(12-18-2017 08:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Watch this just to be educated on what the other side thinks of Putin's motives to throw the election to Trump. Why it was at a state level of trade craft. Consider it oppositional research. You don't even have to believe it. Just understand that this is the best reason for Putin to pull his shenanigans in the last election.


http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/m...7354563849


I took a voluntary self ban for the last two months. I wanted to get through the Christmas season and have goodwill towards my fellow man vibe throughout the holidays. When I watched this video I thought of this room immediately. You guys have to watch this. Some things are bigger than a Supreme Court seat. This is the full faith of the United States Government. When we told Ukraine if they would give up their nuclear arsenal and we would protect them we meant it. We wouldn't let a trillionaire despot tear our country apart. This is a stain on our country at this point. We have to get to the bottom of it.

building the case... brick by brick.

(12-18-2017 09:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "So where does the video describe anything illegal done by Trump?"

The video shows drop dead ass in the grass motive. What percent of this room will even watch it? Are you not even in the slightest bit concerned that we could have an active traitor in the big chair? Trump's actions will be his undoing. The investigations need to be finalized without obstruction.

Motive has no meaning in the law. I don't believe the term is even defined in codified law.

It is a concept used by investigators in attempting to solve a crime when. When there isn't a crime, motive is irrelevant. Showing motive does not prove a crime. Having a motive is not illegal. You have to prove an illegal act to prove a crime. Where is the illegal act?

That's the big problem here. The Trump attackers keep trying to show a motive without showing a criminal act. That's the big difference between this and, say, Watergate. Watergate had the act first and then you followed motive to come up with the guilty parties. Here we don't have an act yet. And if Muller's crew hasn't been able to find one in all those emails, I don't know where they are going to find one.

"The Trump attackers keep trying to show a motive without showing a criminal act."

Owl..... Do you actually believe that that meeting with the Russian mobsters and Putin's lawyers was about adoption......... We have them countlessly lying about contacts with them and showing them to be proven liars....... Let's just let Mueller finish his investigation without any obstructions. When it's finished then we will see. White collar crimes take years to fully investigate. What we have seen so far from Mueller's team has been extraordinary. That you say you haven't had a criminal act yet? Why did Flynn plead guilty then? You are a smart man. Act like it.

What we've seen from Mueller's team so far is a failed coup attempt just about to crash and burn.

(12-18-2017 10:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "The Trump attackers keep trying to show a motive without showing a criminal act."
Owl..... Do you actually believe that that meeting with the Russian mobsters and Putin's lawyers was about adoption......... We have them countlessly lying about contacts with them and showing them to be proven liars....... Let's just let Mueller finish his investigation without any obstructions. When it's finished then we will see. White collar crimes take years to fully investigate. What we have seen so far from Mueller's team has been extraordinary. That you say you haven't had a criminal act yet? Why did Flynn plead guilty then? You are a smart man. Act like it.

Flynn pleaded guilty to a procedural violation. IIRC, all of the guilty pleas so far have been for procedural matters unrelated to collusion regarding the 2016 election.

As I've posted several times, there are three levels here:

1) Russia tried to interfere in US affairs. That's what the intel agency leaders said and that's unquestionably true. That, by the way, is why Hillary's server was such an egregious problem.

2) Russia succeeded in changing the result of the 2016 election. This has been looked at extensively from several angles, and the conclusions have all been that it didn't happen.

3) Trump colluded with Putin to hijack the 2016 election. Here we have no proof yet. I say yet, it could still happen, but so far no evidence, just speculation. What was the meeting, or any other meeting, about? How the hell would I know, I wasn't there and neither were you. We can speculate all we want about what might have been discussed, but we don't know, and without knowing that, there is no evidence. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that any meeting occurring after the election was not about trying to figure out how to hijack the election.

Let me ask you a question. What you've demonstrated is that Putin had sufficient motive to try to attack Hillary and her candidacy without any effort by Trump to convince him to do so. It seems to me that you weaken your case significantly by pointing this out. Your strong case is that Putin had no motive to interfere without encouragement from Trump. And you go away from that. Why?

