The Thread of Democrats

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Thu May 02, 2019 11:57 am

Joe wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 2:18 am

No, I won't, because the report doesn't support that overly broad assertion. Once again, as L'Emmerdeur pointed out, the report says;
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
Go back and read your quotes:
  • "the investigation did not establish"
  • "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge"
  • "the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt"
  • "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated"
Contrast them with what you've written
  • "found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy"
  • "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating/conspiring with Russia."
Do you see the difference?
I'm going to identify one point here so that you can begin to think clearly about this.

You said "go back and read your quotes." One of the things you wanted me to read was "The investigation did not identify evidence that any US person knowing or intentionally coordinated..."

Ok., then you think that is "contrasted" by my statements that the Mueller investigation "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia."

You ask if I see the difference.

No. I do not. Because conspiracy is an intent crime. That means you CAN'T unintentionally conspire. So, if they do not find evidence of an intentional/knowing conspiracy, then they did not find evidence of a conspiracy at all. You can't conspire by accident. You can't conspire by mistake. A conspiracy is a secret plan between people to do something illegal. You can't accidentally have a plan to do something illegal. It's not plan then. Similarly to "coordinate" about the 2016 election or to do something requires intent - you can't "coordinate to interfere with the election" without intending to do so.

So, if you would like to explain the difference, I would appreciate it. Explain exactly how someone can be guilty of unintentionally or without knowledge "conspiring" or "coordinating" with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

If you can articulate a difference that makes any sense, I would be willing to change my mind.

Until then, if Mueller says that he did not find evidence of any US Person intentionally or knowningly conspiring or coordinating, then to me that means nobody was doing anything wrong in that regard - because if anyone was ACCIDENTALLY or UNINTENTIONALLY or UNKNOWINGLY conspiring or coordinating with Russia, then they weren't really conspiring or coordinating at all. They were unwitting dupes. An unwitting dupe is not a criminal is he? And if you disagree - then please explain how someone can accidentally or unintentionally or unknowingly "conspire" or "coordinate" with Russian persons to interfere in the US election?

As to the point that L'Emmerdeur made about "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those fact." Yes, indeed, that's true. But, where the report says there was no evidence of something, that DOES mean that there was no evidence discovered by the investigation. And, in relation to the conspiracy/coordination quote you asked me to compare, Mueller DID say there was no evidence. It is NOT the case that "A statement that the investigation found no EVIDENCE of a particular fact does not mean that there was no EVIDENCE of that fact." Having no evidence is having no evidence.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 20782
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Thu May 02, 2019 12:20 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:31 am
[snip]
You're wasting your time defending your statement that "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American." It's a red herring you keep bringing up in your attempt to divert attention from the Mueller report explicitly and unequivocally refusing to exonerate Trump from any wrong-doing. According to Mueller, "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." I'm not falling for your Gish gallops now, and and I won't fall for them any time soon, no matter how many more times you repeat the red herring strategy.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24889
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu May 02, 2019 2:26 pm


Brian Peacock wrote: ...

The question, the really important question, is: do the American people deserve, or even want, the actions of the Trump campaign and presidency to set the bar for the campaigns and presidencies to come?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Thu May 02, 2019 2:55 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:57 am
Joe wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 2:18 am

No, I won't, because the report doesn't support that overly broad assertion. Once again, as L'Emmerdeur pointed out, the report says;
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
Go back and read your quotes:
  • "the investigation did not establish"
  • "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge"
  • "the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt"
  • "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated"
Contrast them with what you've written
  • "found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy"
  • "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating/conspiring with Russia."
Do you see the difference?
I'm going to identify one point here so that you can begin to think clearly about this.

You said "go back and read your quotes." One of the things you wanted me to read was "The investigation did not identify evidence that any US person knowing or intentionally coordinated..."

Ok., then you think that is "contrasted" by my statements that the Mueller investigation "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia."

You ask if I see the difference.

No. I do not.
Because conspiracy is an intent crime. That means you CAN'T unintentionally conspire. So, if they do not find evidence of an intentional/knowing conspiracy, then they did not find evidence of a conspiracy at all. You can't conspire by accident. You can't conspire by mistake. A conspiracy is a secret plan between people to do something illegal. You can't accidentally have a plan to do something illegal. It's not plan then. Similarly to "coordinate" about the 2016 election or to do something requires intent - you can't "coordinate to interfere with the election" without intending to do so.

