The 5th Amendment

[Kemp]

 

 

And Trump says Stone has guts for taking the 5th. Trump thinks taking the 5th shows you're a mobster unless It's an associate of his. Then it shows guts.

 

Sometimes it's too easy picking this guy apart. Not that it's not fun.

[Prickly Pete]

Is a new thread needed for every contradiction from a politician? 

 

No one cares...

[outsidethebox]

Lamp

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, OJ Tom said:

Is a new thread needed for every contradiction from a politician? 

 

No one cares...

 

Newbie looking for attention

[Tiberius]

All these criminals in this administration..,,

[Kemp]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

All these criminals in this administration..,,

 

Criminals tend to hang out with other criminals. 

 

Funny how often Trump supporters are forced to look the other way and feign disinterest when it's yet another nail in their leader's coffin.

 

What's scary is that no matter what damning evidence comes out, they will find excuses for it and continue supporting him. 

 

There will never be a shortage of idiots.

[3rdnlng]

So, I guess Lois Lerner must be a criminal.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lois-lerner-pleads-the-fifth-again-doesnt-testify-on-irs-targeting/

[Kemp]

The point remains either taking the 5th is or is not an admission of guilt. It doesn't depend upon who your friends are.

 

I don't think it's an admission of guilt. It's a right.

 

Trump' s opinion is that if you like him it's fine. Otherwise it's an admission of guilt.

 

What's your view on the 5th or does it change along the lines of Trump?

[Koko78]

BREAKING NEWS: Politician says contradictory things depending on the situation/audience. Film at 5, 6, 10, and 11.

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, Kemp said:

The point remains either taking the 5th is or is not an admission of guilt. It doesn't depend upon who your friends are.

 

I don't think it's an admission of guilt. It's a right.

 

Trump' s opinion is that if you like him it's fine. Otherwise it's an admission of guilt.

 

What's your view on the 5th or does it change along the lines of Trump?

The 5th is an important right. Lois Lerner used it to avoid incriminating herself. I don't think she was worried about a perjury trap while testifying before Congress but she was certainly worried about admitting guilt. Roger Stone may or may not have done something illegal but knew that the only way he could get in trouble would be in a process crime via a perjury trap. He said FU to Mueller and his team by pleading the 5th. Lerner's pleading of the 5th was just a tad different.

[BringBackOrton]

2 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

Criminals tend to hang out with other criminals. 

 

Funny how often Trump supporters are forced to look the other way and feign disinterest when it's yet another nail in their leader's coffin.

 

What's scary is that no matter what damning evidence comes out, they will find excuses for it and continue supporting him. 

 

There will never be a shortage of idiots.

Ha ha ha, the damning evidence that has come out every day for the last two years.

 

”THIS TIME TRUMP IS FINISHED!”

[Kemp]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

The 5th is an important right. Lois Lerner used it to avoid incriminating herself. I don't think she was worried about a perjury trap while testifying before Congress but she was certainly worried about admitting guilt. Roger Stone may or may not have done something illegal but knew that the only way he could get in trouble would be in a process crime via a perjury trap. He said FU to Mueller and his team by pleading the 5th. Lerner's pleading of the 5th was just a tad different.

 

How do you determine one person is guilty when they plead the 5th and another person might be? 

 

You can only be caught committing perjury if you knowingly lie.

 

You can't be trapped.

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

How do you determine one person is guilty when they plead the 5th and another person might be? 

 

You can only be caught committing perjury if you knowingly lie.

 

You can't be trapped.

You are naïve.

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, BringBackOrton said:

Ha ha ha, the damning evidence that has come out every day for the last two years.

 

”THIS TIME TRUMP IS FINISHED!”

 

I often make the mistake that people understood how investigations work. 

 

Expecting evidence from the first day of an investigation shows a distinct lack of understanding of the process. 

Evidence comes out when findings are presented. You really didn't know that?

 

If there is no evidence, Trump and his supporters can crow about it. Until then we don't know the results of the investigation.

 

I know which way I'm betting. You know which way you are betting, but that we don't have the results yet is only proof of innocence to the less bright and the blanket deniers. 

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

You are naïve.

 

Give me some examples of people who have been wrongly convicted in "perjury traps". 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

 

I often make the mistake that people understood how investigations work. 

 

Expecting evidence from the first day of an investigation shows a distinct lack of understanding of the process. 

Evidence comes out when findings are presented. You really didn't know that?

 

If there is no evidence, Trump and his supporters can crow about it. Until then we don't know the results of the investigation.

 

I know which way I'm betting. You know which way you are betting, but that we don't have the results yet is only proof of innocence to the less bright and the blanket deniers. 

 

This is naive. There are plenty of ways to know how an investigation is going by the filings said investigators make. 

To date, not a single filing has been made regarding Russian collusion/Treason. Not one. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

To date, not a single filing has been made regarding Russian collusion/Treason. Not one. 

 

 

I wonder how long you will be able to say that for. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

I wonder how long you will be able to say that for. 

 

Until there's evidence showing otherwise. 

 

It's been two years. I've devoted a lot of time, effort, and capital into this investigation and still have yet to see anything that makes me even suspect there's fire below all the smoke. 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I wonder how long you will be able to say that for. 

Probably as long as you will still be folding towels at the laundromat. In other words, infinity.

[Kemp]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This is naive. There are plenty of ways to know how an investigation is going by the filings said investigators make. 

To date, not a single filing has been made regarding Russian collusion/Treason. Not one. 

 

 

 

To date means zero.

 

I know you know an investigation works. At least most of your arguments are rational even if I disagree with them, unlike some here who just post angry nonsense.

 

By the way, have you seen the redacted filings? I haven't. Do you think it's even possible that there may be some evidence in Flynn's testimony? We do know from the redacted material that there are at least 2 criminal investigations currently under way. If they only contained evidence of crimes committed by Flynn, Mueller would not have asked for no jail time for him.

 

This does not mean there exists proof of conspiracy or other crimes, but it points to some alleged crimes being committed by people other than Flynn.

 

Since we know that deals are never cut to go after underlings, we know that the target(s) are higher in the food chain than Flynn. The only people I can think of that are higher in this foodchain might be Manafort, Kushner, Don Jr., Ivanka, and the President.

 

It doesn't mean they are guilty, but it absolutely means that someone in that group will be charged with some crime(s).

The best argument for your side will be if none of them involve conspiracy.

[Tiberius]

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Until there's evidence showing otherwise. 

 

It's been two years. I've devoted a lot of time, effort, and capital into this investigation and still have yet to see anything that makes me even suspect there's fire below all the smoke. 

If there is evidence, Mueller has it. All these cooperating witnesses must have something to say. Trump wanted that hotel, but sanctions were preventing it, so Russia helped Trump. 

[Deranged Rhino]

12 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

To date means zero.

 

Only if you are trying to fit the facts to your narrative rather than visa versa. 

 

You're outsourcing your own critical thinking skills and deferring to an authority without skipping a beat. That's how disinformation takes hold. WMD in Iraq ring a bell?

 

13 minutes ago, Kemp said:

I know you know an investigation works. At least most of your arguments are rational even if I disagree with them, unlike some here who just post angry nonsense.

 

By the way, have you seen the redacted filings? I haven't. Do you think it's even possible that there may be some evidence in Flynn's testimony?

 

The Flynn redactions are interesting and I fully admit - as I have with all redactions in testimony and papers filed - that speculations are all we can offer. But some speculation is much more worthy and informed than others. For example, the key document to this whole thing, as I've argued for over a year now, came not from Mueller but from DNI Coats in April of '17 and is heavily redacted: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

But, there are context clues within the document, and within open source, that one can use to decipher much of the blacked out portions. 

 

Flynn is a special case for me as I have gotten the opportunity to engage on his case more than any other with people actually involved in the affair. Because of that, I fully admit that I'm susceptible to disinformation coming from otherwise trusted sources. And while I can't offer open source evidence to support my position, I have been given glimpses into this matter that make it highly unlikely Flynn "flipped on Trump". It's anecdotal, so I don't offer it as proof - just as information to be shared with this group for others to consider or dismiss.  

