Official Special Investigation Into Trump Thread

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

WolvDragon:

Lil devils x:

Adam Jensen:

That's not how it works. It doesn't matter what the IC says and does when the people already don't trust them. And Republicans would have screamed "DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY" from the top of their lungs. They would have blamed it on Obama. He had no support from the GOP on the issue. And the people, dumb as they are, would have bought it. They bought pretty much every conspiracy theory about Hillary during the election. And if Hillary had managed to win, Republicans would try to impeach her, they'd stonewall her on every turn, they'd demand investigation after investigation and they'd consider her illegitimate.

It works well enough for those who were the middle of the road. Trumps rhetoric only overrides all else to his most diehard supporters. You should consider the middle of the road voters voted FOR Obama and for Trump. They did not blame Obama regardless of what Trump ranted about. There were still plenty of people who had no idea this was happening and it would have made a difference to them.

Not everyone who voted for Trump is a die hard, and we cannot even blame all republicans for Trump as the " Never Trumpers" did not vote for him and have still been critical of him to this day.

While I agree with you some Republicans didn't support Trump and have criticized him. There's now a section of these never trumpers supporting him because he is falling in line with Republican orthodoxy. The reasons why they never supported him because he's 1. Too mean 2. He was gonna cost them the election and maybe the senate back in 2016 and didn't want to be associated with a potential liability who is now their greatest asset, and that is why they're changing their tune.

OT: I really can't say this special investigation will indict this man. But I can dream.

Of course there are plenty who jump on the bandwagon so they are not " left out in the cold" I think there are still plenty of people who reluctantly voted for him, but did not really want to and now regret doing so. He does not represent many of the Republicans here where I live. They were " Bush Republicans" who supported Bush's medicare and medicaid expansion, support increased funding for education, who actually do believe the US should take care of it's people, uphold higher "ethical and moral standards" ( of sorts, Trump has none so anything higher than that is seen as " higher"). Bush does not voice support for Trump, and neither do many of his supporters here in Texas. Many I think voted for Trump because they were duped by the disinformation campaign blitz, but I am not sure they would do so again.

https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/

In just over one year, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia has generated five guilty pleas, 20 indictments, and more than 100 charges. None of these have anything to do with Mueller's chief focus: the Russian government's alleged meddling in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign's suspected involvement. While it's certainly possible that Mueller will make new indictments that go to the core of his case, what's been revealed so far does not make a compelling brief for collusion.

The most high-level Trump campaign official to be indicted is Paul Manafort, as well as his former business partner and Trump campaign deputy, Rick Gates. The charges, as a Virginia judge observed last month, "manifestly don't have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." Instead, Manafort and Gates are accused of financial crimes beginning in 2008, when they worked as political operatives for a Russia-leaning party in Ukraine (and for which Manafort was previously investigated, but not indicted).

There is widespread supposition that Manafort's dealings in Ukraine make him a prime candidate for collusion with Moscow. But that stems from the mistaken belief that Manafort promoted Kremlin interests during his time in Kiev. The opposite appears to be the case. The New York Times recounts that Manafort "pressed [then-Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych to sign an agreement with the European Union that would link the country closer to the West-and lobbied for the Americans to support Ukraine's membership." If that picture is accurate, then Manafort's activities in Ukraine during the period for which he has been indicted were diametrically opposed to the Kremlin's agenda.

(article continues)

image

Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion. That's Trump's narrative.

Anyways, I know you won't believe me, but I feel comfortable sharing this now. So what if I told you that last year, soon after the inauguration, sometimes between February and March Trump launched a secret operation aimed at US journalists with the help of Russian agents. The goal was to gain compromising material on journalists and to intimidate them into submission. And yes, he knows they were Russian agents. And what if I told you that every single intel agency in the US and FVEY is aware of this and they have irrefutable evidence of it?

TL;DR: Intelligence community has irrefutable evidence that Trump has committed treason.

Seanchaidh:
https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/

In just over one year, Special Counsel Robert Mueller?s investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia has generated five guilty pleas, 20 indictments, and more than 100 charges. None of these have anything to do with Mueller?s chief focus: the Russian government?s alleged meddling in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign?s suspected involvement. While it?s certainly possible that Mueller will make new indictments that go to the core of his case, what?s been revealed so far does not make a compelling brief for collusion.

The most high-level Trump campaign official to be indicted is Paul Manafort, as well as his former business partner and Trump campaign deputy, Rick Gates. The charges, as a Virginia judge observed last month, ?manifestly don?t have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion.? Instead, Manafort and Gates are accused of financial crimes beginning in 2008, when they worked as political operatives for a Russia-leaning party in Ukraine (and for which Manafort was previously investigated, but not indicted).

There is widespread supposition that Manafort?s dealings in Ukraine make him a prime candidate for collusion with Moscow. But that stems from the mistaken belief that Manafort promoted Kremlin interests during his time in Kiev. The opposite appears to be the case. The New York Times recounts that Manafort ?pressed [then-Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych to sign an agreement with the European Union that would link the country closer to the West?and lobbied for the Americans to support Ukraine?s membership.? If that picture is accurate, then Manafort?s activities in Ukraine during the period for which he has been indicted were diametrically opposed to the Kremlin?s agenda.

(article continues)

image

Yeah Sean, how could you get that wrong? Trump committed treason since we're at war with RUSSIA. Get that collusion stuff outta here. Rich people don't collude anyway.

image

Adam Jensen:
Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion. That's Trump's narrative.

Anyways, I know you won't believe me, but I feel comfortable sharing this now. So what if I told you that last year, soon after the inauguration, sometimes between February and March Trump launched a secret operation aimed at US journalists with the help of Russian agents. The goal was to gain compromising material on journalists and to intimidate them into submission. And yes, he knows they were Russian agents. And what if I told you that every single intel agency in the US and FVEY is aware of this and they have irrefutable evidence of it?

TL;DR: Intelligence community has irrefutable evidence that Trump has committed treason.

And they've, what, sat on it for over a year? No leaks? All of them?

Whatever cousin of yours is feeding you this line is either having a laugh or is "hella 'noided," as the kids say.

Also, class, can somebody explain the legal difference between "espionage" and "treason"?

SupahEwok:
And they've, what, sat on it for over a year? No leaks? All of them?

Criminal investigations of this scope that involve foreign and domestic adversaries are like Pokemon - gotta catch them all. So no, no leaks. At least not that we're aware of. Perhaps Trump and his cabal know that they've been caught red-handed and that's one of the reasons why Tramp is freaking out. But the IC's got this shit pretty much locked down. I don't blame you for being skeptical. I'd be as well in your shoes.

Ninjamedic:

Adam Jensen:
Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion.

1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Appointment_of_Special_Counsel_to_Investigate_Russian_Interference_with_the_2016_Presidential_Election_and_Related_Matters.pdf

2: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/collusion

Are we purposely ignoring item 2 in that list?

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

Also if you actually read item 1, the special counsel isn't trying to find "collusion" committed by Trump. He is tasked with

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

Now if you take the time to look at the item, Mueller and his team are mandated with finding links/coordination between the Russian government and any people involved with Trump's 2016 campaign. Notice how the text refers to "any individuals associated with the campaign" and not "the campaign itself or Trump himself." Secondly, there is no time frame given such as "during the 2016 campaign" or "as a portion of their duties during the campaign."

When you actually look at the mandate, Mueller is right on track. He has a number of indictments related to item 1 already filed in federal court and has filed a number of federal indictments related to item 2 as they have appeared. He's also shared evidence with the NY State DA as appropriate.

The worst offenders of spreading misinformation regarding the special counsel's investigation are the right (because it's right-wing officials being investigated) and the far left (because they care more about making the center-left look evil than anything the right has done).

Ninjamedic:

Adam Jensen:
Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion.

1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Appointment_of_Special_Counsel_to_Investigate_Russian_Interference_with_the_2016_Presidential_Election_and_Related_Matters.pdf

2: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/collusion

He means that collusion isn't a defined legal term that you can arrest someone for doing. If Mueller came out today and said "I've proven collusion!" the first question a lawyer would ask is "okay, what's collusion?"

Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether or not the Trump campaign was involved. That was consolidated under the common-language term "collusion," partly because of Trump's explicit encouragement, because he knows that collusion means nothing legally speaking and by focusing the discussion on who colluded with what, he can exploit its lack of a specific definition.

See, if Mueller can't indict someone for "collusion", it's because "collusion" isn't a defined crime. The crimes Mueller can indict for will be things like money laundering, illegal campaign contributions, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. By making the discussion revolve around whether collusion happened, Trump can use the fact that "collusion" isn't on the list to claim that the indictments don't prove collusion, and that therefore no collusion happened and he's innocent of colluding - never mind that collusion means jack shit, legally speaking.

It's a rhetorical gambit. Trump is banking on an existing Justice Department policy saying that the president can't personally be indicted, so the real fight will be over impeachment - which is largely a process of manipulating public opinion to pressure Congress to vote one way or the other. In that respect, he's winning.

bastardofmelbourne:
In that respect, he's winning.

That's a bit of an illusion. People tend to lose interest when nothing interesting happens for a while. But when Mueller starts indicting people like Roger Stone, Devin Nunes, Sean Hannity (although he may get indicted by NYC first) and Trump's family members, public opinion will be shaped by those new events because they'll be interested again. Not to mention that those will be absolute disasters for Trump and for the Republicans.
I'd like to see a poll when Cohen gets indicted and possibly arrested really soon. Incidentally, these seem to be Manafort's last days as a free man as well.

Avnger:

Also if you actually read item 1, the special counsel isn't trying to find "collusion" committed by Trump. He is tasked with

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

Now if you take the time to look at the item,

Item 1 is the Cambridge definition of collusion. What else do you want from me here? You can drop the condescension too, that got tiresome long ago and it didn't go so well with DACA now did it?

bastardofmelbourne:

He means that collusion isn't a defined legal term that you can arrest someone for doing.

Yet it's right there in the remit, while the charges will be of legally defined crimes, they'll fall under that umbrella of Item 1. It was just a jab at a silly remark Adam made.

Ninjamedic:

Avnger:

Also if you actually read item 1, the special counsel isn't trying to find "collusion" committed by Trump. He is tasked with

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

Now if you take the time to look at the item,

Item 1 is the Cambridge definition of collusion. What else do you want from me here? You can drop the condescension too, that got tiresome long ago and it didn't go so well with DACA now did it?

No it isn't. Mueller's investigation isn't looking for any malicious intent in these contacts, the mere FACT that somebody could have non-hostile relations with a RUSSIAN is guilt enough

image

Ninjamedic:

Avnger:

Also if you actually read item 1, the special counsel isn't trying to find "collusion" committed by Trump. He is tasked with

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

Now if you take the time to look at the item,

Item 1 is the Cambridge definition of collusion.

Collusion is part of what's covered under item 1. Item 1 encompasses more than just collusion though.

Ninjamedic:
What else do you want from me here?

I'm not really looking for anything from you mate. I just found it amusing that you threw that citation at Adam when it entirely supported him almost like you hadn't even glanced at it. To steal your own words, "[i]t was just a jab at a silly remark Adam you made."

Ninjamedic:

You can drop the condescension too, that got tiresome long ago and it didn't go so well with DACA now did it?

The fact that Schumer et al eventually screwed the pooch doesn't mean your hysterics weren't ridiculous at the time they occurred.

Avnger:
The fact that Schumer et al eventually screwed the pooch doesn't mean your hysterics weren't ridiculous at the time they occurred.

Maybe the fact that we identified what was going on and used that understanding to correctly predict the future should make you reevaluate.

Avnger:

Ninjamedic:

Avnger:

Also if you actually read item 1, the special counsel isn't trying to find "collusion" committed by Trump. He is tasked with

Now if you take the time to look at the item,

Item 1 is the Cambridge definition of collusion.

Collusion is part of what's covered under item 1. Item 1 encompasses more than just collusion though.

Ninjamedic:
What else do you want from me here?

I'm not really looking for anything from you mate. I just found it amusing that you threw that citation at Adam when it entirely supported him almost like you hadn't even glanced at it. To steal your own words, "[i]t was just a jab at a silly remark Adam you made."

Ninjamedic:

You can drop the condescension too, that got tiresome long ago and it didn't go so well with DACA now did it?

The fact that Schumer et al eventually screwed the pooch doesn't mean your hysterics weren't ridiculous at the time they occurred.

Wait wait wait,

Adam: "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion."

Ninja: Shows he was tasked with finding collusion

You: "Ninja's wrong, it doesn't say collusion"

Ninja: Points to the dictionary

You: "Collusion is part of what he's looking for."

Or,

You: "Mueller isn't looking for collusion"

Also you: "Mueller is looking for collusion"

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:
The fact that Schumer et al eventually screwed the pooch doesn't mean your hysterics weren't ridiculous at the time they occurred.

Maybe the fact that we identified what was going on and used that understanding to correctly predict the future should make you reevaluate.

Feel free to look back at the posts Sean.

The ones being referred to weren't predicting Schumer fucking up. They were crying that he already had completely failed. At the time of the discussion that was patently false because Democrats had another chance after the negotiated short-term deal/whatever. The agreed-upon fact they screwed it up later doesn't mean they had permanently screwed it up at that time (obviously because they were able to screw it up later).

Hell, I never stated that Schumer wouldn't screw up during the second chance. I was simply stating that there was a second chance with the possibility for him to fix it.

crimson5pheonix:

Avnger:

Ninjamedic:

Item 1 is the Cambridge definition of collusion.

Collusion is part of what's covered under item 1. Item 1 encompasses more than just collusion though.

Ninjamedic:
What else do you want from me here?

I'm not really looking for anything from you mate. I just found it amusing that you threw that citation at Adam when it entirely supported him almost like you hadn't even glanced at it. To steal your own words, "[i]t was just a jab at a silly remark Adam you made."

Ninjamedic:

You can drop the condescension too, that got tiresome long ago and it didn't go so well with DACA now did it?

The fact that Schumer et al eventually screwed the pooch doesn't mean your hysterics weren't ridiculous at the time they occurred.

Wait wait wait,

Adam: "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion."

Ninja: Shows he was tasked with finding collusion

You: "Ninja's wrong, it doesn't say collusion"

Ninja: Points to the dictionary

You: "Collusion is part of what he's looking for."

Or,

You: "Mueller isn't looking for collusion"

Also you: "Mueller is looking for collusion"

Me: "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding just collusion"
Me: "Mueller is looking as one part of many possible activities"

Avnger:
snip

Me: "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding just collusion"
Me: "Mueller is looking as one part of many possible activities"

Unfortunately, you came in on Adam and Ninja's conversation. And "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion." is a direct quote. Adam was saying that Mueller literally wasn't looking for collusion, which Ninja rebutted because that is a silly ass statement to make.

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:
The fact that Schumer et al eventually screwed the pooch doesn't mean your hysterics weren't ridiculous at the time they occurred.

Maybe the fact that we identified what was going on and used that understanding to correctly predict the future should make you reevaluate.

The DACA debacle greatly disappointed me. The charitable interpretation is that the Democrats overplayed their hand and realised that they couldn't keep the Senate caucus in line long enough to really keep the shutdown going; there's a lot of red-state Democrat senators up for re-election this November, and it would've only taken a handful of defections for the whole thing to collapse. The uncharitable interpretation is that they basically got bribed with an overall budget deal that gave them everything they wanted except DACA.

The really uncharitable interpretation is the one where the Democrats suffered from a catastrophic structural failure of endoskeletal orthopedic integrity, specifically centered in the thoracic region. Or; they're octopus people in human skins, and we shouldn't be prejudicial and assume that they were meant to have spines to begin with.

crimson5pheonix:
Unfortunately, you came in on Adam and Ninja's conversation. And "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion." is a direct quote. Adam was saying that Mueller literally wasn't looking for collusion, which Ninja rebutted because that is a silly ass statement to make.

The point that I was getting at with my post above is that Adam is technically correct; Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion, because collusion is not a criminal offence that one can make a finding about.

To a lawmonger, "finding" is a specific term that means coming to a decision about a question of fact. Technically, Mueller can't make a "finding" at all; that's something judges and juries do. But even if Mueller was a judge, he couldn't make a finding of collusion because collusion isn't a defined criminal offence; it means nothing, legally speaking, for Mueller or anyone else to say "the facts support a finding of collusion."

Now Mueller's not a judge, so his job isn't even to make a finding in the first place. His job is to investigate and/or prosecute federal crimes, not to make a finding as to whether a crime occurred. (Notably, the term "finding" is absent from the memo authorising Mueller's investigation.) What Mueller can do, as a special counsel, is provide the deputy attorney-general with a recommendation for so-and-so to be indicted with a crime based on evidence that Mueller has uncovered in his investigation. Because collusion isn't a defined crime, all the indictments that Mueller has recommended have been for the ancillary criminal offences related to the actions that we call collusion - money laundering, conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions, maybe even espionage, that sort of thing.

I know that sounds like hair-splitting to a person with a layman's understanding of the word "finding" - as in, to literally find something - but these guys are all lawyers, so you have to consider the word in its legal sense.

The long awaited IG report is a dud (is anyone surprised?) so Trump just held an impromptu conference in front of the White House to declare that the IG report says the exact opposite of what it says and that it somehow exonerates him from obstruction of justice and other things that the IG report isn't even about. Sounds awful lot like they're preparing for some really bad news or like they're preparing to do something stupid that will undoubtedly backfire on them. These people are in survival mode right now.

crimson5pheonix:

Avnger:
snip

Me: "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding just collusion"
Me: "Mueller is looking as one part of many possible activities"

Unfortunately, you came in on Adam and Ninja's conversation. And "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion." is a direct quote. Adam was saying that Mueller literally wasn't looking for collusion, which Ninja rebutted because that is a silly ass statement to make.

Unfortunately, you came in on my and Ninja's conversation. (See how this is a silly thing to write?) I mean it's a cute way to try and dismiss someone's opinion, I'll give you that.

Ninja (and others) have been trying to assert that collusion is somehow the primary/sole goal of Mueller's investigation. It's a very common tactic being used when a person's individual politics aren't being helped by the investigation (take a look at the article posted by Sean as an example) as a way to discredit it with half-truths.That is what I was arguing against.

"Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion" is an entirely factual statement because Mueller was actually tasked with finding "(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;" and "(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." Collusion falls within that mandate, but it isn't the totality of the mandate.

The reason I'm taking issue with this in the first place is that it's a facetious point meant to do nothing but deflect from the truth the serve a political cause (generally either right-wing or far left).

No one looks at a police officer and says "they haven't arrested Person X for rape yet and finding rape is their job. This officer is useless and just a political cover for those damned politicians. He should be fired!" for obvious reasons. A police officer's job is to investigate all crimes, this officer in particular has arrested or charged a number of people (all close associates of Person X) with crimes ranging from petty larceny to manslaughter to rape, and this officer is still following leads and collecting more evidence.

bastardofmelbourne:
snip

crimson5pheonix:
Unfortunately, you came in on Adam and Ninja's conversation. And "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion." is a direct quote. Adam was saying that Mueller literally wasn't looking for collusion, which Ninja rebutted because that is a silly ass statement to make.

The point that I was getting at with my post above is that Adam is technically correct; Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion, because collusion is not a criminal offence that one can make a finding about.

To a lawmonger, "finding" is a specific term that means coming to a decision about a question of fact. Technically, Mueller can't make a "finding" at all; that's something judges and juries do. But even if Mueller was a judge, he couldn't make a finding of collusion because collusion isn't a defined criminal offence; it means nothing, legally speaking, for Mueller or anyone else to say "the facts support a finding of collusion."

Now Mueller's not a judge, so his job isn't even to make a finding in the first place. His job is to investigate and/or prosecute federal crimes, not to make a finding as to whether a crime occurred. (Notably, the term "finding" is absent from the memo authorising Mueller's investigation.) What Mueller can do, as a special counsel, is provide the deputy attorney-general with a recommendation for so-and-so to be indicted with a crime based on evidence that Mueller has uncovered in his investigation. Because collusion isn't a defined crime, all the indictments that Mueller has recommended have been for the ancillary criminal offences related to the actions that we call collusion - money laundering, conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions, maybe even espionage, that sort of thing.

I know that sounds like hair-splitting to a person with a layman's understanding of the word "finding" - as in, to literally find something - but these guys are all lawyers, so you have to consider the word in its legal sense.

Well as I said in my sarcastic post he isn't charged with finding collusion, he's charged with finding out whether anybody's talked with a Russian. Technically Mueller isn't tasked with finding anything illegal. Which is of course why he isn't finding anything related to interference in the election. Instead he's found a bunch of corruption, which he would find investigating any band of politicians.

Which is why Mueller should be investigating the rest of the Republicans and the Democrats as well. All of them.

Avnger:

crimson5pheonix:

Avnger:
snip

Me: "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding just collusion"
Me: "Mueller is looking as one part of many possible activities"

Unfortunately, you came in on Adam and Ninja's conversation. And "Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion." is a direct quote. Adam was saying that Mueller literally wasn't looking for collusion, which Ninja rebutted because that is a silly ass statement to make.

Unfortunately, you came in on my and Ninja's conversation. (See how this is a silly thing to write?) I mean it's a cute way to try and dismiss someone's opinion, I'll give you that.

Ninja (and others) have been trying to assert that collusion is somehow the primary/sole goal of Mueller's investigation. It's a very common tactic being used when a person's individual politics aren't being helped by the investigation (take a look at the article posted by Sean as an example) as a way to discredit it with half-truths.That is what I was arguing against.

"Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion" is an entirely factual statement because Mueller was actually tasked with finding "(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;" and "(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." Collusion falls within that mandate, but it isn't the totality of the mandate.

The reason I'm taking issue with this in the first place is that it's a facetious point meant to do nothing but deflect from the truth the serve a political cause (generally either right-wing or far left).

No one looks at a police officer and says "they haven't arrested Person X for rape yet and finding rape is their job. This officer is useless and just a political cover for those damned politicians. He should be fired!" for obvious reasons. A police officer's job is to investigate all crimes, this officer in particular has arrested or charged a number of people (all close associates of Person X) with crimes ranging from petty larceny to manslaughter to rape, and this officer is still following leads and collecting more evidence.

I mean, if you want to be rude about it.

Adam Jensen:
Mueller wasn't tasked with finding collusion.

Avnger:

I'm not really looking for anything from you mate. I just found it amusing that you threw that citation at Adam when it entirely supported him almost like you hadn't even glanced at it. To steal your own words, "[i]t was just a jab at a silly remark Adam you made."

Don't defend silly ass statements. I wasn't "dismissing someone's opinion", I was pointing out that in the context of what was written, Adam made a silly statement. And then you tried to defend it.

bastardofmelbourne:
I know that sounds like hair-splitting to a person with a layman's understanding of the word "finding" - as in, to literally find something - but these guys are all lawyers, so you have to consider the word in its legal sense.

The grammar indicates that the word isn't being used in its legal sense.

The legal sense: we find that a crime was committed.
Not the legal sense: we found a crime.

The judge found that bail hadn't been paid in time.
The judge found a chocolate bar on the way to chambers.

The court found boatloads of corruption.
The court found that a crime had been committed under section 78dd-1 of Title 15 of the U.S. Code (The Foreign Corrupt Trade Practices Act of 1977).

Manafort got sent to jail. I hope this serves as a sign to ye of little faith that the system is still functioning. Trump and Republicans have no idea what's in store for them.

Adam Jensen:
Manafort got sent to jail. I hope this serves as a sign to ye of little faith that the system is still functioning. Trump and Republicans have no idea what's in store for them.

Just because one person was sent to jail doesn't mean the system ain't broken, 'cause it's still very much broken just limping along.

Dr. Thrax:
Just because one person was sent to jail doesn't mean the system ain't broken, 'cause it's still very much broken just limping along.

It's not just about one person going to jail. Why do you think all those other people are cooperating with the FBI? Michael Cohen is also getting ready to cooperate. When the dam breaks it's going to hit hard.

Adam Jensen:
-Snorp-

Yeah, and optimistically we could see this happening next year at best. Even taking into consideration that this investigation is moving along at astronomical speeds compared to past investigations of this scope, we may not even see the final ball drop until after Trump's first term - if he doesn't get himself impeached by then.

Dr. Thrax:

Adam Jensen:
-Snorp-

Yeah, and optimistically we could see this happening next year at best. Even taking into consideration that this investigation is moving along at astronomical speeds compared to past investigations of this scope, we may not even see the final ball drop until after Trump's first term - if he doesn't get himself impeached by then.

Doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter if Republicans win a super majority in November. The shit that the USIC has on Trump and some GOP members is so devastating that no one with literally a lick of sense will be able to ignore it or do anything about it. Anyone who tries will be an accomplice to the crime of the century, and then it's bye-bye for those people as well. I don't know why it's so hard for people to realize that the FBI and the rest of the USIC isn't fucking around. They already know everything about Trump. This other shit that you're seeing now is basically what completionists do after completing the main story. What we're witnessing now might just be the death of the Republican party. Or at the very least it is a massive wound for them that will take decades to heal.

Adam Jensen:
Doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter if Republicans win a super majority in November. The shit that the USIC has on Trump and some GOP members is so devastating that no one with literally a lick of sense will be able to ignore it or do anything about it.

You underestimate the sheer amount apathy and ignorance for people to either ignore or excuse this kind of behavior.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to realize that the FBI and the rest of the USIC isn't fucking around.

Just about nobody here has said that they're "fucking around". The thing people are most skeptical about is your constant insistence that "something big is going to happen soon" when that's a fat fucking lie because:

This other shit that you're seeing now is basically what completionists do after completing the main story.

Yeah, they're making sure they can throw the book on them for everything, which is going to take time if they want to make sure this shit sticks. And they haven't yet actually "completed the main story", they're still making sure they're doing every available sidequest and activity to make sure they're overleveled for the "main story".

What we're witnessing now might just be the death of the Republican party. Or at the very least it is a massive wound for them that will take decades to heal.

Ignorance and apathy will prevail, the Republican party will have a rough spot to deal with, but it's most certainly not the "death" of the party and it's definitely not going to take decades to heal. Though plenty of people who lived through the Trumpian age will forever hold it against the Repubs, you again underestimate the sheer amount of ignorance that festers at the base of the Republican party that will place blame on literally anyone else but the people actually responsible.

Dr. Thrax:
Ignorance and apathy will prevail, the Republican party will have a rough spot to deal with, but it's most certainly not the "death" of the party and it's definitely not going to take decades to heal. Though plenty of people who lived through the Trumpian age will forever hold it against the Repubs, you again underestimate the sheer amount of ignorance that festers at the base of the Republican party that will place blame on literally anyone else but the people actually responsible.

Yeah, and here's how real world works. The USIC doesn't give a shit about apathy of the people. They're going to do their job. And when they do, some important people from the RNC are going to prison. One of them is the president of the US. That's not something that you can recover from easily. Aside from Trump, the RNC and the NRA are drowning in dark Russian money. They're also going to lose their main propaganda network. Also it's practically a certainty that Sean Hannity will go to prison. In fact he might get there by this time next year. And when all that happens the Republican party is going to lose all of their donors because no one in their right mind will want to be associated with them. Good luck running a party without money after a political scandal of the century.

Adam Jensen:
And when all that happens the Republican party is going to lose all of their donors because no one in their right mind will want to be associated with them.

At this point in time nobody in their "right mind" would want to be associated with them, yet they still have plenty of donors, from small businesses, to corporations, to special interest groups. The Trump administration being dismantled and many higher ups going to jail isn't going to change that. Either through sheer willful ignorance or outright wholehearted belief in what the current Republican party stands for, this is not going to be the end of their party. They will recover. As happy as I would be to witness the death of the Republican party, it's not going to happen - at least, not within my lifetime, probably.

Dr. Thrax:

Adam Jensen:
-Snorp-

Yeah, and optimistically we could see this happening next year at best. Even taking into consideration that this investigation is moving along at astronomical speeds compared to past investigations of this scope, we may not even see the final ball drop until after Trump's first term - if he doesn't get himself impeached by then.

Much hinges on the outcome of the midterm elections in November. If the Democrats win the House in a few months, there's a lot more they can do. If they don't, Trump has basically been handed a second term.

Dr. Thrax:

Yeah, they're making sure they can throw the book on them for everything, which is going to take time if they want to make sure this shit sticks. And they haven't yet actually "completed the main story", they're still making sure they're doing every available sidequest and activity to make sure they're overleveled for the "main story".

Fantastic metaphor.

Kwak:

Dr. Thrax:

Yeah, they're making sure they can throw the book on them for everything, which is going to take time if they want to make sure this shit sticks. And they haven't yet actually "completed the main story", they're still making sure they're doing every available sidequest and activity to make sure they're overleveled for the "main story".

Fantastic metaphor.

Yet inaccurate. The FBI has pretty much all the communication between Trump and his associates during the campaign and the transition period, encrypted or otherwise (not that most of it is encrypted now), they have evidence of Trump coordination with Russian agents before, during and after the election. They have evidence of coordination with hackers targeting Democratic Senators and US journalists, they have evidence of obstruction of justice, corruption, money laundering, bank fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion and god only knows how many financial crimes. Probably every financial crime in existence considering his career in organized crime. And then there are crimes that people don't even like to think about.

And here's a fun thought experiment. Do you think that the FBI doesn't have informants and agents infiltrated in the GOP, NRA, Fox News and Trump properties? Cause that's kinda what they do.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here