So you say, but since a) you are a Trumpista and b) it’s a fair bet that you have absolutely nothing to do with the events involved or unfolding, your arguments are not to be trusted. And if, as you appear to be representing, you are an actual attorney, I have even less reason to trust your word.
What makes you think Bricker is a Trump supporter? His posts about Trump for the past two years have been consistently anti-Trump.
He doesn’t automatically buy into every breathless “revelation” made by people opposed to Trump, but that just means he’s cautious and considers these things with an open mind.
Ditto. Bricker has stated on several occasions that he didn’t vote for Trump. He said before the election that he didn’t support Trump.
He’s a conservative, sure. And can sometimes get too into the legalese of an issue he’s debating until you want to metaphorically smack him, but he’s not a Trumpeter.
Seems to me I read that he voted for Trump a while back. I have much trouble reconciling that with someone criticizing him.
Sorry, you can get legalistic all you want, but there is no way you can say with a straight face that there wasn’t wrongdoing here, whether it’s prosecutable or not. Unless, of course, you happen to be one of that group of people to whom Trump walks on water, in which case no amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise. Even if he were somehow to be impeached, it’d be some conspiracy among all those evil establishment types and especially those demon Democrats. Masterminded, of course, by President Obama and Hillary.
True, I’m predisposed to distrust Trump, but that’s with good reason. I’ve personally known about his chicanery since the '80’s. The man lies like a rug for any advantage, and he certainly appears to have indoctrinated his children and attracted like-minded (read totally unscrupulous) people to help run his so-called government. I don’t buy a damn thing they say without proof, and it’s funny how they never seem to have any. Plenty of attempted distractions, though.
So are they all lying just because they can? Occam’s Razor and over half a century of human experience says no fucking way. I wasn’t born yesterday, and I have a pretty finely-tuned bullshit detector. Anytime I see Trump or one of his cronies speak, the needle jumps off the charts. They are covering things up; the only questions remaining are what, and why, and what can be done about it.
Call that ‘breathless’ if you want. I call it having a sense of reality, in the fact-free world the wingnut President is trying to create.
All I’m going to address is that he claimed that he didn’t vote for Trump. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Bricker may be a lot of things, but I’ve never known him to deliberately lie about something like that. He seems to be respected for his integrity here. Even the majority of people who don’t agree with him have at least a grudging respect for him.
If you know of a post where he said he’d vote for Trump, I’d like to see it. But I would suggest that it may hijack this thread if we continue this side convo.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Bricker doesn’t support Trump. Can you tell us what you have to do with events involved or unfolding? Does anyone posting in this thread have anything to do with the events?
What sort of a argument is that, anyway? I lost count of the number of logical fallacies between the hypothesis contrary to fact and the ad hominem.
I may disagree with Bricker on many things, but he did not vote for Hillary’s opponent last year and has stated his opposition to him on many occasions.
Back to the matter at hand, the counter arguments can’t sit still any more than a hyperactive toddler. Meeting? What meeting? Well, there was a meeting, but it was about adoptions. Well, it was about getting dirt on Hillary, but they didn’t have any so it’s okay. There was only one Russian there. Well, maybe two. Or maybe a few more. Don Sr. didn’t know about it, it’s just a coincidence that before the meeting he boasted about how new dirt on Hillary would come out soon. It’s all the Secret Service’s fault. Well, there was a meeting but it wasn’t illegal. Jesus.
He told us the morning after that he *did *vote for Trump, but changed his mind at the last moment and pulled his ballot back. But he never told us the reason for either decision, and it isn’t clear how much credit he’s entitled to.
They all come down to “But Hillary and Obama …”
Wait, an actual attorney is to be less trusted on the legal question of how the First Amendment might be tested against an act of Congress that impinges on speech?
Not sure how that works. If I were a cardiac surgeon you’d be less likely to believe the heart has four chambers?
And burying the lede . . . . in what universe am I a Trumpista?
Unless it’s just that any critique of anti-Trump arguments, no matter how flawed they may be, is sufficient to earn that badge?
