Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Schiff Response [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
And if you think that the Dems funding the Steele research is bad, but see nothing wrong with what the Trump campaign was doing DIRECTLY with various Russians, then your moral compass is broken.

So you think that laundering payments through a law firm, working with a sleazy oppo research firm, a foreign agent, and seeking out information from the Russians is better than having one meeting with a Russian lawyer (who came to them), and turning them down?
Quote Reply
Re: Schiff Response [efernand] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
efernand wrote:
Quote:
And if you think that the Dems funding the Steele research is bad, but see nothing wrong with what the Trump campaign was doing DIRECTLY with various Russians, then your moral compass is broken.

So you think that laundering payments through a law firm, working with a sleazy oppo research firm, a foreign agent, and seeking out information from the Russians is better than having one meeting with a Russian lawyer (who came to them), and turning them down?

One meeting with a Russian lawyer?! Haha! Good one. You really have your head deep in the sand.
Quote Reply
Re: Schiff Response [efernand] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
efernand wrote:
Quote:
And if you think that the Dems funding the Steele research is bad, but see nothing wrong with what the Trump campaign was doing DIRECTLY with various Russians, then your moral compass is broken.


So you think that laundering payments through a law firm, working with a sleazy oppo research firm, a foreign agent, and seeking out information from the Russians is better than having one meeting with a Russian lawyer (who came to them), and turning them down?

If they were going to turn them down, why accept the meeting? Is your argument seriously, the trump campaign was hoping to receive illegal support from a hostile foreign government? Because the right thing to do was to tell the FBI the Russian government was trying to illegally influence the election. Why have the meeting if you were not interested in receiving the help?
Quote Reply
Re: Schiff Response [Runguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Runguy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Runguy wrote:
so you seen the Mueller report to base your opinion on? Listen having communication with the Russians is not the same thing as colluding with them. you understand that, right? I'm pretty sure Mueller would have looked at that, right?

Also, you apparently don't understand the point of the Mueller investigation. it was to see if there was collusion and obstruction during the 2016 presidential election (do you understand that sentence?)

Mueller's task was to indict or not indict and the bottom line was there were no indictments that pertained to the Trump camp or to trump.

Now if you still don't believe the Mueller report that's your right of course. If for example the republicans do get an investigation into dossier that help launch the Mueller probe and THAT investigation comes with no indictments so be it.


Sigh...

You have some catching up to do.

Maybe Orphious will help you out, but I'm not going to go over it all again.

Read some of my posts in this thread and other recent threads on the topic and you'll realise that ive answered every question you wrote above. You may be surprised at some of my answers too.

Question for you: you do realise there is a difference between criminal conspiracy and cooperation, right?

I think you do, but dont care.

Kay, can I call you Kay? Do you not read what I wrote? if either of those two things were true (which according to the summary report are not) how do you explain that there was no indictment? You see my friend you start with an assumption of innocence here in the good old USA and then something called beyond a reasonable doubt. so put aside your dislike for Trump for a second , do a little critical thinking and then ask yourself if YOU were under investigation how would you want to be treated, yes?

Like I said, you have much catching up to do. This is not about whether someone, or Trump specifically, was indicted. I predicted long ago he would not be. It’s whether what they did deserves criticism. What I’ve discovered is that Ballwashers are incapable of criticizing Trump or his campaign staff for any of their many instances of cooperation and communication with Russians, Russian hackers, Wikileaks, etc.
Quote Reply
Re: Schiff Response [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Runguy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Runguy wrote:
so you seen the Mueller report to base your opinion on? Listen having communication with the Russians is not the same thing as colluding with them. you understand that, right? I'm pretty sure Mueller would have looked at that, right?

Also, you apparently don't understand the point of the Mueller investigation. it was to see if there was collusion and obstruction during the 2016 presidential election (do you understand that sentence?)

Mueller's task was to indict or not indict and the bottom line was there were no indictments that pertained to the Trump camp or to trump.

Now if you still don't believe the Mueller report that's your right of course. If for example the republicans do get an investigation into dossier that help launch the Mueller probe and THAT investigation comes with no indictments so be it.


Sigh...

You have some catching up to do.

Maybe Orphious will help you out, but I'm not going to go over it all again.

Read some of my posts in this thread and other recent threads on the topic and you'll realise that ive answered every question you wrote above. You may be surprised at some of my answers too.

