Another DNC Trainwreck

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

If Nunes had run a legitimate investigation rather than a cover-up for Trump, the DNC would likely have not done this. Now, if this case goes forward, all of Trump's minions can be deposed under oath by real investigators. Something similar was done by the DNC during Watergate and they were awarded a bunch of money for it.

House investigations are far more likely to be circuses than they are to accomplish anything productive.

That said, you also have had an FBI investigation, a Senate investigation and now a Special Counsel. None of them have found any evidence of that which the Dems are claiming in their CIVIL suit.

The Dems know there's zero evidence of Russian collusion. Schiff has stated that there's no evidence. Mark Warner has said that there's no evidence. DiFi has said she's not seen any evidence. Joe Manchin has said there's no evidence. Hell, even Maxine Waters admits there's no evidence. You're probably one of the remaining few and proud hyper-ventilators that still think there is evidence, you poor deluded fool.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

House investigations are far more likely to be circuses than they are to accomplish anything productive.

That said, you also have had an FBI investigation, a Senate investigation and now a Special Counsel. None of them have found any evidence of that which the Dems are claiming in their CIVIL suit.

The Dems know there's zero evidence of Russian collusion. Schiff has stated that there's no evidence. Mark Warner has said that there's no evidence. DiFi has said she's not seen any evidence. Joe Manchin has said there's no evidence. Hell, even Maxine Waters admits there's no evidence. You're probably one of the remaining few and proud hyper-ventilators that still think there is evidence, you poor deluded fool.

Actually, the FBI investigation was rolled into the Special Counsel's. As for the Senate's investigation, I still don't have full confidence in the Republicans, particularly after their ridiculous reaction to the Comey memos (somehow they think they proved Comey to be the liar and Trump the truth-teller), not to mention their silence about Nunes' disreputable and unethical antics.

Read items 6-19 starting on page 6 of the lawsuit. Sounds like quite a bit of evidence.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...ikileaks/2914/

In a civil suit, the standard of proof is a "preponderance of evidence" supporting the allegation as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, "pleading the fifth" in a civil case or deposition allows an inference of guilt, unlike in a criminal trial. In any event, a similar civil suit was filed against Nixon and his henchmen during Watergate and the DNC won a settlement of $750K.

If it also serves to keep the Democratic base on a low boil and increase contributions to the DNC, no harm in that.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Actually, the FBI investigation was rolled into the Special Counsel's. As for the Senate's investigation, I still don't have full confidence in the Republicans, particularly after their ridiculous reaction to the Comey memos (somehow they think they proved Comey to be the liar and Trump the truth-teller), not to mention their silence about Nunes' disreputable and unethical antics.

Oh, you mean the memos that the Inspector General is now recommending charges against Comey for leaking?

Originally Posted by finnbow

Read items 6-19 starting on page 6 of the lawsuit. Sounds like quite a bit of evidence.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...ikileaks/2914/

What they have is hearsay, innuendo and (to borrow from Donny's cute reference), "'No true Scotsman' fallacy".

Originally Posted by finnbow

In a civil suit, the standard of proof is a "preponderance of evidence" supporting the allegation as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, "pleading the fifth" in a civil case or deposition allows an inference of guilt, unlike in a criminal trial. In any event, a similar civil suit was filed against Nixon and his henchmen during Watergate and the DNC won a settlement of $750K.

If it also serves to keep the Democratic base on a low boil and increase contributions to the DNC, no harm in that.

I thought you weren't a Democrat?

You and your fellow Dems have been hoping breathlessly for criminal charges to come from any or all of the various investigations. Since there's NO EVIDENCE of any collusion, you now turn to a civil suit because the breathless hope for criminal charges has crumbled.

I think you're absolutely right, the suit is all about fun-raising and keeping folks like you riled up. Now, go run and get your checkbook.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, you mean the memos that the Inspector General is now recommending charges against Comey for leaking?

The IG has not recommended charges.

What they have is hearsay, innuendo and (to borrow from Donny's cute reference), "'No true Scotsman' fallacy".

Actually, all of the items on that list are factual. List for me all of those which are hearsay or innuendo.

I thought you weren't a Democrat?

I was a registered Republican until 2003. Now I'm an independent and align more closely with former Republican Never-Trumpers.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I was a registered Republican until 2003. Now I'm an independent and align more closely with former Republican Never-Trumpers.

Oh, bullshit. "Former Republican Never-Trumpers" wouldn't likely cheer for Dem fundraising....

....unless, of course, you want the Dems to commit fully and financially to the cicil suit, and starve funding for 2018 candidates. If so, good on ya, and keep up the good work.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, bullshit. "Former Republican Never-Trumpers" wouldn't likely cheer for Dem fundraising....

Huh? All sorts of Never-Trumpers voted for Hillary (I didn't BTW), just like numerous Never-Trumpers support a Dem House takeover to reign in the guy who is destroying their party. Jennifer Rubin, Bret Stephens, David Brooks, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bob Corker, among many others, come to mind. It definitely explains my (relative) support for the Dems over Trump and his sycophantic GOP. It's called patriotism (as opposed to the tribalism that you personify).

Check out this exhaustive list of Republicans (or former Republicans) who eschew tribalism in favor of patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...campaign,_2016

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Huh? All sorts of Never-Trumpers voted for Hillary (I didn't BTW), just like numerous Never-Trumpers support a Dem House takeover to reign in the guy who is destroying their party. Jennifer Rubin, Bret Stephens, David Brooks, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bob Corker, among many others, come to mind. It definitely explains my (relative) support for the Dems over Trump and his sycophantic GOP. It's called patriotism (as opposed to the tribalism that you personify).

Check out this exhaustive list of Republicans (or former Republicans) who eschew tribalism in favor of patriotism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...campaign,_2016

Don't see any references to giving money to the Dems.....

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The IG has not recommended charges.

You're correct, but there is an investigation. That doesn't mean that there will be charges, but it suggests that there's something that's has caught the IG's attention.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Actually, all of the items on that list are factual. List for me all of those which are hearsay or innuendo.

There are plenty of disjointed and poorly supported factoids in there. The opening suggestion, for example, that "individuals tied to the Kremlin" informed the Trump campaign that the Krelmlin intended to interfere is a great example of weakly supported allegations that pass for "fact" with you.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

There are plenty of disjointed and poorly supported factoids in there. The opening suggestion, for example, that "individuals tied to the Kremlin" informed the Trump campaign that the Krelmlin intended to interfere is a great example of weakly supported allegations that pass for "fact" with you.

That's exactly what occurred with Papadopolous and later in the invitation to the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That's exactly what occurred with Papadopolous and later in the invitation to the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

Here's a summary of the Trump / Russia BS which includes Papadopoulos' role. I certainly don't see anywhere in here where he was given evidence that the Russians were going to interfere.

https://www.politico.com/trump-russi...line-of-events

Or is that what is "believed" or "alleged" to have occurred during the meeting with the "professor".