 

So yes it is possible - but I put the likelihood at less than 1% based on what else I know about General Flynn's situation. 

 

19 minutes ago, Kemp said:

We do know from the redacted material that there are at least 2 criminal investigations currently under way. If they only contained evidence of crimes committed by Flynn, Mueller would not have asked for no jail time for him.

 

There's no question the redacted sections aren't about crimes committed by Flynn. That's evident from the filing itself. 

 

From the surrounding investigations that we know of, there are only so many possibilities for what those investigations are. The most likely are spin off FARA cases involving both Mercury and Podesta Group which were passed off to the SDNY by Mueller's team earlier this year. If you go all the way back to the beginning of this thread you'll find many posts by myself pointing out the FARA investigations/indictments arising from this investigation will be aimed at the swamp on both sides of the aisle on K-Street. Mercury and Podesta Group investigations lead to big criminal violations by both Dems and Reps alike. Flynn would have a ton to offer on K-Street violations from his time as DIA director. 

 

The other most likely candidate for criminal investigations which Flynn assisted with is IG Horowitz's probe into FISA abuse. Based on the already published IG findings on the Mid Year Exam, which foretold bigger criminal referrals and findings in the FISA abuse, we know Horowitz's team (of over 450 attorneys) would want to talk with Flynn about anything involving FISA abuse since he was a likely target of a FISA very early on. 

 

Those are the most likely based on the information we have available. Do we know for sure? Nope. Can we be relatively certain? You betcha. 

 

25 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

This does not mean there exists proof of conspiracy or other crimes, but it points to some alleged crimes being committed by people other than Flynn.

 

Which has always been my position from the start. This investigation has a cover story (Russian collusion) but the real targets are K-Street and the abuse of our most powerful surveillance tools to spy on political opposition. 

 

The evidence to support this supposition is found in the FISC memo linked above as well as the filings, indictments, and testimony given to date by numerous individuals on all sides of this issue. 

 

26 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Since we know that deals are never cut to go after underlings, we know that the target(s) are higher in the food chain than Flynn. The only people I can think of that are higher in this foodchain might be Manafort, Kushner, Don Jr., Ivanka, and the President.

It doesn't mean they are guilty, but it absolutely means that someone in that group will be charged with some crime(s).

The best argument for your side will be if none of them involve conspiracy.

 

Flynn is at the top of that food chain. Which is why your analysis may be stilted slightly. Flynn's past employment in 44's administration, his removal from that position, and his rise within Trump's campaign made him the number one target from day one. 

 

Manafort I've spoken of at length, he's dirty and likely a plant. Even so, he was indicted for things that happened well before he was a member of Team Trump. There's been nothing but innuendo (without evidence) to support claims that Kushner or any Trump children did anything illegal. 

 

You're failing in your analysis to include the possibility that there are targets higher up in the food chain... of the previous administration. Who, as the evidence has shown, were running an illegal spying operation on all the political campaigns in 2016. Not just Trump. All of them. 

 

Flynn has a direct connection to each and every one of those big fish. More of a connection, in fact, to them than he does to Manafort, Kushner, or Trump's kids. 

 

You have to factor that into your analysis as being a possibility - or you're reaching conclusions before all the evidence is in. Right?

 

(None of this is meant to be pedantic or a shot against you - striving to have a real conversation about this  )

[3rdnlng]

27 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

If there is evidence, Mueller has it. All these cooperating witnesses must have something to say. Trump wanted that hotel, but sanctions were preventing it, so Russia helped Trump. 

What hotel? Where was it to be located? How much for the land? What was the time limit for the due diligence? How were sanctions preventing Trump from building a hotel? Answer these questions or admit that you don't know jackshit about any of this.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

What hotel? Where was it to be located? How much for the land? What was the time limit for the due diligence? How were sanctions preventing Trump from building a hotel? Answer these questions or admit that you don't know jackshit about any of this.

So ignorant. Not my fault you don't keep informed that you have to turn to me for answers. What a waste you are. 

 

How you like that answer sh it for brains? Got any more you worthless one? ?

[boyst]

Let's undo the 17th to get rid of your B word ass 

[BringBackOrton]

2 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

I often make the mistake that people understood how investigations work. 

 

Expecting evidence from the first day of an investigation shows a distinct lack of understanding of the process. 

Evidence comes out when findings are presented. You really didn't know that?

 

If there is no evidence, Trump and his supporters can crow about it. Until then we don't know the results of the investigation.

 

I know which way I'm betting. You know which way you are betting, but that we don't have the results yet is only proof of innocence to the less bright and the blanket deniers. 

 

Give me some examples of people who have been wrongly convicted in "perjury traps". 

“I’m betting Trump is finished, trust me!” - guy who has been wrong about Trump being finished since 2015

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So ignorant. Not my fault you don't keep informed that you have to turn to me for answers. What a waste you are. 

 

How you like that answer sh it for brains? Got any more you worthless one? ?

None of my questions had an answer because no specific deal was made, proving that you have no clue about what you stated. Frankly speaking, Gleeful Gator, you are out of your league.

[DC Tom]

55 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

“I’m betting Trump is finished, trust me!” - guy who has been wrong about Trump being finished since 2015

 

People forget how often Trump has been "finished" before.  Every bankruptcy, he comes back from stronger.

 

By all means, morons...finish him again.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

To date means zero.

 

I know you know an investigation works. At least most of your arguments are rational even if I disagree with them, unlike some here who just post angry nonsense.

 

By the way, have you seen the redacted filings? I haven't. Do you think it's even possible that there may be some evidence in Flynn's testimony? We do know from the redacted material that there are at least 2 criminal investigations currently under way. If they only contained evidence of crimes committed by Flynn, Mueller would not have asked for no jail time for him.

 

This does not mean there exists proof of conspiracy or other crimes, but it points to some alleged crimes being committed by people other than Flynn.

 

Since we know that deals are never cut to go after underlings, we know that the target(s) are higher in the food chain than Flynn. The only people I can think of that are higher in this foodchain might be Manafort, Kushner, Don Jr., Ivanka, and the President.

 

It doesn't mean they are guilty, but it absolutely means that someone in that group will be charged with some crime(s).

The best argument for your side will be if none of them involve conspiracy.

We also know that investigators are human, some lie, some bluff, some are political and some are crooked.  We know that people will flip to save their own skin, and we know that people will manufacture testimony to save themselves. 

 

It's a clister*****, plain and simple, and when all is said and done, it's virtually impossible to survive an all-out assault by the government with unlimited resources, no parameters as to who can investigate despite partisan tendencies, and a mandate that can best be summarized as "go find something somewhere.".  

 

On the plus side, watching a steady parade of nudniks stream in and out with commentary like "Nobody knows nothing they don't already know!" Is priceless. 

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, BringBackOrton said:

“I’m betting Trump is finished, trust me!” - guy who has been wrong about Trump being finished since 2015

"Trust me" is a phrase that liars often use.

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

We also know that investigators are human, some lie, some bluff, some are political and some are crooked.  We know that people will flip to save their own skin, and we know that people will manufacture testimony to save themselves. 

 

It's a clister*****, plain and simple, and when all is said and done, it's virtually impossible to survive an all-out assault by the government with unlimited resources, no parameters as to who can investigate despite partisan tendencies, and a mandate that can best be summarized as "go find something somewhere.".  

 

On the plus side, watching a steady parade of nudniks stream in and out with commentary like "Nobody knows nothing they don't already know!" Is priceless. 

 

You used an awful lot of words to say little.

 

At least Rhino says things.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

30 minutes ago, Kemp said:

"Trust me" is a phrase that liars often use.

 

You used an awful lot of words to say little.

 

At least Rhino says things.

DR is The Nudnik Whisperer.

 

And yes, he does say things. Very true, efficiently written.  

[Doc Brown]

6 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

People forget how often Trump has been "finished" before.  Every bankruptcy, he comes back from stronger.

 

By all means, morons...finish him again.  

On a side note, how the hell does one bankrupt a casino?  I didn't think it was possible.

[Swill Merchant]

15 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

Criminals tend to hang out with other criminals. 

 

Funny how often Trump supporters are forced to look the other way and feign disinterest when it's yet another nail in their leader's coffin.

 

What's scary is that no matter what damning evidence comes out, they will find excuses for it and continue supporting him. 

 

There will never be a shortage of idiots.

I don't think you give a damn about criminal activity or corruption. You seem like a sad, nasty, mean-spirited, hateful little man who greatly overestimates his ability to assess the truth, and greatly underestimates his own bias. 

 

You seem highly motivated to hurt people you disagree with politically, and your bloodlust seems more truculent than reasoned as you are conspicuously selective in your application of your standards.

 

There is a mountain of evidence of pernicious corruption, and in some cases incontrovertible proof of felonious conduct by prominent democrats, but you could not appear to care less about that. Yet you cling to tenuous evidence of any wrong-doing by the President and those close to him as though the survival of the republic hung in the balance. So much so that you appear to have him tried, convicted, and ready for the gallows despite a dearth of evidence to support your case.

 

I challenge you to read the following and defend your position. Please explain how and why anyone should conclude that you're not advocating America's descent into a banana Republic for the sake of punishing those who oppose your chosen political party.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/mueller-probe-fisa-warrants-fbi-informants/

 

 

[Golden Goat]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

On a side note, how the hell does one bankrupt a casino?  I didn't think it was possible.

Have you been to Atlantic City in the past decade? Neither has anyone else.

[/dev/null]

[Doc Brown]

31 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

Have you been to Atlantic City in the past decade? Neither has anyone else.

No, but I did go there a few times in my younger days and it was always a blast.  It used to be better than Vegas.

[Golden Goat]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

No, but I did go there a few times in my younger days and it was always a blast.  It used to be better than Vegas.

 

Agreed. Had some fun times there in the '90s.

[boyst]

15 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

People forget how often Trump has been "finished" before.  Every bankruptcy, he comes back from stronger.

 

By all means, morons...finish him again.  

left right left right up down b a start

[snafu]

19 hours ago, Tiberius said:

If there is evidence, Mueller has it. All these cooperating witnesses must have something to say. Trump wanted that hotel, but sanctions were preventing it, so Russia helped Trump. 

 

Hurry, Mueller, hurry!

A new House convenes in less than a month!

[Kemp]

13 hours ago, Swill Merchant said:

I don't think you give a damn about criminal activity or corruption. You seem like a sad, nasty, mean-spirited, hateful little man who greatly overestimates his ability to assess the truth, and greatly underestimates his own bias. 

 

You seem highly motivated to hurt people you disagree with politically, and your bloodlust seems more truculent than reasoned as you are conspicuously selective in your application of your standards.

 

There is a mountain of evidence of pernicious corruption, and in some cases incontrovertible proof of felonious conduct by prominent democrats, but you could not appear to care less about that. Yet you cling to tenuous evidence of any wrong-doing by the President and those close to him as though the survival of the republic hung in the balance. So much so that you appear to have him tried, convicted, and ready for the gallows despite a dearth of evidence to support your case.

 

I challenge you to read the following and defend your position. Please explain how and why anyone should conclude that you're not advocating America's descent into a banana Republic for the sake of punishing those who oppose your chosen political party.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/mueller-probe-fisa-warrants-fbi-informants/

 

 

 

Yesterday revealed a criminal act committed by Trump, so I am not sure what you're blathering about, but your name is accurate.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Kemp said:

 

Yesterday revealed a criminal act committed by Trump, so I am not sure what you're blathering about, but your name is accurate.

 

Incorrect. Campaign finance violations are not criminal in statute.