Mid-air Collusion (Mueller Thread v. 19)

[Limbo Pete]

Good god, the angle shooting never ends

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

Your choice. AV/sig/name.

Account?

 

[waiguoren]

Account?

I'd love to, but I already have an account bet outstanding with @PolishHeadlock . Also, your account is too young to be desirable.

Let's go with Name. In?

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

I'd love to, but I already have an account bet outstanding with @PolishHeadlock . Also, your account is too young to be desirable.

Let's go with Name. In?

lol I understand your hesitance.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Don't reason by analogy. It makes you dumber.

You are making a claim stating the special investigation has unlimited purview. In a system of checks and balances, this is a laughable, childish statement, akin to the absurd scenario I posed, which was not much more absurd than your claim.

 

[waiguoren]

You don't need specifics to start an investigation to see if a crime took place, I don't know why this sudden high standard suddenly happens when it comes to investigating the Trump Campaign. What you need is suspicion that a crime took place, you then investigate to see if that happened or not. It doesn't matter if an investigation was founded or mostly founded on the Steele Dossier, hundreds of investigations start because of an anonymous tip, you believe an anonymous tip is somehow more reliable than that of a seasoned Intelligence Agent with a history of working with the US government?

Zoom out, think bigger. Do you want to live under a system in which the FBI investigates a presidential campaign whenever the opposing campaign produces "suspicious" material on it? That's a very slippery slope. We need standards here.

High quality post, by the way. Thank you for making it.

If what Dershowitz says is true, then how can the theft of Intellectual property and 'trade secrets' be a crime?

Theft is a crime. Merely soliciting information can never be a crime. Let me know if that's not clear.

 

[waiguoren]

Another falsehood from a guy that the Sherdog anti-Trump brigade has cited extensively:

 

[curryjunkie]

At the very least, folks could stop arguing as though they're receiving daily briefings from Bob Mueller about his investigation, the evidence he's collected, and its progress.

We all know that shit has to go through q anon first, then his mightiness disseminates such crumbs as he feels us worthy of knowing

 

[Rational Poster]

Another falsehood from a guy that the Sherdog anti-Trump brigade has cited extensively:

What do you care?

Everyone knows the Republicans are spineless hypocrites and even if Trump was indeed caught in a "perjury trap" they won't do anything even though they've used that exact reasoning and tactic to impeach a President in our lifetimes.

 

[waiguoren]

What do you care?

Why care about anything? I noticed that a bunch of anti-Trump partisans like to cite this ignorant man. It amuses me to see him post such drivel.

Everyone knows the Republicans are spineless hypocrites

Generalize much?

even if Trump was indeed caught in a "perjury trap" they won't do anything even though they've used that exact reasoning and tactic to impeach a President in our lifetimes.

Your partisanship is on full display. It's been 20 years since the Clinton impeachment proceedings. "They" is an almost totally different group of people now than at that time, yet all you can see is party ID. Anyway, Clinton clearly committed perjury while it is possible for Trump to be charged with perjury despite being innocent of it. That said, I agree with your conclusion---Trump will not be impeached as long as the Republicans control the House.

 

[Rational Poster]

Why care about anything? I noticed that a bunch of anti-Trump partisans like to cite this ignorant man. It amuses me to see him post such drivel.



Generalize much?



Your partisanship is on full display. It's been 20 years since the Clinton impeachment proceedings. "They" is an almost totally different group of people now than at that time, yet all you can see is party ID. Anyway, Clinton clearly committed perjury while it is possible for Trump to be charged with perjury despite being innocent of it. That said, I agree with your conclusion---Trump will not be impeached as long as the Republicans control the House.

McConnell has been Senator since 1985.

 

[waiguoren]

McConnell has been Senator since 1985.

What percentage of the 1998 Senate Republicans are still in office today?

 

[Rational Poster]

What percentage of the 1998 Senate Republicans are still in office today?

Does it matter?

Some of them are still around and are in prominent positions.