Question for you: you do realise there is a difference between criminal conspiracy and cooperation, right?

I think you do, but dont care.


Kay, can I call you Kay? Do you not read what I wrote? if either of those two things were true (which according to the summary report are not) how do you explain that there was no indictment? You see my friend you start with an assumption of innocence here in the good old USA and then something called beyond a reasonable doubt. so put aside your dislike for Trump for a second , do a little critical thinking and then ask yourself if YOU were under investigation how would you want to be treated, yes?


Like I said, you have much catching up to do. This is not about whether someone, or Trump specifically, was indicted. I predicted long ago he would not be. It’s whether what they did deserves criticism. What I’ve discovered is that Ballwashers are incapable of criticizing Trump or his campaign staff for any of their many instances of cooperation and communication with Russians, Russian hackers, Wikileaks, etc.

I see the court of public opinion. Still its important to distinguish between fact and opinion when it comes to free speech. So I agree no one is above criticism and that includes both sides of the aisle. So, I don't think you should couch your argument with the Mueller report but keep it separate as they are two very different things .
Quote Reply
Re: Schiff Response [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Runguy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Runguy wrote:
so you seen the Mueller report to base your opinion on? Listen having communication with the Russians is not the same thing as colluding with them. you understand that, right? I'm pretty sure Mueller would have looked at that, right?

Also, you apparently don't understand the point of the Mueller investigation. it was to see if there was collusion and obstruction during the 2016 presidential election (do you understand that sentence?)

Mueller's task was to indict or not indict and the bottom line was there were no indictments that pertained to the Trump camp or to trump.

Now if you still don't believe the Mueller report that's your right of course. If for example the republicans do get an investigation into dossier that help launch the Mueller probe and THAT investigation comes with no indictments so be it.


Sigh...

You have some catching up to do.

Maybe Orphious will help you out, but I'm not going to go over it all again.

Read some of my posts in this thread and other recent threads on the topic and you'll realise that ive answered every question you wrote above. You may be surprised at some of my answers too.

Question for you: you do realise there is a difference between criminal conspiracy and cooperation, right?

I think you do, but dont care.


Kay, can I call you Kay? Do you not read what I wrote? if either of those two things were true (which according to the summary report are not) how do you explain that there was no indictment? You see my friend you start with an assumption of innocence here in the good old USA and then something called beyond a reasonable doubt. so put aside your dislike for Trump for a second , do a little critical thinking and then ask yourself if YOU were under investigation how would you want to be treated, yes?


Like I said, you have much catching up to do. This is not about whether someone, or Trump specifically, was indicted. I predicted long ago he would not be. It’s whether what they did deserves criticism. What I’ve discovered is that Ballwashers are incapable of criticizing Trump or his campaign staff for any of their many instances of cooperation and communication with Russians, Russian hackers, Wikileaks, etc.
Repeating this: Mueller was not allowed to indict the president, period, even if he found reason to. The rules for him are much different than they were for Ken Starr. I'll link this again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/...-go-congress/585577/
Quote Reply
Re: Schiff Response [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
the report is the report. What I accept or don’t accept is irrelevant.

Well, except that you're giving Kay shit for supposedly not accepting parts of the report, and then following up by suggesting that you don't accept parts of the report.

Consistency is always nice, unless of course you just don't care about being taken seriously.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Schiff Response [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
the report is the report. What I accept or don’t accept is irrelevant.


Well, except that you're giving Kay shit for supposedly not accepting parts of the report, and then following up by suggesting that you don't accept parts of the report.

Consistency is always nice, unless of course you just don't care about being taken seriously.

You must be knew here.
Quote Reply
Re: Schiff Response [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spudone wrote:
Repeating this: Mueller was not allowed to indict the president, period, even if he found reason to. The rules for him are much different than they were for Ken Starr. I'll link this again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/...-go-congress/585577/

side note: the starr report was released to the public in its entirety 2 days after it was delivered by the special counsel.

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/
Quote Reply
Re: Schiff Response [iron_mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
iron_mike wrote:
spudone wrote:

Repeating this: Mueller was not allowed to indict the president, period, even if he found reason to. The rules for him are much different than they were for Ken Starr. I'll link this again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/...-go-congress/585577/


side note: the starr report was released to the public in its entirety 2 days after it was delivered by the special counsel.

Guess who was asking for the report to be redacted back then?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ton-was-investigated
Quote Reply

Prev Next