So, if you would like to explain the difference, I would appreciate it. Explain exactly how someone can be guilty of unintentionally or without knowledge "conspiring" or "coordinating" with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

If you can articulate a difference that makes any sense, I would be willing to change my mind.

Until then, if Mueller says that he did not find evidence of any US Person intentionally or knowningly conspiring or coordinating, then to me that means nobody was doing anything wrong in that regard - because if anyone was ACCIDENTALLY or UNINTENTIONALLY or UNKNOWINGLY conspiring or coordinating with Russia, then they weren't really conspiring or coordinating at all. They were unwitting dupes. An unwitting dupe is not a criminal is he? And if you disagree - then please explain how someone can accidentally or unintentionally or unknowingly "conspire" or "coordinate" with Russian persons to interfere in the US election?
As to the point that L'Emmerdeur made about "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those fact." Yes, indeed, that's true. But, where the report says there was no evidence of something, that DOES mean that there was no evidence discovered by the investigation. And, in relation to the conspiracy/coordination quote you asked me to compare, Mueller DID say there was no evidence. It is NOT the case that "A statement that the investigation found no EVIDENCE of a particular fact does not mean that there was no EVIDENCE of that fact." Having no evidence is having no evidence.
Try and stay on topic. I know it can be hard for you, but we are talking about evidence in the report and your mistaken claims about it.

It seems you are down to one statement you feel you can defend, so let me help you see the difference between it and your claim.
Meuller: The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated
Forty Two: did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia.
I've highlighted the differences and they are profound. Meuller's statement is qualified by the words "knowingly or intentionally," which I highlighted in my last post, and he did not use the word "any" which you added. To see these as the same is a flawed reading.

Now, to the statement L'Emmerdeur shared:
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those fact.
This a direct quote from the report (Volume I, page 2) that has been posted before, with context, in this thread, and it means exactly what it says and applies to the entire report.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are pitting your credibility against Meuller's, and come up short in the comparison.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 03, 2019 12:28 pm

Hermit wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 12:20 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:31 am
[snip]
You're wasting your time defending your statement that "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American." It's a red herring you keep bringing up in your attempt to divert attention from the Mueller report explicitly and unequivocally refusing to exonerate Trump from any wrong-doing. According to Mueller, "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." I'm not falling for your Gish gallops now, and and I won't fall for them any time soon, no matter how many more times you repeat the red herring strategy.
You keep confusing "not clearly commit OBSTRUCTION..." with "not clearly commit ANY WRONGDOING..." -- I'm not talking about "any wrongdoing." I'm talking about CONSPIRACY AND COORDINATION WITH THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 ELECTION. On THAT point, there was no evidence found to support the allegation that has been blasted from media loudspeakers for three years. If you think the Mueller report found that there was evidence of Trump conspiring and coordinating with the Russians -- please, by all means, cite to the report where it does so.

Do that now - just stop with the deflections -- does the Mueller report refer to evidence of conspiracy and coordination with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election? Does it identify evidence of that? If it does, cite it.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 03, 2019 12:48 pm

Joe wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 2:55 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:57 am
Joe wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 2:18 am

No, I won't, because the report doesn't support that overly broad assertion. Once again, as L'Emmerdeur pointed out, the report says;
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
Go back and read your quotes:
  • "the investigation did not establish"
  • "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge"
  • "the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt"
  • "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated"
Contrast them with what you've written
  • "found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy"
  • "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating/conspiring with Russia."
Do you see the difference?
I'm going to identify one point here so that you can begin to think clearly about this.

You said "go back and read your quotes." One of the things you wanted me to read was "The investigation did not identify evidence that any US person knowing or intentionally coordinated..."

Ok., then you think that is "contrasted" by my statements that the Mueller investigation "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia."

You ask if I see the difference.

No. I do not.
Because conspiracy is an intent crime. That means you CAN'T unintentionally conspire. So, if they do not find evidence of an intentional/knowing conspiracy, then they did not find evidence of a conspiracy at all. You can't conspire by accident. You can't conspire by mistake. A conspiracy is a secret plan between people to do something illegal. You can't accidentally have a plan to do something illegal. It's not plan then. Similarly to "coordinate" about the 2016 election or to do something requires intent - you can't "coordinate to interfere with the election" without intending to do so.

So, if you would like to explain the difference, I would appreciate it. Explain exactly how someone can be guilty of unintentionally or without knowledge "conspiring" or "coordinating" with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

If you can articulate a difference that makes any sense, I would be willing to change my mind.