I think you'll find it's quite a lot.

 

[waiguoren]

Does it matter?

Some of them are still around and are in prominent positions.

Because you referred to two distinct groups of approximately 220 people with the same "they". Very sloppy.

 

[Rational Poster]

Because you referred to two distinct groups of approximately 220 people with the same "they". Very sloppy.

Not really when you consider near half the current batch of Republican/Democrat Senators served through Clinton's impeachment either as a Senator or a House Rep.

6 of the 10 most senior senators are Republicans that have served as Senators prior to Clinton's impeachment.

That number inflates further if you include the top25 and their terms in the House.

 

[andnowweknow]

Another falsehood from a guy that the Sherdog anti-Trump brigade has cited extensively:

The problem (or benefit legally I guess, which is weird) for Trump is that he is such an infamous and unabashed liar that basically anyone is more believable than he is.

Regarding the "perjury trap" nonsense, which is just a stall tactic by Trump's lawyers regarding the interview they will never do, of course the special counsel will believe a respected career FBI employee like James Comey over Donald Trump. Trump would perjure himself because he can't tell the truth otherwise he's just admitting he obstructed justice.

 

[vengeful]

Zoom out, think bigger. Do you want to live under a system in which the FBI investigates a presidential campaign whenever the opposing campaign produces "suspicious" material on it? That's a very slippery slope. We need standards here.

High quality post, by the way. Thank you for making it.

Yes, because I don't care if someone is a presidential candidate or not, they should all be treated just like any other citizen in this country. If someone isn't a Presidential candidate and someone hands over "suspicious" material to the FBI and the FBI analzes that material and then deems it worthy of an investigation, then an investigation would happen. Why do you believe Presidential campaigns should need a higher standard for an investigation than any other ordinary citizen?



[/quote]Theft is a crime. Merely soliciting information can never be a crime. Let me know if that's not clear.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's actually true, I'm sure there have been journalists that have been jailed for information they've printed that was deemed classified material.

Also, wouldn't it just not be soliciting information at that point? If the Russians hacked the DNC on behalf of the Trump Campaign couldn't that be deemed as performing a service for the Trump Campaign and thus actually providing a political contribution because services have value?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

The problem (or benefit legally I guess, which is weird) for Trump is that he is such an infamous and unabashed liar that basically anyone is more believable than he is.

Regarding the "perjury trap" nonsense, which is just a stall tactic by Trump's lawyers regarding the interview they will never do, of course the special counsel will believe a respected career FBI employee like James Comey over Donald Trump. Trump would perjure himself because he can't tell the truth otherwise he's just admitting he obstructed justice.

If I were a lawyer I'd argue that my client shouldn't submit to questioning, as it can be a purjury trap.
But these are known, narrowly focused questions. It's a silly sham excuse.

 

[Diamond Jim]

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump ruled Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller's probe is constitutional and legitimate, rejecting an effort by a Russian company -- accused of financing a massive political influence operation in the United States -- to stamp out the ongoing investigation.

Judge Dabney Friedrich, who Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court of Washington D.C. last year, is the fourth judge to quash efforts to upend Mueller's legitimacy and cancel his investigation. Judges overseeing the two trials of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort -- D.C. judge Amy Berman Jackson and Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis -- rejected Manafort's bid to invalidate Mueller.

 

[Quipling]

Theft is a crime. Merely soliciting information can never be a crime. Let me know if that's not clear.

I don't think that's actually true, I'm sure.

It's not true. It ignores the existence of inchoate crimes like "attempt" and "conspiracy." Dershowitz's counterargument is based on one of statutory construction, but that relies on an untested theory of the first amendment. (And it seems to rely construing setting up a meeting to receive info as "merely soliciting.")

Also, wouldn't it just not be soliciting information at that point? If the Russians hacked the DNC on behalf of the Trump Campaign couldn't that be deemed as performing a service for the Trump Campaign and thus actually providing a political contribution because services have value?

That's part of the "conspiracy" approach to culpability.