This thread is gold. I am laughing my azz off.

(12-18-2017 09:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I really don't understand the left's visceral hatred of all things Trump any more than I understood the right's visceral hatred of all things Clinton. You disagree on issues, that does not make the other person a despicable human being.

Criminalizing political differences.

Hmmmm,

Where does that sound like?

Missed my man Mach, but come back with this? And an mslsd story?

Cmon, man!

(12-18-2017 09:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Putin had plenty of motive to throw the election to Trump. Did Trump actively encourage that and work with them. That's what we need to get to the bottom of. Do we have an active Kompatriot in the big chair. I believe the evidence will show we do. The right should have the point of view that at the very least they need to do their due vigilance to exonerate our commander in chief. A lot of smoke surrounds the issue. It needs investigated without obstruction.

Damn, man.

Is he a greedy, bankrupt, ruthless capitalist? Or another stinking Commie? We’ve got plenty of the latter in govt now, need many more of the former.

Which is Drumpf? Need to know for the next 7 years...

JMU did you watch the video? This guy tortured and killed the guy. He's a bad hombre and Trump snuggles, kisses, and holds him tight.
Watch the video. I'm going to one more time myself.

Magnitzky act. This guy exposed Putin from tax evasion and corruption and they tortured and killed the guy. He was murdered. This is the guy the right praises. Alex Jones loves.

OK, to have a crime you need

an act
which breaks a law
committed while in a criminal state of mind

Motive only goes to the state of mind. You can have all the motive in the world, but without and act, and a law that it breaks--no crime.

That's what's different from Watergate. At Watergate you had an act first, and then investigation supplied the other. Here so far, there is no act.

Met with so-and-so is not an act that constitutes collusion. Met with so-and-so and lied about it is not an act that constitutes collusion. And proving that Putin had many other motives for wanting to sink Hillary certainly contradicts the idea that he did anything (if in fact he did anything) because of some tit-for-tat with Trump.

I am not saying definitively that there was no act. But this far in, with no evidence of an act, makes me wonder if we will ever see one.

You can’t take stolen material and use it. We need to stop playing arm chair investigator and let Mueller do his job. Stop obstructing too.

(12-18-2017 12:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You can’t take stolen material and use it. We need to stop playing arm chair investigator and let Mueller do his job. Stop obstructing too.

The whole reason a Special Investigator is appointed is to have someone that is neutral.

Mueller's group that he hired on is so in the tank and one sided, they should disband it.

They might as well just appoint the DNC to conduct an investigation.Make Mach the leader in charge.....he'll have all Republicans brought up on charges pronto........for "thinking against Democratic party law".

(12-18-2017 10:01 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The only video I'll be watching this week is when team Clinton Colluders are forced to testify under oath about their sedition plot.

Funny, how Muehller is supposed to be investigating collusion that occurred during the elections, and he actually hired several of the perps who did just that to be on the investigation team.

We told you not to go down that rabbit hole.

Every time you spell Mueller as Muehller I get more convinced that you are an idiot.

Creb You are being reactionary.

(12-18-2017 12:57 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:01 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The only video I'll be watching this week is when team Clinton Colluders are forced to testify under oath about their sedition plot.

Funny, how Muehller is supposed to be investigating collusion that occurred during the elections, and he actually hired several of the perps who did just that to be on the investigation team.

We told you not to go down that rabbit hole.

Every time you spell Mueller as Muehller I get more convinced that you are an idiot.

every time you have no rebuttal to a post and call someone an idiot, I get more convinced that you are an idiot.

(12-18-2017 03:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Creb You are being reactionary.

Mach. You are being a conspiracy theorist....

Watch the video...... no conspiracy . It’s facts

(12-18-2017 03:43 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Watch the video...... no conspiracy . It’s facts

Yes it's facts.

But the facts don't prove anything resembling a Donald Trump conspiracy with the Russians to hijack the election.

Again to have a crime, you must have:

an act
that breaks a law
while the actor is in a criminal state of mind.

Your facts might go to prove state of mind, but they don't prove act or what law was broken.

You have to prove an act that broke a law to prove a crime. You're not there yet.