Until then, if Mueller says that he did not find evidence of any US Person intentionally or knowningly conspiring or coordinating, then to me that means nobody was doing anything wrong in that regard - because if anyone was ACCIDENTALLY or UNINTENTIONALLY or UNKNOWINGLY conspiring or coordinating with Russia, then they weren't really conspiring or coordinating at all. They were unwitting dupes. An unwitting dupe is not a criminal is he? And if you disagree - then please explain how someone can accidentally or unintentionally or unknowingly "conspire" or "coordinate" with Russian persons to interfere in the US election?
As to the point that L'Emmerdeur made about "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those fact." Yes, indeed, that's true. But, where the report says there was no evidence of something, that DOES mean that there was no evidence discovered by the investigation. And, in relation to the conspiracy/coordination quote you asked me to compare, Mueller DID say there was no evidence. It is NOT the case that "A statement that the investigation found no EVIDENCE of a particular fact does not mean that there was no EVIDENCE of that fact." Having no evidence is having no evidence.
Try and stay on topic. I know it can be hard for you, but we are talking about evidence in the report and your mistaken claims about it.

It seems you are down to one statement you feel you can defend, so let me help you see the difference between it and your claim.
Meuller: The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated
Forty Two: did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia.
I've highlighted the differences and they are profound. Meuller's statement is qualified by the words "knowingly or intentionally," which I highlighted in my last post, and he did not use the word "any" which you added. To see these as the same is a flawed reading.

Now, to the statement L'Emmerdeur shared:
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those fact.
This a direct quote from the report (Volume I, page 2) that has been posted before, with context, in this thread, and it means exactly what it says and applies to the entire report.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are pitting your credibility against Meuller's, and come up short in the comparison.
'
I addressed both of these points in my post above, to which you responded.

Look for the bit where I ask you to explain how someone can "unintentionally" or "unknowingly" conspire. Do you think a person can commit conspiracy by accident? Guilty of unintentional conspiracy? A person conspired to interfere in the election, but didn't know he was conspiring at the time? Do you see above where I have a section about that? That's what you're skipping... and I'll add a little insult toward you - I know it's hard for you to read and understand plain English, but please actually read the posts you're responding to before you go off half cocked and post bullshit.

Also, you have now posted L'Emmerdeur's point about "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of that fact." I explained that to you as well, and I know it's hard for you to understand, so I'll say it again, in short so your small brain can wrap around it. Saying "a statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of that fact," is not the same as the statement "a statement that the investigation did not find any evidence of a fact does not mean there was no evidence of that fact." That's because a statement in the report that says "there was no evidence" or "there was no evidence found..." means exactly that - there was no evidence or no evidence found. Likewise, where the report says there was "insufficient evidence of..." then there was insufficient evidence. To, until you acknowledge that my quotes from the report do not merely say "investigation did not establish..." but actually went further and referred to the lack of evidence, you still won't get it.

Here is an example:
identify evidence.jpg
saying there is no EVIDENCE is saying there is no EVIDENCE
See there? Mueller is not saying merely that the investigation did not establish. He is saying the investigation did not IDENTIFY EVIDENCE." When he says they didn't identify evidence, he means that they didn't identify evidence. Right? No evidence. NO EVIDENCE. I know you have trouble reading English, but that's what the Mueller report said.

See how annoying it is for someone to pepper the post with those kind of statements about what trouble we "know" an opponent in a discussion has? It's really annoying. And, I might even go so far as to say "I know you have trouble honestly addressing this issue...because you can't be so dumb that you don't understand the difference between the phrasing "investigation did not establish" versus "the investigation did not identify evidence" -- but, see, I don't think that kind of thing is very productive, or reasonable. And, I only put those comments here to illustrate how douchey it is to do it. So, if you don't mind - put a fucking sock in it, and let's discuss the topic like adults.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 03, 2019 12:50 pm

Joe - here's another one -

Note the statement that the investigation "did not identify evidence." That is NOT "investigation did not establish." Where the report says that they did not identify evidence, don't you think it means that they didn't identify evidence? Or, do you think an honest reading of the report requires us to conclude that they did identify evidence, even when they say they didn't?
Identify evidence 2.jpg
Another use of "did not identify evidence" - do you see, Joe?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 03, 2019 12:55 pm

And, Joe, where you said the report only referred to "knowing or intentional" conspiracy - you're dead wrong.

