The Mueller report. The week after its released

[Evil_Economist]

@Littleman

Yes I know, no Democrat has ever committed a crime. Any accusation of such is either made up or unfounded because they paid someone to do it for them rather than do it themselves.

Wat?
If you claim that someone famous committed a crime, it’s generally on you to provide proof of the crime. That’s how this works.

Does the following conversation seem reasonable to you? Would you trust Person A to remember how to breath without a written reminder:

Person A: “Remember when Trump raped an infant on live TV?”
Person B: “Wat? That never happened”
Person A: “Yes, I know, no Republican has ever committed a crime.”

[Evil_Economist]

@jayjay

I seem to remember Bill being impeached. Did my brain make that up?

In fairness, Bill lied about something major. Not something minor like conspiring with a foreign power to undermine fair elections in the United States.

[Littleman]

@YamatoTwinkie

The biggest risk here is the implied quid pro quo that comes with working directly with the foreign power.
Acting through an independent third party (that is not empowered to either negotiate on the campaign’s behalf, conspire to break US law, or even know/reveal the source of funding) provides an inherent buffer against any claims of quid pro quo.

Sure, if the Russians somehow figured out that Steele worked for Fusion GPS who worked for Perkins Coie who worked for the Clinton campaign, and the Russians hated Trump, they could have conceivably fed him some information to help Clinton/hurt Trump, but there would be no expectation of anything in return.

It’s kinda like the difference between a boss propositioning an employee directly, and a boss asking a friend to help him find a date, so the friend creates an anonymous match.com account that happens to match with the same employee.

Does this not make sense to you?

In essence hinging on whether someone purposely did it with your blessing on your behalf or at your intruction

[Evil_Economist]

@Littleman

Still seems like semantics to me if your campaign is gathering Intel through connections to a foreign power.

What foreign power do you think the Clinton campaign gathered intel through?

I don’t mean to sound rude, but do you at all understand the facts of the case?

[k9bfriender]

@Evil_Economist

Wat?
If you claim that someone famous committed a crime, it’s generally on you to provide proof of the crime. That’s how this works.

Does the following conversation seem reasonable to you? Would you trust Person A to remember how to breath without a written reminder:

Person A: “Remember when Trump raped an infant on live TV?”
Person B: “Wat? That never happened”
Person A: “Yes, I know, no Republican has ever committed a crime.”

I do.

If by infant, you mean the United States, and by live TV, you mean every single day.

[Littleman]

@Evil_Economist

Wat?
If you claim that someone famous committed a crime, it’s generally on you to provide proof of the crime. That’s how this works.

Does the following conversation seem reasonable to you? Would you trust Person A to remember how to breath without a written reminder:

Person A: “Remember when Trump raped an infant on live TV?”
Person B: “Wat? That never happened”
Person A: “Yes, I know, no Republican has ever committed a crime.”

According to the FBI 31,830 emails under house subpoena.
Here’s a cite.
Now , even though this sites been used a cite in this thread with no objections, I’m sure now it’s going to be innaccurate right?
Or wait is Hillary’s I didn’t know excuse just fine here when she then lied about when the deletion was to investigators?

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

[Littleman]

@Evil_Economist

What foreign power do you think the Clinton campaign gathered intel through?

I don’t mean to sound rude, but do you at all understand the facts of the case?

Is there some contention that the info on the dossier came from the Russians?

I thought that was an acknowledged fact.

[Littleman]

Granted, in a trial you’d have to prove Hillary okd getting the info from russians and that they knew who it was going to.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Q. What will be the upshot of the Mueller Report once it is released?

A. ARGLE BARGLE HILLARY! She did some crimes! Because I heard about it!!!111

[Evil_Economist]

@Littleman

According to the FBI 31,830 emails under house subpoena.
Here’s a cite.
Now , even though this sites been used a cite in this thread with no objections, I’m sure now it’s going to be innaccurate right?
Or wait is Hillary’s I didn’t know excuse just fine here when she then lied about when the deletion was to investigators?
The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

Dude, did you even read the cite?

Do you think it matters that SHE DELETED ONLY PERSONAL EMAILS THAT SHE WASN’T REQUIRED TO PROVIDE?

Do you think that might be important?

Maybe?

Is that a fact with relevance?

Do you think?

[Evil_Economist]

@Littleman

Granted, in a trial you’d have to prove Hillary okd getting the info from russians and that they knew who it was going to.

Wat? That would have no bearing on anything.

In your own words, what do you think the issue here is?

[Littleman]

@Evil_Economist

Dude, did you even read the cite?

Do you think it matters that SHE DELETED ONLY PERSONAL EMAILS THAT SHE WASN’T REQUIRED TO PROVIDE?

Do you think that might be important?

Maybe?

Is that a fact with relevance?

Do you think?

How do we know the difference since they’re on the same server.

Plus I think all the emails in the server were the subpoena .

[JohnT]

If you’ve done the crime
You’ll do the time!
(Mueller beer)

Mueller tastes too good to hurry through
but when it’s time to indict
Mueller stands clear (beer after beer)

If you’ve done the crime (if you’ve done the crime),
You’ll do the time! (Mueller beer)

[jayjay]

I do find the join date of our newest Trumpenheimer interesting, I’ll admit…more interesting than his arguments for Trump’s innocence, anyway.

[Littleman]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Q. What will be the upshot of the Mueller Report once it is released?

A. ARGLE BARGLE HILLARY! She did some crimes! Because I heard about it!!!111

A. Let’s draw comparisons to other politicians in the same eschelon who committed crimes so we can speculate about the upshot.

Reaction…oh no no you mentioned a Democrat … prove this …prove that…result
Drawn into all this BS bc some whiny Dems automatiically assume this a defense of trump.

Corruption is rife… Just seems to only be a problem when an opposing party catches you, or thinks they caught you.
Then it’s typically dealt with if it ever goes anywhere which is a big If by giving some bullshit petty sentence or a pardon and just assuming shame is enough.

[Littleman]

@jayjay

I do find the join date of our newest Trumpenheimer interesting, I’ll admit…more interesting than his arguments for Trump’s innocence, anyway.

Like this
Have I ever even alluded to Trump being innocent? Nope.

Just that I doubt it goes real far.

[Evil_Economist]

@Littleman

How do we know the difference since they’re on the same server.

She hired a law firm to go through them and delete only the personal ones.

Plus I think all the emails in the server were the subpoena .

You think wrong (the subpoena was only for Benghazi-related emails)

[JohnT]

Looks at thread title.

See’s references to Hillary by post 100

:rolleyes:

[Airbeck]

I thought you guys were the law and order party, you know pro law enforcement? Why does that go out the window when one of your own is under investigation? Now all of a sudden law enforcement is corrupt and we can’t trust them and also everyone breaks the law so why pay attention to Trump in particular?

Make up your mind. Do you support the police and the rule of law in this country? If so why are you so desperate to malign them and attack their credibility when they are investigating someone on your side?

Can you clarify how you square this?

[Evil_Economist]

@Littleman

A. Let’s draw comparisons to other politicians in the same eschelon who committed crimes so we can speculate about the upshot.

I think a first step for you, before “drawing comparisons,” would be to get an even slightly correct understanding of the facts. For example, you don’t seem to understand that certain “other politicians” didn’t actually commit the crimes you accuse them of. And you don’t seem to understand what crime Trump may have committed. That makes your attempt to “draw comparisons” not particularly helpful.