ties" or "ties to Putin" Sounds ominous Then after a little research that is a complete mischaracterization of who she is. She represented an officer for one of the state-owned Railways companies. Since its state-owned, it is now considered close ties to the "Kremlin"? That's about all I could find about what she has done. That child adoption thing is something that she was lobbying for which was at odds of what Putin wanted. She was no more a "government" lawyer than any run-of-the-mill Russian lawyer. Complete mischaracterization of who she is. "Russia release the emails". Well....we know that's not evidence. That's campaign bluster Trump style. I knew of these two things but is there something else because if not then this parroted quote that they had knowledge of the Russian government wanting to assist with their campaign is unsubstantiated unless there is something else that I'm not aware of. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 57 minutes ago, Magox said: I knew of these two things but is there something else because if not then this parroted quote that they had knowledge of the Russian government wanting to assist with their campaign is unsubstantiated unless there is something else that I'm not aware of. The only thing you might not be aware of, is Natalia's direct ties to Fusion GPS/Glenn Simpson. She was hired by Fusion GPS to do work on the Magnitsky Act lobbying they were a part of (and Prevezon lawsuit). She met with Glenn Simpson immediately before the Trump Tower meeting and then again immediately after, despite Simpson testifying to congress that he does not speak Russian and she does not speak English. I'm a silver lining guy, and while I think what's been done to the country during this bruhaha is awful, it's hilarious to me that every single piece of "evidence" the resistance has long been clinging to/holding up as proof of collusion actually implicates the Clinton campaign/Obama DOJ/FBI/IC in a much more criminal way. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 Someone make this stop already. Jesus Christ man................. IT'S OVER. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 If Trump offhandedly joking during a campaign speech or debate is in fact a crime can someone tell me why he wasn’t immediately arrested and hauled off the stage? Answer....it’s NOT a crime! My goodness people stop this already. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 31 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: If Trump offhandedly joking during a campaign speech or debate is in fact a crime can someone tell me why he wasn’t immediately arrested and hauled off the stage? Answer....it’s NOT a crime! My goodness people stop this already. C'mon man, you know the 1st Amendment only applies when you agree with the liberals. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 5 hours ago, njbuff said: Someone make this stop already. Jesus Christ man................. IT'S OVER. https://tenor.com/Iny5.gif 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts