Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Mueller Investigation Complete

#61

This just in, Trump is still President, Left losing their [BLEEP] again. More at 11.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#62

(04-19-2019, 01:25 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 12:31 AM)jj82284 Wrote: No.  That's not obstruction of justice.  Your not interfering with the investigation for a corrupt reason.  In order for a chief executive to obstruct justice he would have to order the destruction of evidence or perjury, not exercise his article 2 constitutional authority as the head of the executive branch.  Firing Mueller would have been a political misstep but not criminal conspiracy.

Moreover, the special counsel was illegal to start with.  The appointing officer (Rod Rosenstein) would be a material witness to any investigation of obstruction of justice (because of his direct involvement in firing comey).  That means he would have had to resign (not just recuse because I don't think anyone at doj had another senate confirmed position with authority to appoint special counsel) and let the next person review the fact pattern.  The special counsel was ineligible because the day before his appointment he was rejected by Trump for his old job as FBI director.  The probe should have been ended before we started torturing potential witnesses for them to flip on the president.

LukeSkywalkerAmazingEverythingYouJustSaidisWrong.gif
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
"The President is not above the Law."

(04-19-2019, 12:23 AM)pirkster Wrote: Dear God, fools still aren't in denial over this are they?

It's finished.

The only thing left is reconciliation.

If you have animosity or anger, the productive use of it is to direct it towards those in the media and/or friends and family who lied to you the last two years.

The truth, on the other hand, shall set you free.

Reality can hit like a sledgehammer, if you stray from it too long.

It can come back with a vengeance, when accepted.

To continue to deny the truth, is a path to insanity.

No one should expect to get more reconciliation than they give. 
Folks in this country are still mad about Vietnam.

No the president is not above the law, and neither is the don or the FBI.  

P.s.  never EVER quote the last Jedi...  I'm trying to forget it happened.
Reply

#63

(04-18-2019, 11:10 PM)TJBender Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 09:03 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
Telling who to fire Mueller? Mueller was under Sessions and Rosenstein, not Don McGahn or anybody else I've never heard of.


Asking for supporting evidence is shady? Asking to end an investigation that has no basis in fact is deserving of "serious repercussions"?

The rest of your statement is a real stretch. Are you suggesting that complaining about a false charge or the people claiming it is a crime? That would mean that every innocent defendant would be committing a crime by defending himself.

1. Being an idiot does not excuse Trump from telling his White House counsel to ensure the firing of the special counsel sent to investigate him.
2. He wasn't "asking for supporting evidence". He was asking intelligence community officials to put out statements saying that he was not linked to Russia.
3. Let's say I'm the King of France. Let's assume that I've been named as a person of interest in the burning of the Notre Dame because my own personal construction company stood to gain a massive contract for its rebuilding. I know that's ridiculous, and in fact it's a false allegation. If I go visit the lead inspector and tell him that I'd like him to "lift the cloud", isn't that interfering with the investigation? If I call my chief of staff and tell him to fire the lead inspector, how am I not obstructing that investigation? Obstruction is obstruction, regardless of whether there was actually a crime at the bottom of the rabbit hole.

The obstruction of justice side of things should be further explored. Nothing else that I've seen so far merits a second thought, but if a President tried to use his own power to short-circuit an investigation into himself, I don't know of a planet out there where that's not a problem.

1. Makes sense. White House Council is the first person to ask in a long chain, because it's WHC's job to know the law. Trump is not a lawyer. Nonetheless, since there was no crime specified, a Special Council investigation was illegal in the first place and Trump was completely within his rights to fire Mueller. That he didn't is the opposite of obstruction.

2. That's your spin in it. He could very well have expected an agency like NSA who has a huge amount of illegally obtained info on everyone to have actual proof that the collusion scam was a scam. If I were in Trump's shoes I would have expected NSA to have such evidence.

3. "You're the king of France!"

3. What you are saying is that Trump is not allowed to defend himself against false charges. Does that apply only to rulers in your mind, or is no one allowed to defend himself against false charges? Do you think that that Trump should have less rights than Joe Sixpack? Is it OK in your worldview that the FBI put Hillary above the law while they put Trump below the law? Shouldn't the law be applied the same to everyone?




                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#64

This was all seen from a mile away and most of us knew that there would be a continuing wasted effort to bring Trump down or rather, save face. Too many people jumped head first and are too deep to turn back. Got to love it when the left was all for Barr because he had worked at CNN parent company and is good friends with Mueller. Now he is all the sudden Trumps personal lawyer and hack because he is following the letter of the law and functions within his capacity. In other words, he didn't help Mueller bring down Trump. Now we get to see the other shoe drop. Several members will be called to testify and committees will get a taste of their own medicine when 99.9% can't respond due to open investigations on the DOJ, FBI and the hacks that started this attempted coupe. Can't wait to see Obama in the hot seat. What I would rather see is some actual effort to legislate and not only heal America from this [BLEEP] but to actually bring forth programs that are going to help us maintain this momentum of greater financial wealth, jobs, slimming social programs, cleaning up immigration, boosting the black community without handouts, prison reform, etc.
[Image: Ben-Roethlisberger_Lerentee-McCary-Sack_...ayoffs.jpg]
Reply

#65

And a shrinking trade deficit
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#66

(04-19-2019, 08:04 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(04-18-2019, 11:10 PM)TJBender Wrote: 1. Being an idiot does not excuse Trump from telling his White House counsel to ensure the firing of the special counsel sent to investigate him.
2. He wasn't "asking for supporting evidence". He was asking intelligence community officials to put out statements saying that he was not linked to Russia.
3. Let's say I'm the King of France. Let's assume that I've been named as a person of interest in the burning of the Notre Dame because my own personal construction company stood to gain a massive contract for its rebuilding. I know that's ridiculous, and in fact it's a false allegation. If I go visit the lead inspector and tell him that I'd like him to "lift the cloud", isn't that interfering with the investigation? If I call my chief of staff and tell him to fire the lead inspector, how am I not obstructing that investigation? Obstruction is obstruction, regardless of whether there was actually a crime at the bottom of the rabbit hole.

The obstruction of justice side of things should be further explored. Nothing else that I've seen so far merits a second thought, but if a President tried to use his own power to short-circuit an investigation into himself, I don't know of a planet out there where that's not a problem.

1. Makes sense. White House Council is the first person to ask in a long chain, because it's WHC's job to know the law. Trump is not a lawyer. Nonetheless, since there was no crime specified, a Special Council investigation was illegal in the first place and Trump was completely within his rights to fire Mueller. That he didn't is the opposite of obstruction.

2. That's your spin in it. He could very well have expected an agency like NSA who has a huge amount of illegally obtained info on everyone to have actual proof that the collusion scam was a scam. If I were in Trump's shoes I would have expected NSA to have such evidence.

3. "You're the king of France!"

3. What you are saying is that Trump is not allowed to defend himself against false charges. Does that apply only to rulers in your mind, or is no one allowed to defend himself against false charges? Do you think that that Trump should have less rights than Joe Sixpack? Is it OK in your worldview that the FBI put Hillary above the law while they put Trump below the law? Shouldn't the law be applied the same to everyone?

For starters, Hillary should have been prosecuted for any number of reasons. I'm sure Trump realizes, despite his grandstanding, that spending time and resources going after her now will fire up his already fired up base and alienate most everyone else. It's not going to happen, but it should.

The difference between Trump defending himself from false charges and me defending myself from them is that I can't pick up the phone and direct my subordinates to fire the people investigating me. That's the big red line, and that's what needs to be explored. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there, but I would certainly like to know if the President tried to abuse his powers to interfere with an investigation of himself. I don't see how someone looking at it from 10,000 feet couldn't be asking that question. It's the only thing in the shreds of report and numerous summaries I've read that still bothers me, and I'd like to see both Judiciary Committees look into it and see what's there.
Reply

#67

(04-19-2019, 09:32 AM)TJBender Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 08:04 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: 1. Makes sense. White House Council is the first person to ask in a long chain, because it's WHC's job to know the law. Trump is not a lawyer. Nonetheless, since there was no crime specified, a Special Council investigation was illegal in the first place and Trump was completely within his rights to fire Mueller. That he didn't is the opposite of obstruction.

2. That's your spin in it. He could very well have expected an agency like NSA who has a huge amount of illegally obtained info on everyone to have actual proof that the collusion scam was a scam. If I were in Trump's shoes I would have expected NSA to have such evidence.

3. "You're the king of France!"

3. What you are saying is that Trump is not allowed to defend himself against false charges. Does that apply only to rulers in your mind, or is no one allowed to defend himself against false charges? Do you think that that Trump should have less rights than Joe Sixpack? Is it OK in your worldview that the FBI put Hillary above the law while they put Trump below the law? Shouldn't the law be applied the same to everyone?

For starters, Hillary should have been prosecuted for any number of reasons. I'm sure Trump realizes, despite his grandstanding, that spending time and resources going after her now will fire up his already fired up base and alienate most everyone else. It's not going to happen, but it should.

The difference between Trump defending himself from false charges and me defending myself from them is that I can't pick up the phone and direct my subordinates to fire the people investigating me. That's the big red line, and that's what needs to be explored. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there, but I would certainly like to know if the President tried to abuse his powers to interfere with an investigation of himself. I don't see how someone looking at it from 10,000 feet couldn't be asking that question. It's the only thing in the shreds of report and numerous summaries I've read that still bothers me, and I'd like to see both Judiciary Committees look into it and see what's there.

You also don't get investigated by people with conflicts of interest whom are being directed by political opponents with an ax to grind either.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#68

(04-19-2019, 09:32 AM)TJBender Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 08:04 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: 1. Makes sense. White House Council is the first person to ask in a long chain, because it's WHC's job to know the law. Trump is not a lawyer. Nonetheless, since there was no crime specified, a Special Council investigation was illegal in the first place and Trump was completely within his rights to fire Mueller. That he didn't is the opposite of obstruction.

2. That's your spin in it. He could very well have expected an agency like NSA who has a huge amount of illegally obtained info on everyone to have actual proof that the collusion scam was a scam. If I were in Trump's shoes I would have expected NSA to have such evidence.

3. "You're the king of France!"

3. What you are saying is that Trump is not allowed to defend himself against false charges. Does that apply only to rulers in your mind, or is no one allowed to defend himself against false charges? Do you think that that Trump should have less rights than Joe Sixpack? Is it OK in your worldview that the FBI put Hillary above the law while they put Trump below the law? Shouldn't the law be applied the same to everyone?

For starters, Hillary should have been prosecuted for any number of reasons. I'm sure Trump realizes, despite his grandstanding, that spending time and resources going after her now will fire up his already fired up base and alienate most everyone else. It's not going to happen, but it should.

The difference between Trump defending himself from false charges and me defending myself from them is that I can't pick up the phone and direct my subordinates to fire the people investigating me. That's the big red line, and that's what needs to be explored. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there, but I would certainly like to know if the President tried to abuse his powers to interfere with an investigation of himself. I don't see how someone looking at it from 10,000 feet couldn't be asking that question. It's the only thing in the shreds of report and numerous summaries I've read that still bothers me, and I'd like to see both Judiciary Committees look into it and see what's there.

Don't you think the fact that it is detailed in the report and no charges filed means that it was actually "investigated" or looked into? It is not the job of Congress to prosecute or be an integral piece of the Judiciary process. Their breadth stops at referals to the AG/DOJ. Quite frankly, referrals and subpoenas don't mean much as far as Congress is concerned. Claims that they need to convene for oversight at this junction would be just circling back around for the third time. Insanity.
[Image: Ben-Roethlisberger_Lerentee-McCary-Sack_...ayoffs.jpg]
Reply

#69

(04-19-2019, 09:32 AM)TJBender Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 08:04 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: 1. Makes sense. White House Council is the first person to ask in a long chain, because it's WHC's job to know the law. Trump is not a lawyer. Nonetheless, since there was no crime specified, a Special Council investigation was illegal in the first place and Trump was completely within his rights to fire Mueller. That he didn't is the opposite of obstruction.

2. That's your spin in it. He could very well have expected an agency like NSA who has a huge amount of illegally obtained info on everyone to have actual proof that the collusion scam was a scam. If I were in Trump's shoes I would have expected NSA to have such evidence.

3. "You're the king of France!"

3. What you are saying is that Trump is not allowed to defend himself against false charges. Does that apply only to rulers in your mind, or is no one allowed to defend himself against false charges? Do you think that that Trump should have less rights than Joe Sixpack? Is it OK in your worldview that the FBI put Hillary above the law while they put Trump below the law? Shouldn't the law be applied the same to everyone?

For starters, Hillary should have been prosecuted for any number of reasons. I'm sure Trump realizes, despite his grandstanding, that spending time and resources going after her now will fire up his already fired up base and alienate most everyone else. It's not going to happen, but it should.

The difference between Trump defending himself from false charges and me defending myself from them is that I can't pick up the phone and direct my subordinates to fire the people investigating me. That's the big red line, and that's what needs to be explored. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there, but I would certainly like to know if the President tried to abuse his powers to interfere with an investigation of himself. I don't see how someone looking at it from 10,000 feet couldn't be asking that question. It's the only thing in the shreds of report and numerous summaries I've read that still bothers me, and I'd like to see both Judiciary Committees look into it and see what's there.

Firing a subordinate is NOT obstruction of justice.  Asking WH counsel about or making an angry outburst about firing a subordinate is CERTAINLY not obstruction of justice.  

I also find it interestimg that the OoJ crew both ignore the statutory definition of obstruction & the base line illegality of the investigation to start with!
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#70

(04-19-2019, 09:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 09:32 AM)TJBender Wrote: For starters, Hillary should have been prosecuted for any number of reasons. I'm sure Trump realizes, despite his grandstanding, that spending time and resources going after her now will fire up his already fired up base and alienate most everyone else. It's not going to happen, but it should.

The difference between Trump defending himself from false charges and me defending myself from them is that I can't pick up the phone and direct my subordinates to fire the people investigating me. That's the big red line, and that's what needs to be explored. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there, but I would certainly like to know if the President tried to abuse his powers to interfere with an investigation of himself. I don't see how someone looking at it from 10,000 feet couldn't be asking that question. It's the only thing in the shreds of report and numerous summaries I've read that still bothers me, and I'd like to see both Judiciary Committees look into it and see what's there.

You also don't get investigated by people with conflicts of interest whom are being directed by political opponents with an ax to grind either.

Reasonable suspicion. n. That thing that's created when senior members of your campaign quietly have a meeting with members of a foreign power that's in the process of illegally influencing an election. Also, that thing that happens when your campaign somehow knows of damaging information about another candidate before it's released by an organization considered criminal by the US government.

Did the whole thing start as a partisan investigation? Yes, I don't think anyone doubts that. But let's presume that a Bugatti Veyron is stolen from a dealership down the street. There are suspects in custody, none of whom is me, and it appears I purchased the car legally from them. Then someone finds out that I had met with the suspects at Starbucks a couple of weeks before the car was stolen. A crime was committed, no one doubts that, and no one doubts that the end result of the crime is me getting a Bugatti Veyron. In the case of the Presidency, that might not be enough given how many different factors are at play, but the revelation that I met with the guys who stole the Veyron before it was stolen creates reasonable suspicion to start investigating me.

The difference is that anyone investigating me is never getting that Veyron back. As soon as I hear I'm a person of interest, I'm taking that thing out to US 90 east of Pensacola and flooring it. I'll either be dead from wrecking the car at 225, under arrest for going 225, or some combination of both. Either way, I highly doubt the dealership will ever see their Veyron again.
Reply

#71

(04-19-2019, 09:43 AM)B2hibry Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 09:32 AM)TJBender Wrote: For starters, Hillary should have been prosecuted for any number of reasons. I'm sure Trump realizes, despite his grandstanding, that spending time and resources going after her now will fire up his already fired up base and alienate most everyone else. It's not going to happen, but it should.