Here, the report clearly stated that the investigation did not establish conspiracy or coordination. No qualification there. No qualification there.
conspire or coordinate.jpg
Here the investigation did not establish coordination or conspiracy - but did not say "knowing or intentional" as a qualifier.
So, again, you're wrong.

I will say on this point, of course, where the investigation says it "did not establish" then there could have been some evidence of something, but we do not know what that is, because Mueller doesn't put it in there. Was it some hearsay statement? We don't know. What we do know is that Mueller did not establish coordination or conspiracy.

Do you at least admit that the that the Mueller report did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities? Will you go so far as to admit that that was not established? Yes or no, and why or why not?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 03, 2019 12:59 pm

But so vacant is the Mueller investigation when it comes to supporting any of the prevailing conspiracy theories that it did not find even a single American whom it could indict or charge with illegally working for Russia, secretly acting as a Russian agent, or conspiring with the Russians over the election – not even Carter Page. That means that even long-time Russiagate skeptics such as myself over-estimated the level of criminality and conspiracy evidence that Robert Mueller would find:
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/rob ... ted-them//
In sum, Democrats and their supporters had the exact prosecutor they all agreed was the embodiment of competence and integrity in Robert Mueller. He assembled a team of prosecutors and investigators that countless media accounts heralded as the most aggressive and adept in the nation. They had subpoena power, the vast surveillance apparatus of the U.S. government at their disposal, a demonstrated willingness to imprison anyone who lied to them, and unlimited time and resources to dig up everything they could.

The result of all of that was that not a single American – whether with the Trump campaign or otherwise – was charged or indicted on the core question of whether there was any conspiracy or coordination with Russia over the election. No Americans were charged or even accused of being controlled by or working at the behest of the Russian government. None of the key White House aides at the center of the controversy who testified for hours and hours – including Donald Trump, Jr. or Jared Kushner – were charged with any crimes of any kind, not even perjury, obstruction of justice or lying to Congress.

These facts are fatal to the conspiracy theorists who have drowned U.S. discourse for almost three years with a dangerous and distracting fixation on a fictitious espionage thriller involved unhinged claims of sexual and financial blackmail, nefarious infiltration of the U.S. Government by familiar foreign villains, and election cheating that empowered an illegitimate President. They got the exact prosecutor and investigation that they wanted, yet he could not establish that any of this happened and, in many cases, established that it did not.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28814
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Tero » Fri May 03, 2019 1:23 pm

Mueller never interrogated the players at Trump tower meeting, aside from Manafort. Who went to jail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 03, 2019 1:53 pm

Tero wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 1:23 pm
Mueller never interrogated the players at Trump tower meeting, aside from Manafort. Who went to jail for financial crimes, pre-dating his involvement with the Trump campaign and having zero to do with Russian interference with the 2016 election.
:fix:

The special counsel acknowledged lacking evidence to prove any of the three men acted with any knowledge of criminal activity, and said that the promised opposition research wouldn’t necessarily qualify as an illegal donation. I.e., it probably wouldn't be a crime to get the information.

This nonsense about the Trump tower meeting .... look - politicians have sought and obtained dirt on each other since time immemorial. Dirt is obtained all the time. If someone comes to a candidate and says "I have dirt on Donald Trump!" -- can't the candidate get a copy? Can they agree to meet to talk about what the information is? Does it matter if the person offering it is Canadian? What's the legal violation?

The Mueller report essentially concluded they couldn't establish a violation because it wasn't even clear it would be a criminal violation if what happened actually was proved to have happened....

Trump. Derangement. Syndrome.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28814
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Tero » Fri May 03, 2019 3:08 pm

Crooked Trump will lose 2020 election. Only president to ever do that in a good economy.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 03, 2019 3:13 pm

Good. Vote him out. I agree with you, he will probably lose. The sheer force of concerted opposition, and the sheer unapologetic willingness of most of the media to simply print anything negative, true, false, substantiated, unsubstantiated, about him, and the manner in which his every word and action is portrayed as either being evil or even if not evil, it is evil because it comes from him. If he said the weather was nice today, the New York Times would publish an article about how Trump thinks white people's weather is superior to brown people's weather.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 03, 2019 3:14 pm

Tero wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 3:08 pm
Crooked Trump will lose 2020 election. Only president to ever do that in a good economy.
....so,... the economy is good? How good is it? What's good about it? :ask:
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28814
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Tero » Fri May 03, 2019 3:48 pm

I don't know what that said. But Trump is such a loser. He's even bad at being an evil Republican. Thanks to his incompetence! He'll be in the poor house in the 2020s when we are done with him.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests