Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have thought quite a bit about what it means to know something and I do not use the word often but I intended to use it in the post you criticized. To focus on one of the issues you had a comment about: davefoc posted: "5. Trump is known to have fired Comey to stop the investigation of the Russian interference in the election" I know that Trump attempted to prevent Comey from pursuing the Russian investigation. I base this on the fact that Trump is a relentlessly dishonest person and based on his previous behavior it is absolutely to be expected that if there was a discrepancy between him and Comey, Comey's version is the true version. I also base this on the fact that Trump essentially confirmed that Comey was fired to end the Russian investigation when Trump said this to a Russian official: “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” I also base this on the fact that Trump has whined throughout the time of Russian Investigation that he thought Sessions should end it, presumably by firing people that wouldn't cooperate with ending it. ETA: Part of Trump comment made in Lester Holt interview: "And in fact when I decided to just do it [fire Comey] I said to myself, I said, You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.” I would like to explain what I mean when I used the word, know, above: I didn't mean that I could know absolutely in the philosophical sense or that I could know in the sense of having mathematical certainty. I meant it in the sense that for all practical purposes I know that Trump lied about his meeting with Comey and that his purpose for firing Comey was to stop the Russian investigation especially the investigation of Flynn. I also know this in the sense that I would be willing to bet my life on my belief that this is correct. I understand that you think my conclusion is not knowable based on the available evidence. My suggestion is that for reasons that you might not be aware of you are allowing your agreement with Trump on some set of issues to lead you to make false conclusions about the issues being discussed in this thread. Your idea that the Uranium One deal was some great piece of evidence against Clinton was a demonstration of one such false conclusion. The Uranium One scandal is something cynically cooked up by Republican Partisans to smear Clinton. Clinton was not involved in any wrong doing with regard to it. In this thread you have routinely criticized posts that point out Trump malfeasance because the evidence does not meet some very high evidentiary threshold you have set but you jump right on the Conservative conspiracy theory bandwagon when the evidence reinforces your support of Trump. Please, if you choose to make a response to the above, understand this: I am not a fan of Clinton and I think a lot of the criticism of her is justified, however her detractors have engaged in lying and misrepresentations to advance a partisan agenda and the lies and misrepresentations about the Uranium One deal is a very good example of that. |
I've already written in great detail the complete actual story on uranium one.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Zig seems to think I'm missing some facts but declines to say what those missing facts actually are. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable. |
Quote:
He said he thought about Russia as a "made-up" thing. He didn't say that such thoughts are why he fired Comey. I don't "know" (in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt) that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, but I find it very likely. |
Quote:
here is the OIG report in question. Tell me which parts you have evidence to rebut. https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/...abe-report.pdf |
Quote:
What is lacking there? That he might have had two related thoughts at once but we're unrelated in reaching a conclusion from one to the other? What is another way to translate that statement? |
Quote:
But in the *totality* of Trump's words and actions, it is one of many pieces of a puzzle which together paint a damnable picture. |
Quote:
You’re completely wrong. You and Davfoc have no evidence whatsoever, you’re totally making a guess. All evidence points against you and his “belief” |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I appreciate the objectivity your post suggests. A few points: 1. The evidence that Trump fired Comey to end the Russian investigation and protect Flynn involves other evidence than I listed in my post that acbytesla responded to as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for practical purposes it is knowable that Trump attempted to obstruct justice. 2. My point was not that firing Comey to halt the Russian investigation was or should be an impeachable offense. It was that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice by firing Comey. I would hesitate to bring an impeachment against a sitting president if this was the only crime I believed he had committed. 3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose. Right now a significant percentage of the country is under the thrall of Fox News which lies and obfuscates every day about the Mueller investigation and by doing so maintains a significant segment of the population believing that Trump is being unfairly treated by the Mueller investigation. Given the success of Fox News and other partisan media has had with this campaign I believe that the best interests of the nation are served by waiting to see what is discovered by the Mueller investigation and only proceeding with an impeachment if serious criminality by Trump is uncovered that is significant enough that Fox News is forced to abandon its pro-Trump campaign. This will allow cover for enough Republican legislators to move to remove Trump. 4. There is reason to believe based on Trump's actions he has been seriously compromised by his Russian connections. That is the kind of criminality that I think would be enough to unite the country around the need for impeachment and conviction of Trump. I don't think evidence that Trump is actually compromised by Russia or Russian crime families is known to the public right now. |
Quote:
Quote:
No the evidence that Trump obstructed justice and continues to do so is conclusive. Not that I'm under any illusion that the law will be obeyed. As I said, 'if politics weren't involved' no one would dispute it. But there is no God or Santa Clause either. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
And don't forget that Trump, Stone and Papadopoulos had foreknowledge of the wikileaks dump. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
eta: Wait, was that a wikileaks dump? I might have gotten that confused with something else. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
:shocked::shocked::shocked:
Quote:
|
Quote:
:dl: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
ETA: or did I fall for a Poe? |
So, no data just partisan hysterics.
|
Quote:
|
Trump:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Trump has been a gift that just keeps giving to Putin since before he even became President. Trying to make direct comparisons to Obama and Hillary, of course, is... odd, on the other hand, given the notably different situations that Obama was dealing with, and that Hillary was never the President. That Trump's been overwhelmingly more pro-Russia than either, though, should be really, really, really obvious to anyone paying attention. |
Quote:
The GOP in the House of Representatives in 1998 (bless their shriveled black hearts), more than a few of whom are still serving, set that standard for us. Lying under oath about something as inconsequential as a single sexual encounter between consenting adults is sufficient grounds for impeachment. Has Trump reached that threshold? Of course he has.There seems to be little doubt that he has lied under oath multiple times over issues far more serious than a single sexual encounter between consenting adults. Has he lied under oath while President? Not yet, maybe. But only because he has not been compelled to testify under oath ... yet. Judging by his apparently congenital inability to tell the truth about anything at all, even when it is to his own, personal benefit to do so, there can be little doubt that once under oath, he would lie some more. (Which is probably (certainly?) why he has resisted being put under oath since taking office.) Would the GOP Representatives in the House maintain the same standard today that they established in 1998? Of course they wouldn't. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Is it your contention that "beyond reasonable doubt" and "100 percent certainty" are the same thing under U.S. law? Do you think that a judge should offer such a standard as an instruction to a jury? |
Quote:
Obviously a RINO. |
Quote:
Of course, nothing in your answer has anything to do with the original point. It's just all-purpose fluff -- like most of your posts. |
After all that Bill Clinton's speech in Russia being linked to Uranium One as reason to believe that Clintons are more corrupt than Trump... I do have to wonder how that's being held up in comparison to the very numerous cases of Trump literally using campaign and government funds to enrich himself.
|
Quote:
Quote:
:id: |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.