RiceLad15
Hall of Famer
Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
|
RE: Trump Administration
(10-30-2017 05:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (10-30-2017 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (10-30-2017 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (10-30-2017 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (10-30-2017 03:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Get real. The Republicans would kill this if they could.
Buying dirt is not a crime, is it. Doesn't matter who you bought it from.
are we now classifying her emails as dirt?
What we have here is Jack the Ripper pointing fingers at H. H. Holmes, and you are justifying it.
Agreed, buying dirt is not a crime (as I explained in a previous post - opposition research is the norm). I also doubt that buying dirt from the Russians is a crime. I'm not so sure if buying dirt that was illegally obtained is not a crime though.
Regardless, because it is so unusual to both be interested in using a hostile foreign government for "dirt", and be interested in using "dirt" that was stolen, that begs the question - is there something else going on? And because there is a question, there is an investigation.
And why does it matter if we're classifying the Clinton emails as dirt? Literally, explain to me why the phrasing matters to this conversation, at all. We could call then hot fudge sundaes and it wouldn't at all change their relevance to the investigation.
And you bet your butt I am justifying the investigation, because there IS justification. We literally today just found out that someone plead guilty to lying to the investigators about their conversations with someone who was trying to get them the stolen Clinton hot fudge sundaes. And that person then tried to cover their tracks after they lied to investigators. That right there gives credence to the justification of looking into this situation. Why lie to federal officials during an investigation if everything was A-OK?
The problem is, the left is saying their hot fudge sundae is just fine, but the right's hot fudge sundae is horrible, because they attempted to get their sundae from a Russian waitress, while the left only got theirs from a Ukrainian waitnrss. ither both are bad or both are good. either amounts to collusion, which takes us back to the ostensible reason for this witch hunt. maybe instead of ostenxible reason I should say excuse. ou don't go looking for jaguars in Minnesota, unless you just want to make trouble for Minnesotans.
suspicious behavior equals guilt? damn, we could do away with so many trials. i can think of lot of reasons for that guy's behavior other than collusion.
In any case, call me when something serious happens. I think all the damcing in the streets is way unwarranted.
Provide a clear and succinct explanation of how the Trump campaigns actions and the DNC's actions were the same. Provide an explanation of who was involved in each incident, who reached out to who, who reciprocated, and what the final outcome was of the information.
And to your bold, oh heck no, and I did not suggest it DID equal guilt. Read my bold and explain how you came to that conclusion. I specifically said it gave credence to there being suspicion and therefore a reason to investigate. Deleting potential evidence (e.g. destroying evidence) is what Papadopoulus did, and he also lied to federal investigators. Does that not make you interested in why he did both of those things?
To the first, can you wait until tomorrow? i am working from my old IPad from a hospital waiting room, and it is difficult on the POS to look up things. hasta Manana, amigo.
o the second, suspicious behavior gets innocent people shot sometimes. haven't you been following the NFL? but if suspicious behavior on a minor tamgential figure is the cornerstone for your investigation, it is weak.
To the second, I don't see why police shootings is connected, but you have helped make my point. Suspicious behavior should not lead to someone being shot, because it does not indicate guilt. However, it does indicate that there is reasonable suspicion and therefore should be investigated. I am not stating that Trump and his campaign officials should be sentenced based on the information available, but I find there to be enough evidence to warrant an investigation.
But also, you're misunderstanding my point grossly. Suspicious behavior of a tangential figure (who is not exactly minor - Papadopoulos worked on developing Trump's foreign policy during the election and participated in national security meetings) is NOT the cornerstone of the investigation.
I was using this as a piece of evidence from the indictments/guilt pleas for why the investigation is warranted.
The thing is, I've provided a lot of reasons over the months as to why an investigation is warranted, but you dismiss them. You've primarily dismissed them because you state that they don't show evidence of collusion, which I've constantly countered by stating that if that evidence was public then an investigation wouldn't be needed.
But you can continue to think that this is entirely a fishing expedition that is built on nothing, but based on the indictments today, the fact that Trump and other Republicans haven't shut down the investigation yet, something tells me there is enough reasonable suspicion preset for the special counsel to continue with the investigation into potential Russian interference/collusion.
I mean, heck, even the example I am providing today shows a figure inside the campaign attempting to connect the Trump campaign with Russian officials in order to set up a meeting between Trump and Putin and pass off illegally obtained information on Clinton/the DNC.
|
|