You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
Donald Jr. has admitted to this meeting. Made the emails public. At first he lied about meeting Russians. Then lied about WHY he met them. Finally said he went there with the sole purpose of colluding with them and then ended the meeting once they couldn't produce the goods. That's collusion. He admitted it. This is not a conspiracy. This is not hysteria. There is no more proof to demand.
Now it's up to Mueller.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:PaSnow wrote:C'mon, it's called common sense. Secondly, give it a few more weeks, it'll come out. You keep yelling out "There's nothing there", then, when a couple weeks later some more news comes out about it, you say "Oh please, there's nothing else there". Then, a few more weeks later MORE news breaks, you say again "Oh please, there's nothing else there. Is that all you have?". Its a never ending cycle with you. I've said from the start it might take 1-2 years for all this to go down. It's not looking good right now, wouldn't surprise me if by New Years this whole things a huge mess.
Come on dude, that is so not true. Nothing you guys (I'm not really including you, since you didn't go head first into the conspiracy like others) have claimed has come to fruition. Not a single claim. You confuse me calling the idiots who come in here every day saying "THIS IS IT!" out and asking for evidence to support their claims, with saying "NOTHING WRONG/ILLEGAL HAS EVER HAPPENED OR WILL EVER HAPPEN". Quite the opposite. I just want evidence. Not "gut feelings", rumors, speculation, or more commonly - a complete misreading of a news article (refer to SLC saying Bush's Ethics Lawyers said this is "tantamount to impeachment").
I've made it crystal clear I don't approve of the way Trump conducts himself. I don't like that the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats were in 2009. Nothing is getting done. And Trump embarrasses himself every day with something new. None of that negates that the man hasn't done anything illegal, the "collusion" claims from the left and from members on this forum, were complete bunk and shot down.
And worse, in nearly every instance of some "wrong doing" by Trump or an associate, there is more evidence of the same crime directly to Clinton or someone in her campaign, and it's hand waived and excused. Yes, Trump is the President. None of that has anything to do with excusing possible illegal actions of the person that nearly everyone on this forum, to include me, voted for. If you only scream when Trump or a Republican allegedly does something, but ignore and excuse when more evidence of illegal activity occurred among your own group, you don't have any credibility.
I ask for actual evidence, you know, the kind of shit that actually holds up in a court of law and not just in the conspiracy wings of the internet. When there's actual evidence, I'll look. But so far all I've seen are a lot of people crying wolf or injecting conspiracy into completely benign actions, like Sessions meeting with the ambassador publicly in his office
Why do you have to lie and exaggerate, dude?
You never ask to see evidence for anyone but Trump. I mean, evidence that could be held up in court, which is hilarious, btw. When have you ever had that evidence on Hillary or Obama? What has been declared bunk?
You continually ignore that theory LIED about meeting Russian's, including in Juniors emails. You're the one acting like this is a huge conspiracy and there's absolutely nothing wrong.
You denied any investigations were happening.
According to you, this isn't even happening right now, its an optical illusion, because at some point months ago, it was all declared bunk and Trump has been totally cleared. When did that happen?
I'm not demanding or speculating Obama or Hillary would be sent to jail. I said a million times I don't care. I know Clinton broke the law. The FBI said she had classified info on her server. We saw the email where she personally told her aides to scrub the classification marks so it could be sent over the unclassified network (protip: that's illegal and doesn't make something unclassified). But I don't care. I don't give a shit about it. It's a trivial, stupid event that I never paid lip service to during the debate. My entire point was there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE she did something wrong, and none of you gave a fuck. There is NO EVIDENCE Trump has broken the law, at least as it pertains to Russia (who the fuck knows what crimes he committed in real estate or god knows what else).