It was a statement of personal opinion. It wasn’t an argument of fact. You can call that an ad hominem if you want. Guess what? I will choose what and whom I trust, to whose arguments I give weight, and how much. I have reasons, and I gave them. Deal with it.
Until he is directly related to events, Bricker’s opinion has no more significance than a fart in the wind. Are we clear now?
Well you’re a Bernie Bro so of course that’s how you like to argue.
The job of a heart surgeon is to save lives. The job of defense attorneys is NOT to see justice done, it’s to get their client off in any way possible. Including obfuscating, misleading, and whatever other tactic is necessary.
Did you see that list of Trumpist excuses I posted (either in this thread or the Russian collusion thread) for the Trump, Jr. meeting? I direct your attention to the last one. Your entire argument can be boiled down to it. And I quote:
“Anyway, it’s not illegal.”
Yeah, nice try, buddy. You know very well I’m not a Bernie supporter, although I do agree with certain of his policies.
But I am a Trump hater. You can fairly accuse me of that.
I have no idea whether you are not a Bernie Bro. It was a statement of personal opinion. It wasn’t an argument of fact. You can call that an ad hominem if you want. Guess what? I will choose what and whom I trust, to whose arguments I give weight, and how much. I have reasons, and I gave them. Deal with it.
Ouch! What’s that burning smell?
I agree that there’s been a rash of absurd trial balloons to see what defense might stick. And the Secret Service one was particularly enjoyable. Because I think that everyone agrees that when you need to understand how the FEC limits on foreign campaign contributions might intersect with the First Amendment guarantees of speech, the first thing you think of is checking with the President’s Secret Service protection detail. Because those guys are GOOD.
However, this one is where I am. Right now, I’m not seeing how it was illegal. Colossally stupid, sure, and suggestive of other things that might indeed be illegal, yes. As Sherred indicates above, it’s also a tempting perjury trap for the Trump crowd, because they are going to want to lie about it, and when there’s a federal investigation in play, the chances of telling a lie with criminal consequences is high.
But at the same time, damnit, the “thing of value” analysis that equates the mere meeting with a campaign contribution is legally flawed. I don’t think that statement ought to brand me a Trumpista.
I don’t think that is unreasonable at all. As to the legality, I’m not a lawyer but my opinion is that if it isn’t against the law, it should be. But I think it is against the law. The Russians dangled incriminating evidence against Hillary? How did they get it? I think one could assume it was stolen intelligence and in this layman’s mind, that’s equivalent to offering a stolen Rolex out of your trunk in the seedy part of town. They set up the meeting implying the intent to deliver stolen goods. The meeting was accepted on that basis. To me, that’s a crime.
How original. I’ve never seen that tactic before. I am properly chastened. :rolleyes:
I’ve been crystal clear about where my support was, from day one on this board. Her name is Hillary. That story hasn’t ever changed. Doesn’t mean I agree with all of her policies or think she’s some kind of paragon of virtue or, for that matter, that any politician in history has ever been.
Yeah, still not understanding how it could be illegal for me to steal evidence, but legal for me to ask you to give me stolen evidence. Not saying the legal interpretations are incorrect, but as a layman, this seems impossible to believe.
I think I’m pretty much in this camp as well, but there is another problem with the meeting other than “was it illegal or just unethical?”
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/straight-out-russian-intelligence-playbook-1090
This former CIA officer describes his view that the meeting would fit a pattern of Russian intelligence operations that are intended simply to spread discord and chaos in the targeted country – which is quite obviously what has happened as a result of the meeting.
I go back to my early comments in one of these threads that there is NO DAMNED WAY I would ever take such a meeting, and that I would immediately report the suggestion of the meeting to the FBI. That’s because regardless of whether it was legal, regardless of the scruples of those involved in the meeting, regardless of the ethics of any other campaign’s opposition researcher, who in their right mind would go into a meeting where the odds are so high that they are being manipulated to the advantage of a scheme by a non-friendly foreign country?
If Donald Jr. or his campaign associates had any clue at all, the email should have sent off klaxons and red star clusters that they were being targeted for some agenda they would have no insight into. In other words, played as suckers. Only idiots take such meetings.