The difference between Trump defending himself from false charges and me defending myself from them is that I can't pick up the phone and direct my subordinates to fire the people investigating me. That's the big red line, and that's what needs to be explored. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there, but I would certainly like to know if the President tried to abuse his powers to interfere with an investigation of himself. I don't see how someone looking at it from 10,000 feet couldn't be asking that question. It's the only thing in the shreds of report and numerous summaries I've read that still bothers me, and I'd like to see both Judiciary Committees look into it and see what's there.

Don't you think the fact that it is detailed in the report and no charges filed means that it was actually "investigated" or looked into? It is not the job of Congress to prosecute or be an integral piece of the Judiciary process. Their breadth stops at referals to the AG/DOJ. Quite frankly, referrals and subpoenas don't mean much as far as Congress is concerned. Claims that they need to convene for oversight at this junction would be just circling back around for the third time. Insanity.

Nothing I say is going to make my thoughts any clearer at this point. If there is reasonable cause to think that the President may have attempted to abuse his power by directing people in his administration to take actions that would have impeded an investigation into his actions, that's something I want to know more about. That goes for whoever's in the White House. The point in time at which the writing hit the wall for Nixon was the Saturday Night Massacre. I don't care about Trump's reaction to the naming of a special counsel, and I don't know why anyone would equate that to obstruction. I don't care about collusion because that question is answered. If Trump attempted a Saturday Night Massacre of his own (and that exact term was supposedly used by McGahn), I want to know more about what happened there, and I don't care if he's being investigated for treason, jaywalking or anything in between. I'm done here.
Reply

#72

(04-19-2019, 09:49 AM)TJBender Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 09:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: You also don't get investigated by people with conflicts of interest whom are being directed by political opponents with an ax to grind either.

Reasonable suspicion. n. That thing that's created when senior members of your campaign quietly have a meeting with members of a foreign power that's in the process of illegally influencing an election. Also, that thing that happens when your campaign somehow knows of damaging information about another candidate before it's released by an organization considered criminal by the US government.

Did the whole thing start as a partisan investigation? Yes, I don't think anyone doubts that. But let's presume that a Bugatti Veyron is stolen from a dealership down the street. There are suspects in custody, none of whom is me, and it appears I purchased the car legally from them. Then someone finds out that I had met with the suspects at Starbucks a couple of weeks before the car was stolen. A crime was committed, no one doubts that, and no one doubts that the end result of the crime is me getting a Bugatti Veyron. In the case of the Presidency, that might not be enough given how many different factors are at play, but the revelation that I met with the guys who stole the Veyron before it was stolen creates reasonable suspicion to start investigating me.

The difference is that anyone investigating me is never getting that Veyron back. As soon as I hear I'm a person of interest, I'm taking that thing out to US 90 east of Pensacola and flooring it. I'll either be dead from wrecking the car at 225, under arrest for going 225, or some combination of both. Either way, I highly doubt the dealership will ever see their Veyron again.

That's a huge leap. Trump Jr. (not Trump) did not meet with a Russian official, he met with a Russian lawyer who was not part of their government. She claimed to have some dirt on Hillary, but no dirt was actually given. Receiving dirt on a political opponent is not even illegal, as long as there is no quid pro quo action in response. What Hillary did in buying the "dossier" wasn't illegal either, and she actually paid for it. So bringing up that meeting is a red herring.

It's illegal to purchase stolen property so you would be charged whether or not you met with the thieves, and Trump never received stolen property, so your long-winded example is nonsense.

And whether or not Russia influenced the election is debatable. Their Facebook posts were an attempt, but I doubt if that was illegal, and I doubt they made a difference. But if you or someone you know was influenced to vote for Trump rather than Hillary because of a Facebook post, we'd love to hear about it. The DNC hack was only claimed to have been done by Russia, no proof exists. Assange claimed it wasn't Russia (and had no reason to lie about that), and the fact that the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate the server hints of a coverup.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#73

Here is a video from before the report was released. The biggest takeaway for me is what we are seeing here on the board. Releasing the report was never going to change peoples minds no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_acBHsz5jY
[Image: Ben-Roethlisberger_Lerentee-McCary-Sack_...ayoffs.jpg]
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#74
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2019, 01:13 PM by The Real Marty.)

(04-19-2019, 09:02 AM)jj82284 Wrote: And a shrinking trade deficit

Shrinking when compared to the last few months.   The total trade deficits we have run up under Trump are the biggest of all time.

(04-19-2019, 10:17 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 09:49 AM)TJBender Wrote: Reasonable suspicion. n. That thing that's created when senior members of your campaign quietly have a meeting with members of a foreign power that's in the process of illegally influencing an election. Also, that thing that happens when your campaign somehow knows of damaging information about another candidate before it's released by an organization considered criminal by the US government.

Did the whole thing start as a partisan investigation? Yes, I don't think anyone doubts that. But let's presume that a Bugatti Veyron is stolen from a dealership down the street. There are suspects in custody, none of whom is me, and it appears I purchased the car legally from them. Then someone finds out that I had met with the suspects at Starbucks a couple of weeks before the car was stolen. A crime was committed, no one doubts that, and no one doubts that the end result of the crime is me getting a Bugatti Veyron. In the case of the Presidency, that might not be enough given how many different factors are at play, but the revelation that I met with the guys who stole the Veyron before it was stolen creates reasonable suspicion to start investigating me.

The difference is that anyone investigating me is never getting that Veyron back. As soon as I hear I'm a person of interest, I'm taking that thing out to US 90 east of Pensacola and flooring it. I'll either be dead from wrecking the car at 225, under arrest for going 225, or some combination of both. Either way, I highly doubt the dealership will ever see their Veyron again.

That's a huge leap. Trump Jr. (not Trump) did not meet with a Russian official, he met with a Russian lawyer who was not part of their government. She claimed to have some dirt on Hillary, but no dirt was actually given. Receiving dirt on a political opponent is not even illegal, as long as there is no quid pro quo action in response. What Hillary did in buying the "dossier" wasn't illegal either, and she actually paid for it. So bringing up that meeting is a red herring.

It's illegal to purchase stolen property so you would be charged whether or not you met with the thieves, and Trump never received stolen property, so your long-winded example is nonsense.

And whether or not Russia influenced the election is debatable. Their Facebook posts were an attempt, but I doubt if that was illegal, and I doubt they made a difference. But if you or someone you know was influenced to vote for Trump rather than Hillary because of a Facebook post, we'd love to hear about it. The DNC hack was only claimed to have been done by Russia, no proof exists. Assange claimed it wasn't Russia (and had no reason to lie about that), and the fact that the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate the server hints of a coverup.

Slightly off topic, but I read where the Russians were using social media to support the NFL players kneeling, AND to support the calls for a boycott of the NFL in response to the players kneeling down.  Pretty funny.   Really, no one denies that the Russkies have been stirring the pot, and they're doing so all over the world.
Reply

#75

(04-19-2019, 01:09 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 09:02 AM)jj82284 Wrote: And a shrinking trade deficit

Shrinking when compared to the last few months.   The total trade deficits we have run up under Trump are the biggest of all time.

(04-19-2019, 10:17 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: That's a huge leap. Trump Jr. (not Trump) did not meet with a Russian official, he met with a Russian lawyer who was not part of their government. She claimed to have some dirt on Hillary, but no dirt was actually given. Receiving dirt on a political opponent is not even illegal, as long as there is no quid pro quo action in response. What Hillary did in buying the "dossier" wasn't illegal either, and she actually paid for it. So bringing up that meeting is a red herring.

It's illegal to purchase stolen property so you would be charged whether or not you met with the thieves, and Trump never received stolen property, so your long-winded example is nonsense.

And whether or not Russia influenced the election is debatable. Their Facebook posts were an attempt, but I doubt if that was illegal, and I doubt they made a difference. But if you or someone you know was influenced to vote for Trump rather than Hillary because of a Facebook post, we'd love to hear about it. The DNC hack was only claimed to have been done by Russia, no proof exists. Assange claimed it wasn't Russia (and had no reason to lie about that), and the fact that the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate the server hints of a coverup.

Slightly off topic, but I read where the Russians were using social media to support the NFL players kneeling, AND to support the calls for a boycott of the NFL in response to the players kneeling down.  Pretty funny.   Really, no one denies that the Russkies have been stirring the pot, and they're doing so all over the world.

So is the United States.. just about 1,000 times more than them.
Reply

#76

(04-19-2019, 01:15 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 01:09 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: Shrinking when compared to the last few months.   The total trade deficits we have run up under Trump are the biggest of all time.


Slightly off topic, but I read where the Russians were using social media to support the NFL players kneeling, AND to support the calls for a boycott of the NFL in response to the players kneeling down.  Pretty funny.   Really, no one denies that the Russkies have been stirring the pot, and they're doing so all over the world.

So is the United States.. just about 1,000 times more than them.

I don't know how much of it the US is doing, but as long as we all admit the Russians are stirring the pot and trying to polarize democratic countries, that's a good starting point.   We really need to focus on that.  They are supporting the extremes in an effort to destabilize the West.   I think the investigation of the Trump campaign has caused us all to take our eye off of something that is really important.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Russia investigation" wasn't originally about Trump.
Reply

#77

(04-19-2019, 01:27 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 01:15 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: So is the United States.. just about 1,000 times more than them.

I don't know how much of it the US is doing, but as long as we all admit the Russians are stirring the pot and trying to polarize democratic countries, that's a good starting point.   We really need to focus on that.  They are supporting the extremes in an effort to destabilize the West.   I think the investigation of the Trump campaign has caused us all to take our eye off of something that is really important.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Russia investigation" wasn't originally about Trump.

The investigation was always about Trump. The goal was to find any excuse to remove him from office and overturn a US election.


You are right about the rest. Russian activities have been directed at causing polarization and dissent in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if China was also doing that.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#78

(04-19-2019, 01:09 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 09:02 AM)jj82284 Wrote: And a shrinking trade deficit

Shrinking when compared to the last few months.   The total trade deficits we have run up under Trump are the biggest of all time.

(04-19-2019, 10:17 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: That's a huge leap. Trump Jr. (not Trump) did not meet with a Russian official, he met with a Russian lawyer who was not part of their government. She claimed to have some dirt on Hillary, but no dirt was actually given. Receiving dirt on a political opponent is not even illegal, as long as there is no quid pro quo action in response. What Hillary did in buying the "dossier" wasn't illegal either, and she actually paid for it. So bringing up that meeting is a red herring.

It's illegal to purchase stolen property so you would be charged whether or not you met with the thieves, and Trump never received stolen property, so your long-winded example is nonsense.

And whether or not Russia influenced the election is debatable. Their Facebook posts were an attempt, but I doubt if that was illegal, and I doubt they made a difference. But if you or someone you know was influenced to vote for Trump rather than Hillary because of a Facebook post, we'd love to hear about it. The DNC hack was only claimed to have been done by Russia, no proof exists. Assange claimed it wasn't Russia (and had no reason to lie about that), and the fact that the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate the server hints of a coverup.

Slightly off topic, but I read where the Russians were using social media to support the NFL players kneeling, AND to support the calls for a boycott of the NFL in response to the players kneeling down.  Pretty funny.   Really, no one denies that the Russkies have been stirring the pot, and they're doing so all over the world

I'll do u one better. They had some of their intell officers get drunk @ a bar & tell some British intell guy that the most pro America free market president in our lifetime was some communist plant that likes golden showers.  who would ever believe that?
Reply

#79

(04-19-2019, 01:27 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 01:15 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: So is the United States.. just about 1,000 times more than them.

I don't know how much of it the US is doing, but as long as we all admit the Russians are stirring the pot and trying to polarize democratic countries, that's a good starting point.   We really need to focus on that.  They are supporting the extremes in an effort to destabilize the West.   I think the investigation of the Trump campaign has caused us all to take our eye off of something that is really important.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Russia investigation" wasn't originally about Trump.

our state department has openly made monetary contributions to opposition parties in some countries. Who knows what they've done in secret.
Plus there's all those times that our CIA has helped orchestrate military coups, most recently in Egypt.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#80
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2019, 01:22 AM by jj82284.)

By the way. Anyone notice the dem Congress demanding the a.g. break the law and release grand jury testimony?
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!