If I make a claim, I provide evidence. I don't take snippets out of an article that are directly refuted in the same article, and try to change the discussion to claim I'm right (unlike you and your persistence on the ACA having "too many Republican concessions"). I have no problem being wrong. I like learning. But linking an anonymous source or butchering an article to take what you want from it and claiming "this is definitive proof" isn't evidence. It's speculation. I know Hillary had classified information on her private server. I suspect Lynch met with Bill Clinton on her jet to discuss the case. I know Trump asked Kasich to be his VP and told him he'll be in charge. I suspect Trump ran for office as a publicity stunt, never thinking he'd win. I don't believe nor have I been presented with any evidence that Trump or anyone on his campaign worked in collaboration with the Russian government to hack the DNC and spread information that would harm Hillary.
This is the problem. None of you are honest about what really occurs. You've claimed there was an investigation into Trump from day one, that this was the primary focus of the FBI's investigation. That's wrong. The investigation was into how Russia hacked and attempted to influence our election. Is looking into Trump's campaign part of a reasonable investigation based on the allegations, of course! Does that mean Trump himself was under investigation? Nope. Does it mean any high ranking people were under investigation? Nope. Does it mean the FBI put more than a cursory glance in the direction? Nope. Which is a way for me to say "I have no earthly idea", the exact same thing all of you should be saying. But you don't. You come in here with questionable sources nearly every day making claims that are soon disproved, or more often forgotten. You continue the narrative that Trump and/or his campaign did something wrong/illegal to win the election. And you have nothing, not a single shred of proof to support that. So you build conspiracies and take isolated events and try to connect them to other isolated events and suggest a deeper meaning or narrative. And worse of all, when someone says how can it be illegal for Trump to have done this when Clinton did the same thing (Jr meeting with some Russian Lawyer versus Podesta meeting with the Ukrainian Ambassador) you lash out and attack me, rather than staying intellectual and trying to reconcile the obvious partisan bias.
I'm just trying to be intellectually honest. That's it. You make a claim, you support it. You give an opinion, you discuss it. That's the whole purpose of this place. But what's happened is you and a few others have jumped on the Trump colluded with Russia bandwagon. You're free to do so. But you don't get to attack others and claim an intellectual edge when you lack even a rudimentary basis of evidence for any of your allegations. That's not how this work, at least if you want to claim some intelligent basis.
So ignore all of this. Call me a liar. And go back to rubbing elbows with the guy who watched a YouTube video and believes the USA orchestrated 9/11 or the self loathing White Guy who yells "Fuck Trump" every few days and uses the "N" word. They're both great company and neither represent the racism or stupidity you claim represent the other side you so hate.
Re: US Politics Thread
lol, this Goldstone guy seems like a real winner. He's like a mini-Ricky Gervais. Someone apparently went back & noticed he 'Checked In' to the Trump Tower the day of the meeting, June 9th.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:No, they didn't Can you link the article where W's ethics lawyers called it a crime?
"Boarders on Treason."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cU89C7YB0
And Jill Wine-Banks...
'IT IS COLLUSION': Watergate special prosecutor draws the line after Trump Jr.'s email revelation
Former assistant Watergate special prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks drew a clear line on Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer, after a bombshell New York Times report on Monday revealed that he was told in an email that the information he was receiving was part of a Russian strategy to assist then-candidate Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
"This is an astounding thing," said Wine-Banks on MSNBC. "It is collusion with a foreign adversary if they were working together to get the information from the Russian government."
The Times' report cited three officials familiar with the email that was sent by music publicist Rob Goldstone, who represented the son of a wealthy Azerbaijani-Russian developer and has ties to the Trump family. The Times' sources alleged Goldstone's email "indicates" that Russia was the source of the information, which was supposed to have been damaging to then-candidate Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Wine-Banks also hinted that the latest revelation would be looked at by special counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed by the Justice Department to oversee the investigation into allegations of Russian involvement during the 2016 US presidential election: "We have, for sure, more evidence for Mr. Mueller to look at and get the details of," said Banks.
"And that's what this looks like, it looks like clear proof of collusion," Wine-Banks said.
You mean the part where he says "borderline" and caveats it with "if this story is true" meaning JR met with Russian spies.
