Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 0:25:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 4:18:54 GMT -5
IF this allegation can be proven, then the President is a criminal. And if we get to that point, Republicans in the Senate will let us know if we have a government of laws or of men. If, if, if...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2019 6:28:53 GMT -5
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,523
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 18, 2019 7:03:37 GMT -5
They’ll all vote for him again. The Trump haters are in peak delusional status. The real and proven collusion with Russia was DNC/HRC-> Perkins Coie->Fusion GPS->Steele -> Russian sources. All to influence the election, with the added bonus of use of Obama US intelligence and law enforcement apparatus. And the MCCabe/Strozk/Page insurance policy morphing into Mueller investigation. “Real and proven” by whom? Do you think Hillary colluded with the Russian government when Putin already has said that he wanted Trump to win? After having two years of a Republican House, Senate and Presidency to investigate the matter, don’t you think we would be hearing all about it all the time by Republicans and Fox News to deflect from the Mueller investigation ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 8:52:29 GMT -5
The Trump haters are in peak delusional status. The real and proven collusion with Russia was DNC/HRC-> Perkins Coie->Fusion GPS->Steele -> Russian sources. All to influence the election, with the added bonus of use of Obama US intelligence and law enforcement apparatus. And the MCCabe/Strozk/Page insurance policy morphing into Mueller investigation. “Real and proven” by whom? Do you think Hillary colluded with the Russian government when Putin already has said that he wanted Trump to win? After having two years of a Republican House, Senate and Presidency to investigate the matter, don’t you think we would be hearing all about it all the time by Republicans and Fox News to deflect from the Mueller investigation ? So..........working with the Russians to dig up dirt on your political opponents is collusion? I swear I remember someone telling me that it's nothing more than opposition research and that anyone would take those kinds of meetings. Oh yeah: www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/13/donald-trump/475459001/
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2019 9:11:22 GMT -5
The Trump cultists are in peak delusional status.
Immune to facts and reason and apparently happy that Trump is trying to turn the US into a pretty dictatorship.
Funny how everytime Russia comes up, everyone in Trump's orbit lies about their contacts with this hostile foreign power. Just coincidence, right?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2019 9:16:54 GMT -5
“Real and proven” by whom? Do you think Hillary colluded with the Russian government when Putin already has said that he wanted Trump to win? After having two years of a Republican House, Senate and Presidency to investigate the matter, don’t you think we would be hearing all about it all the time by Republicans and Fox News to deflect from the Mueller investigation ? So..........working with the Russians to dig up dirt on your political opponents is collusion? I swear I remember someone telling me that it's nothing more than opposition research and that anyone would take those kinds of meetings. Oh yeah: www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/13/donald-trump/475459001/And that sets aside the fact that nothing in the Steele dossier has been proven false. And it started as opposition research by a Republican.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,219
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jan 18, 2019 9:43:04 GMT -5
IF this allegation can be proven, then the President is a criminal. And if we get to that point, Republicans in the Senate will let us know if we have a government of laws or of men. There is no proof short of Trump testifying under oath that it all happened that will convince trump supporters of this. And, even then, most of them will just ignore it and keep going all in on this guy.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 10:15:51 GMT -5
And that sets aside the fact that nothing in the Steele dossier has been proven false. And it started as opposition research by a Republican. So, under your standard of justice, and allegation has to be proven false rather than the allegation having to be proven true? This sounds just like the system of justice in the old Soviet Union. Ironic that those who are using Russia as a club adhere to old style Soviet tactics.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 10:17:11 GMT -5
Is our system of American justice such that the incumbent administration should start a criminal investigation of the opponent and his campaign based upon unproven political opposition research? If the Orange Man does this to the 2020 Democratic nominee how will you feel? You Trump haters fail to back and and realize that this goes beyond him.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 18, 2019 10:29:25 GMT -5
And that sets aside the fact that nothing in the Steele dossier has been proven false. And it started as opposition research by a Republican. So, under your standard of justice, and allegation has to be proven false rather than the allegation having to be proven true? This sounds just like the system of justice in the old Soviet Union. Ironic that those who are using Russia as a club adhere to old style Soviet tactics. From the sounds of it meeting a burden of proof isn't going to be very hard. The issue is going to be aspect of transparency. We may never see the proof, and the cultists like jld54 will bury their ostrich heads in the ground on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 10:40:26 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2019 10:42:59 GMT -5
And that sets aside the fact that nothing in the Steele dossier has been proven false. And it started as opposition research by a Republican. So, under your standard of justice, and allegation has to be proven false rather than the allegation having to be proven true? This sounds just like the system of justice in the old Soviet Union. Ironic that those who are using Russia as a club adhere to old style Soviet tactics. As a newcomer to the discussion I assume you did not see the link I posted to this article from lawfare back in December. My statement is observational and I nowhere shift any burden of proof (nor do the authors of this article) to those who may be accused of wrongdoing. In the court of public opinion, people may assign the burden of proof as they wish. I am also going to assume that you are not a lawyer. BLUF: The publicly-known facts corroborate many of the allegations of the dossier yet none has been disproven by investigative reporting but remain uncorroborated. One would think that Fox "News" would have assigned its own investigative reporters to have proven anything inaccurate in the dossier to this point if it could have done so. It may well (and probably does) contain inaccuracies because as others have pointed out the Steele dossier is in the nature of raw intelligence (a series "intelligence information reports" aka IIR) which is initial reporting not yet assessed and given a level of confidence: Our interest in revisiting the compilation that has come to be called the “Steele Dossier” concerns neither of those topics, at least not directly. Rather, we returned to the document because we wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele’s original reporting.These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven." But much of the reporting simply remains uncorroborated, at least by the yardstick we are using. Most significantly, the dossier reports a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [Trump and his associates] and the Russian leadership,” including an “intelligence exchange [that] had been running between them for at least 8 years.” There has been significant investigative reporting about long-standing connections between Trump, his associates and Kremlin-affiliated individuals, and Trump himself acknowledged that the purpose of a June 2016 meeting between his son, Donald Trump Jr. and a Kremlin-connected lawyer was to obtain “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. But there is, at present, no evidence in the official record that confirms other direct ties or their relevance to the 2016 presidential campaign. With that caveat, here are excerpts from the dossier that correspond with details contained in official documents. www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 10:54:29 GMT -5
I am a lawyer and was trained that person making a claim must prove it. Under your rationale I can buy data from an outfit like GPS Fusion they alleges that you conduct yourself in a corrupt and unlawful manner. When you question this and ask me to prove it I tell you the the burden of proof can shift as one wishes in “the court of public opinion” and that you should disprove my claims. Is this appropriate? As for Lawfare, Comey’s close friend Wittes is a key player and he wrote an article in 2016 stating how the country must resist in the then unthinkable event of a Trump win. So much for an objective news source. Again, just think if the shoe was on the other foot. Trump buying oppodtion reasearch, which was not verified, feeding it to the DOJ, FBI, etc., and spying on the Democratic candidate via FISA warrants.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2019 11:02:22 GMT -5
I am a lawyer and was trained the the person making a claim must prove it. Under your rationale I can buy data from an outfit like GPS Fusion they alleges that you conduct yourself in a corrupt and unlawful manner. When you question this and ask me to prove it I tell you the the burden of proof can shift as one wishes in “the court of public opinion” and that you should disprove my claims. Is this appropriate? As for Lawfare, Comey’s close friend Wittes is a key player and he wrote an article in 2016 stating how the country must resist in the then unthinkable event of a Trump win. So much for an objective news source. Again, just think if the shoe was on the other foot. Trump buying oppodtion reasearch, which was not verified, feeding it to the DOJ, FBI, etc., and spying on the Democratic candidate via FISA warrants. You know nothing about FISA and predication for National Security Investigations. But I guess in your Trump cultist world I would qualify as member of the "deep state." I'd love to hear your explanation of why every time an issue regarding Russia arises, Trump and his sycophants lie?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 11:08:37 GMT -5
I am a lawyer and was trained the the person making a claim must prove it. As for Lawfare, Comey’s close friend Wittes is a key player and he wrote an article in 2016 stating how the country must resist in the then unthinkable event of a Trump win. So much for an objective news source. Again, just think if the shoe was on the other foot. Trump buying oppodtion reasearch, which was not verified, feeding it to the DOJ, FBI, etc., and spying on the Democratic candidate via FISA warrants. Why didn't you comment on the fact the FBI, under Obama, started a criminal inquiry into the Clinton Foundation based on Clinton Cash? They didn't spy on Trump. They spied on members of his campaign, Manafort, Page, and Papadopolous. You have to have corroborating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. It can't be based solely on the dossier. How are you a lawyer, but you're getting basic facts about the case wrong? Just so we're clear your position is if a person breaks the law, and it's discovered by an opposition researcher, he should get off? Nothing should be done after that even if criminal activity is exposed, because the source is the problem, not the law breaking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 11:15:50 GMT -5
Worst case scenario, you get Pence. From what I understand Pence doesn't spend 6 hrs a day watching tv and another 3 tweeting. He probably does more to push the agenda you're in favor of, and at least we know he's loyal to the United States.
Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 11:21:41 GMT -5
Worst case scenario, you get Pence. From what I understand Pence doesn't spend 6 hrs a day watching tv and another 3 tweeting. He probably does more to push the agenda you're in favor of, and at least we know he's loyal to the United States. Just saying... Read Kim Strassel’s article today in the WSJ. Hardly a pro-Trump publication. Then tell me you are OK with what Bruce Ohr revealed about the conduct of the FBI. To be clear I did not support or vote for Trump in 2016. I abstained. But I have major issues with the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ behavior as a matter of civil liberties. Loretta Lynch meeting the prime suspect’s husband for 30 minutes on a plane on a tarmac in Phoenix a few days before Coney exonerates her? Do you really think that they only discussed or “golf and grandchildren”? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. Why wasn’t Bill C. investigated for obstruction of justice?under Mueller’s standards wouldn’t this happen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 11:24:09 GMT -5
Worst case scenario, you get Pence. From what I understand Pence doesn't spend 6 hrs a day watching tv and another 3 tweeting. He probably does more to push the agenda you're in favor of, and at least we know he's loyal to the United States. Just saying... Read Kim Strassel’s article today in the WSJ. Hardly a pro-Trump publication. Then tell me you are OK with what Bruce Ohr revealed about the conduct of the FBI. To be clear I did not support or vote for Trump in 2020. I abstained. But I have major issues with the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ behavior as a matter of civil liberties. Loretta Lynch meeting the prime suspect’s husband for 30 minutes on a plane on a tarmac in Phoenix and few days before Coney exonerates her? Do you really think that will need discussed or “golf and grandchildren”? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. How are you railing against partisan opinions and telling me to check out an OPINION piece written by Kim Strassel? How about we discuss what's in front of us..... They didn't spy on Trump. They spied on members of his campaign, Manafort, Page, and Papadopolous. You have to have corroborating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. It can't be based solely on the dossier. How are you a lawyer, but you're getting basic facts about the case wrong? Just so we're clear your position is if a person breaks the law, and it's discovered by an opposition researcher, he should get off? Nothing should be done after that even if criminal activity is exposed, because the source is the problem, not the law breaking. Care to respond?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 11:32:24 GMT -5
Read Kim Strassel’s article today in the WSJ. Hardly a pro-Trump publication. Then tell me you are OK with what Bruce Ohr revealed about the conduct of the FBI. To be clear I did not support or vote for Trump in 2020. I abstained. But I have major issues with the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ behavior as a matter of civil liberties. Loretta Lynch meeting the prime suspect’s husband for 30 minutes on a plane on a tarmac in Phoenix and few days before Coney exonerates her? Do you really think that will need discussed or “golf and grandchildren”? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. How are you talking about partisan opinions and telling me to check out Kim Strassel's article? How about we discuss what's in front of us..... They didn't spy on Trump. They spied on members of his campaign, Manafort, Page, and Papadopolous. You have to have corroborating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. It can't be based solely on the dossier. How are you a lawyer, but you're getting basic facts about the case wrong? Just so we're clear your position is if a person breaks the law, and it's discovered by an opposition researcher, he should get off? Nothing should be done after that even if criminal activity is exposed, because the source is the problem, not the law breaking. Care to respond? Read the facts in the Strassel article — then respond. You say they did not spy on Trymp, just his associates. Are you OK with spying on the Dem staff but not the candidate without a valid basis to do so? And the problem with the dossier is that Comey himself admitted it was unverified when they obtained the FISA warrants to spy on American citizens. I have a problem. With spying on Americans no matter how unsavory they may be unless there is a proven basis to do so. FISA was intended to surveil foreign actors and one can do this to citizens under limited circumstances. One would hope that US law enforcement would take this extraordinarily step only with sound verification of allegations. I have seen no evidence that this happened and rely upon the sworn testimony of Comey that the dossier was not verified. It is not a partisan position to believe this.
|
|