So, some legal eagle on here can address this better than I, but I wonder if the Dossier turns out to have been illegally contrived and the dossier is the legal basis for the Mueller investigation, does this poison all evidenced subsequently obtained? I know if the evidence would have been uncovered anyhow, it can be used.
I guess I'm wondering how and why Mueller has proceeded with his investigation if it's as tainted as the cons claim (hope)?
Thoughts
(03-19-2018 11:19 AM)Old Dominion Wrote: [ -> ]So, some legal issues on here can address this better than I, but I wonder if the Dossier turns out to have been illegally contrived and the dossier is the legal basis for the Mueller investigation, does this poison all evidenced subsequently obtained? I know if the evidence would have been uncovered anyhow, it can be used.
I guess I'm wondering how and why Mueller has proceeded with his investigation if it's as tainted as the cons claim (hope)?
Thoughts
Uh, would you not agree that the Cankles For President Campaign paying for a foreign agent to buy information of a specific nature from his
sources in Russia constitutes "illegally contrived"? I would.
IMHO, this was in no way a typical compilation of intelligence gathered using normal means.
Cases will probably go on for years, subjects will have plenty of arguments they can appeal on. A lot of stuff will probably end up getting thrown out or overturned.
But none of that matters. The point is the next two election cycles.
If you can keep the balls in the air, the cases in the courts, and the names in the news until those two election cycles are complete....thats what they are going for.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
(03-19-2018 11:25 AM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, would you not agree that the Cankles For President Campaign paying for a foreign agent to buy information of a specific nature from his sources in Russia constitutes "illegally contrived"? I would.
What was illegal?
(03-19-2018 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:25 AM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, would you not agree that the Cankles For President Campaign paying for a foreign agent to buy information of a specific nature from his sources in Russia constitutes "illegally contrived"? I would.
What was illegal?
So if that's legal, then what is the case against Trump?
Its not illegal to hire an investigator to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
I'm going to say that the informant, whatever group did the dossier, is more important than the dossier itself.
When a trusted and confidential informant is used to provide probably cause the ultimate accuracy of the information takes a backseat to the person giving the information.
In a trial situation it could theoretically be suppressed.
Is the person giving the information reliable and do they have a track record of being reliable and then is there any information that supports the allegations being made?
(03-19-2018 11:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]Its not illegal to hire an investigator to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
Is it illegal to collude with foreign nationals to try to affect the outcome of an election?
(03-19-2018 11:39 AM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]Its not illegal to hire an investigator to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
Is it illegal to collude with foreign nationals to try to affect the outcome of an election?
I don't believe there is any criminal statue for that. Perhaps one of our resident lawyers can clarify.
(03-19-2018 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:25 AM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, would you not agree that the Cankles For President Campaign paying for a foreign agent to buy information of a specific nature from his sources in Russia constitutes "illegally contrived"? I would.
What was illegal?
So if that's legal, then what is the case against Trump?
Stay tuned. But don't expect much or any of it to directly implicate him. His minions though.....
(03-19-2018 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:25 AM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, would you not agree that the Cankles For President Campaign paying for a foreign agent to buy information of a specific nature from his sources in Russia constitutes "illegally contrived"? I would.
What was illegal?
So if that's legal, then what is the case against Trump?
Stay tuned.
You don't even know anymore.
bahahahaha
(03-19-2018 11:43 AM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:25 AM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, would you not agree that the Cankles For President Campaign paying for a foreign agent to buy information of a specific nature from his sources in Russia constitutes "illegally contrived"? I would.
What was illegal?
So if that's legal, then what is the case against Trump?
Stay tuned.
You don't even know anymore.
bahahahaha
Laugh all you want, but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know what Mueller has or will find.
(03-19-2018 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Stay tuned. But don't expect much or any of it to directly implicate him. His minions though.....
Just saw the edit.
BREAKING: rwt admits defeat, being conned.
(03-19-2018 11:44 AM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Stay tuned. But don't expect much or any of it to directly implicate him. His minions though.....
Just saw the edit.
BREAKING: rwt admits defeat, being conned.
Of course you can confirm this by pointing to all the times where I said trump was guilty of any crimes...oh wait...I never have.
(03-19-2018 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:43 AM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]What was illegal?
So if that's legal, then what is the case against Trump?
Stay tuned.
You don't even know anymore.
bahahahaha
Laugh all you want, but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know what Mueller has or will find.
But you just know that there's something truly awful there to be found, and all we have to do is give Mueller enough time and he will find it.
Don't you?
(03-19-2018 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:43 AM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]So if that's legal, then what is the case against Trump?
Stay tuned.
You don't even know anymore.
bahahahaha
Laugh all you want, but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know what Mueller has or will find.
But you just know that there's something truly awful there to be found, and all we have to do is give Mueller enough time and he will find it.
Don't you?
Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.
(03-19-2018 11:19 AM)Old Dominion Wrote: [ -> ]So, some legal issues on here can address this better than I, but I wonder if the Dossier turns out to have been illegally contrived and the dossier is the legal basis for the Mueller investigation, does this poison all evidenced subsequently obtained? I know if the evidence would have been uncovered anyhow, it can be used.
I guess I'm wondering how and why Mueller has proceeded with his investigation if it's as tainted as the cons claim (hope)?
Thoughts
Thoughts?
All the polls showed Hillary winning in a walk.
When she didn’t, her original claim was the Russians must have hacked into electronic voting machines to change vote totals.
When that was disproved, it changed to collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign to steal Hillary’s emails and thereby persuade Americans she was a crook.
When that didn’t pan out, it changed to Russian “meddling” in the election by placing Facebook ads and fake news stories to mislead voters.
So is all evidence poisoned from Mueller? Considering the above it's absolutely, undeniably 100% poisoned. All the witnesses are unreliable, the planted stories are too complicated to be true, and no evidence of substance of any sort has been presented by a Special Counsel.
(03-19-2018 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:43 AM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]So if that's legal, then what is the case against Trump?
Stay tuned.
You don't even know anymore.
bahahahaha
Laugh all you want, but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know what Mueller has or will find.
But you just know that there's something truly awful there to be found, and all we have to do is give Mueller enough time and he will find it.
Don't you?
To me, most of it is all pretty much known. No one has ever connected the dots officially. What I don't know is whether any of it related to the election.
But yeah...the deal with that Florida property that was razed a few years later was enough for me!
Why did a Russian pay $95M to buy Trump’s Palm Beach mansion?
Which is worse for America, the Clinton Bush or the Trump tree?
(03-19-2018 12:06 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]...her original claim was the Russians must have hacked into electronic voting machines to change vote totals.
Source?