So Ws ethics lawyers didn't call it "tantamount to treason", just like I said. You lied. You had your Salon article, saw the headline, and head/read what you wanted to.
Absolutely, if JR knowingly met with Russian Intelligence to knowingly receive information from the KGB on Clinton. Treason. 100% agree. Hang him tonight. But you don't know that. You have no evidence to support that. So you hear what you want to, and post exaggerated, sensationalist nonsense. Yet I'm the idiot here.
So I'll ask you again, since you keep ignoring. What illegal action took place that could be treason. What happened there SLC? What do you know? Or are you just pulling "ifs" and "coulds" and putting them in the worse possible light and trying to build your collusion case. Again, this meeting took place before the hacks.
I'm not saying anyone did or didn't do anything illegal. I'm saying I don't know, and I would like some evidence to support one opinion or the other. You already established your standard of evidence is lower than a rational, intelligent person. Do you believe in a spider boy in Montana because the World Weekly News claims there is one?
If something illegal happened, I want to know. If someone betrayed our country, I want to know. I'm not interested in joining up with the CNN types who are making money fabricating controversy. Just as you don't see me linking the nonsense Trump puts on Twitter.
Re: US Politics Thread
"if this story is true" meaning JR met with Russian spies.
How can it not be true? JR posted it himself...on twitter...
just like his Dad posted that Obama had illegal surveillance on him during the campaign. A lot of people believe that and there is far less evidence to support that than anything else being discussed here.
Re: US Politics Thread
You mean the part where he says "borderline" and caveats it with "if this story is true" meaning JR met with Russian spies.
1) We know the story is true. Dummy. We have email proof provided by Jr.
2) Wow, I never saw this coming. Facts mean nothing to you. When two legal experts -both lawyers with decades of experience-step up and say this is a crime, I tend to believe them. But that's not good enough for the arm chair legal expert Flagg, who can't admit somebody could possibly know more than he does. Perhaps you should give them a call and explain the law to them?
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:This meeting occurred before the leaks. And nothing has been put out there that suggests Jr received anything or this woman had any connection to the hacks?
C'mon, it's called common sense. Secondly, give it a few more weeks, it'll come out. You keep yelling out "There's nothing there", then, when a couple weeks later some more news comes out about it, you say "Oh please, there's nothing else there". Then, a few more weeks later MORE news breaks, you say again "Oh please, there's nothing else there. Is that all you have?". Its a never ending cycle with you. I've said from the start it might take 1-2 years for all this to go down. It's not looking good right now, wouldn't surprise me if by New Years this whole things a huge mess.
This x 1000. ^^^
Why would anybody defend Trump to being with? It seems like such a losing proposition. Flagg hates liberals more than he likes Trump
Right?
I think he also hates liberals more than he cares about any stance he's taken anywhere in this hundreds of pages of posts we have here.
That's weird...to hate liberals so much that the argument they're setting forth with bits and pieces of real evidence, so as to ignore any possibility that something is really strange here.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
"if this story is true" meaning JR met with Russian spies.
How can it not be true? JR posted it himself...on twitter...
just like his Dad posted that Obama had illegal surveillance on him during the campaign. A lot of people believe that and there is far less evidence to support that than anything else being discussed here.
Again, what is true? That Jr met with a lawyer from Russia. Yep. That he knew she allegedly had dirt on Clinton? Yep.
100% agreed. What crime is committed based on these truths?
What some of you are trying to do, is conflate the truth with unknowns or unverified claims. Like this lawyer was a Russian intelligence operative or that she was/is connected to the hacking. Or that Jr knew she was either of those.
The DNC bought the piss tape dossier from a British spy. Clinton's campaign met with the Ukrainian ambassador to get dirt on Trump. If these actions aren't illegal, and I don't believe they are, what crime do we know Jr committed?
This is what I want to understand. Jr didn't admit to what you believe - that this woman was KGB and had hacked information.
Don't confuse your gut feelings with objective fact.
