Another DNC Trainwreck

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It was credible enough to start an investigation that has thus far indicted ~20 people including Trump's Campaign Manager, Asst Campaign Manager, National Security Advisor, and likely his personal lawyer (all of whom have deep Russian ties).

More BS. You're talking in circles and your response above has nothing to do with this thread.

When I stated that there's no evidence of Trump campaign collusion, which is what the DNC lawsuit it about, you said that there was plenty of evidence. I said the lawsuit was full of weak or false evidence, and you responded with a challenge to point out such weak evidence.

We then broke down your "perspective" on Papadopoulos' contacts with the Russians, with your claim that this was evidence that these contacts were evidence that Trump's team knew about Russian interference in the election crumbling over the course of those posts.

When your arguments failed and I challenged you to point how Papadopoulos' contacts were evidence of Russian collusion, you pointed to the Mueller investigation - which stands on its own and has nothing to do with the DNC civil suit - which to date as produced NO indictments that in any way support allegations of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians.

In fact, any indictments that have been filed so far from the Mueller investigation have nothing to do with the 2016 election at all. They are either related to individual's personal business, or they are "process crimes" that stem from the investigation. They are also "indictments" that have been filed in the process of an investigation and are not evidence of any crime since we're not privy to Mueller's strategy in the investigation.

None of this matters to you, however. You're predisposed to seek out and amplify and grievance or foible that anyone connected to Trump, his campaign or the Republican party might make. Your ability to look at any of this objectively is non-existent.

[Chicks]

Whell sees himself as an unbiased objective observer. That’s rich.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

More BS. You're talking in circles and your response above has nothing to do with this thread...

Thou doth protest too much. In doing so, you're identifying yourself as one of Trump's gullible sycophants who would still defend him if he shot somebody dead on 5th Avenue. Sad.

As for the DNC lawsuit, none of the supporting evidence in the DNC lawsuit is demonstrably false (in fact, all of it is supported by open source reporting and previous legal proceedings/documents). If it were demonstrably false, the DNC attorneys, as officers of the court, would be subjecting themselves to disbarment proceedings. The salient issue is if they have standing and have suffered damages as a result of Russian and/or Trump campaign actions. If so, this lawsuit will go forward and Trump's minions will be deposed under oath. If not, it won't. Squawking by you and other Trump sycophants will play no role whatsoever.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Whell sees himself as an unbiased objective observer. That’s rich.

I didn't say that, did I? I do have believe that I try to look at what's presented by politicians, the media, etc and question it before I accept it as gospel. I've never accepted the proposition that the "Russians corrupted the election" because its not possible, yet we have an entire thread devoted to that in this forum.

In fact, I remember that Hillary in the debate expressed great shock in the debate when Trump suggested he might not accept the election results. I remember Obama stating that "No Serious Person" believes U.S. elections can be rigged or stolen.

Did the Russians pump a lot of bullshit into the internet? Looks like it. Did it impact the election results? I doubt it. Did the Russians impact the actual voting process. No.

All of that taken together suggests that the current investigations are far more influenced by politics than any interest in getting to any sort of "truth".

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I didn't say that, did I? I do have believe that I try to look at what's presented by politicians, the media, etc and question it before I accept it as gospel. I've never accepted the proposition that the "Russians corrupted the election" because its not possible, yet we have an entire thread devoted to that in this forum.

In fact, I remember that Hillary in the debate expressed great shock in the debate when Trump suggested he might not accept the election results. I remember Obama stating that "No Serious Person" believes U.S. elections can be rigged or stolen.

Did the Russians pump a lot of bullshit into the internet? Looks like it. Did it impact the election results? I doubt it. Did the Russians impact the actual voting process. No.

All of that taken together suggests that the current investigations are far more influenced by politics than any interest in getting to any sort of "truth".

You seem to have conveniently overlooked the hacking and dissemination of DNC and Podesta data by the Russians (which are felonies). Any involvement in the hacking/dissemination or subsequent obstruction of the investigation by Trump and/or his campaign would be evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Whether or not the Russian and/or Trump campaign activities can be shown to have impacted the election is completely irrelevant when it comes to determining the criminality of such actions. It's kinda like saying that if I conspire to rob a bank, but use the stolen money only for legal purposes, that no crime was committed. What a dumb fucking argument.

[Chicks]

Whell, what you actually do, just like Donny, is regurgitate the talking points of Fox “News” and Limblow.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

What are you talking about? Has has a legal team that has been representing him. He added Giuliani because Giuliani and Mueller have a prior working relationship, and because Giuliani used to work in the DOJ, so he can speak "swamp-ese".

Then why have so many top law firms declined to represent him? Part of the reason we know is that they are afraid of not getting paid.

And Swamp-ese? Does that replace 'Fake News'?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

All of that taken together suggests that the current investigations are far more influenced by politics than any interest in getting to any sort of "truth".

You are full of shit. Perhaps you should stay out of the sun.
You did not respond to my earlier question. With one party rule, how is this political?

Why did Flynn, Gates plead guilty and so did a couple of other subordinates.
Speaking of echo chambers, you seem to live in one.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

You did not respond to my earlier question. With one party rule, how is this political?

Why did Flynn, Gates plead guilty and so did a couple of other subordinates.

Point 1: Question answered. From post 44 in this thread:

Note that I said "side", and didn't refer to left or right, or Dems and Repubs. I don't think the "sides" in this particular political drama exist within the commonly assumed political framework.

Point 2: Look at the facts. The FBI interviewed him and then reported back that they thought he was being truthful. Yet, Mueller got him to plead guilty to lying to the FBI. We don't know all of the facts here (what Flynn motivation was or what Mueller's strategy is/was), but I suspect that Flynn was motivated by a set of facts that had nothing to do with whether or not there was any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Gates has pleaded guilty to financial fraud and lying to Mueller, but has not yet been sentenced. His sentence would be subject to Mueller's recommendation based on Gate's cooperation with Mueller's investigation. We don't know why Gates chose to plea and what information Mueller believes Gates might provide. I suspect the prospect of a plea and cooperation/minimal sentence versus the time and expense of defending yourself in federal court against the financial might and weight of the Federal gov't was pretty attractive.

[Rajoo]

So you don't know what Flynn nor Gates are really guilty of, yet you are sure that there was NO Russian interference in the 2016 elections?
And that Mueller's investigation is politically motivated?

Why doesn't the GOP stop this investigation? An act of Congress would do it and Trump can sign it into law? But they won't and do you know why?

Instead Nunes and other sycophants are doing their best at tarnishing the reputations of the FBI and the Justice Department while the investigation continues. Do you know why?