(07-12-2018 05:44 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:37 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  Page and Strzork investigations are political grandstanding. Mueller investigation is producing guilty pleas and indictments.

Nothing to do with collusion with the Russian government. One day the roles will be reversed, enjoy.

The only thing that could get Trump was that he was unwillingly did money laundering with money given to him by rich Russians when they bought property from Trump.

Manifort also charged for money laundering from money he received from Russian officials when he worked in Ukraine.

I think Trump is freaking out that he might have gotten dirty money from Russians when he did business with them.

When you keep bringing people into court and bankrupting them, then offer them a deal if they plea guilty, well yea it looks good.

I'm curious about how you think the Russian trolls trial is going. Cause right now Mueller looks like an ass.

(07-12-2018 09:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:45 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  I would say this is already a role reversal from the nonsense with Benghazi. As far as the investigation, it's not concluded so there's no telling who may be charged with what. So far, it's producing results, so there's no reason to end it.

1) in Benghazi, Americans on technically America soil were attacked and died. Only a partisan POS would not want that investigated thoroughly

2) Investigate all you want... but let's end the 'special prosecutorial powers' that aren't necessary to get indictments for 10 year old Tax questions. This is grossly beyond the scope, like Whitewater was to Lewinsky... Nothing I'm aware of in Benghazi was especially 'unrelated'.

Luckily the Benghazi investigation was lead by Trey Gowdy, who was completely unbiased and never said a bad thing about Hillary in his entire career. Nobody had any idea where he stood.

(07-12-2018 05:47 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:37 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  Mueller investigation is producing guilty pleas and indictments.

Process crimes that have nothing to do with Trump.

Tell me more about concord catering, the fake company ham sandwich that mueller indicted, and how he continues to request unreasonable delays because there's nothing there and he's caught with his pants down, because he never expected them to actually show up in court. Are you counting that one as part of your little tally?

Pathetic.

The fact that the crimes have "nothing" to do with Trump (which is a stretch but lets accept that for the time being) should matter little about whether the investigation is producing results. The investigation wasn't started to "get trump" though Trump has successfully made it seem like it is about that. The investigation was started to investigate Russian interference in our election and go after people that had a part in that and help prevent future interference. To that end Mueller is getting results and building cooperators as he goes. Too many Trump lovers seem scared that the investigation will eventually connect to Trump (and with good reason given the circumstantial evidence out there and his amazing reluctance to say anything slightly negative about Putin in any way), but the investigation is about far more than that. It's about American security. And the desire of many to abandon the investigation shows how politically motivated the right really is.

It's amazing to me how Republicans seem completely comfortable with investigations lead by partisans like Ken Starr and Trey Gowdy against democrats, but are horrified when a lifelong REPUBLICAN and law enforcement professional leads an investigation into Russian Interference in our election.

(07-13-2018 08:03 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 09:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:45 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  I would say this is already a role reversal from the nonsense with Benghazi. As far as the investigation, it's not concluded so there's no telling who may be charged with what. So far, it's producing results, so there's no reason to end it.

1) in Benghazi, Americans on technically America soil were attacked and died. Only a partisan POS would not want that investigated thoroughly

2) Investigate all you want... but let's end the 'special prosecutorial powers' that aren't necessary to get indictments for 10 year old Tax questions. This is grossly beyond the scope, like Whitewater was to Lewinsky... Nothing I'm aware of in Benghazi was especially 'unrelated'.

Luckily the Benghazi investigation was lead by Trey Gowdy, who was completely unbiased and never said a bad thing about Hillary in his entire career. Nobody had any idea where he stood.

(07-13-2018 08:10 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 08:03 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 09:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:45 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  I would say this is already a role reversal from the nonsense with Benghazi. As far as the investigation, it's not concluded so there's no telling who may be charged with what. So far, it's producing results, so there's no reason to end it.

1) in Benghazi, Americans on technically America soil were attacked and died. Only a partisan POS would not want that investigated thoroughly

2) Investigate all you want... but let's end the 'special prosecutorial powers' that aren't necessary to get indictments for 10 year old Tax questions. This is grossly beyond the scope, like Whitewater was to Lewinsky... Nothing I'm aware of in Benghazi was especially 'unrelated'.

Luckily the Benghazi investigation was lead by Trey Gowdy, who was completely unbiased and never said a bad thing about Hillary in his entire career. Nobody had any idea where he stood.

One guy with a few private texts (who never even leaked the investigation before the election which would have been the easiest way to get Trump) who wasn't leading the investigation v. a partisan congressman with every motivation to destroy Hillary for his own political benefit.... which one are Republicans outraged over. The hypocrisy would be stunning if it were not so par for the course.

There are plenty of republicans working on the investigation into Russian Interference as well. I'm shocked to discovery FBI personnel have political beliefs.

(07-12-2018 09:49 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 09:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  1) in Benghazi, Americans on technically America soil were attacked and died. Only a partisan POS would not want that investigated thoroughly

No issue with investigating what happened. Seven investigations in a partisan attempt to hang Clinton was a waste of time and taxpayer money.

The problem with the Benghazi and IRS investigations is that the republicans were so intent on getting the people at the top that they didn't go after the people who should have been fried. Lerner should be doing time, in the cell block next to whoever watched the idea of sending our ambassador into such a risky place without a shipload of Marines standing offshore in case there was a problem.

Quote:

Quote:2) Investigate all you want... but let's end the 'special prosecutorial powers' that aren't necessary to get indictments for 10 year old Tax questions. This is grossly beyond the scope, like Whitewater was to Lewinsky... Nothing I'm aware of in Benghazi was especially 'unrelated'.

Without knowing what’s still being investigated, it’s impossible to know if what’s happening currently is outside the scope or not.

What has been revealed so far is mostly outside scope, except for some indictments of Russian entities that may well bear no fruit.

(07-12-2018 09:49 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  No issue with investigating what happened. Seven investigations in a partisan attempt to hang Clinton was a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Your opinion is noted. At least the scope was on the issue and not on her personal life or business dealings prior to being a public official. Surely you see the difference, even if you don't want to admit it.

Quote:Without knowing what’s still being investigated, it’s impossible to know if what’s happening currently is outside the scope or not.

See below

(07-13-2018 08:08 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The fact that the crimes have "nothing" to do with Trump (which is a stretch but lets accept that for the time being) should matter little about whether the investigation is producing results.

Not remotely true.

The appointment of a special prosecutor as was done in this case requires elements outside the jurisdiction of a 'normal' prosecutor... most especially the ability to get subpoenas, wire taps etc that any other jurisdiction wouldn't be able to. They have special powers, they have special access... hence the term, special prosecutor. If all they are investigating is 'crimes' that are of a NOT special nature, i.e. don't directly involve 'executive privilege', which of course the 13 Russian companies and 10 year old financial dealings couldn't possibly... then there is no need for a special prosecutor and they have by definition over-stepped their duty.

I mean, if we throw out the Constitutional protections to accused persons and let police wire tap random people and get confessions without counsel and after 36 hours or torture, I'm quite certain that we will get a lot of results..... but I'd like to think that you wouldn't be okay with that.

Special prosecutors prosecute special crimes. Nothing in these alleged crimes is in any way 'special'.

So you have two choices...
1) the prosecution is ridiculously over-stepped its powers, prosecuting crimes that didn't require a special prosecutor or
2) it hasn't, and by their silence, they're letting someone who was elected by fraud continue in the office unfettered despite having meaningful (even if not absolute) proof of that fraud.... and for some reason, despite some strong evidence, there isn't one person (including many who clearly hate Trump and some no longer in a protected position... even a few who were fired, arguably for the investigation in which case they have a lay down lawsuit) who is willing to even say 'it's coming'

There really IS no middle ground here.

(07-13-2018 10:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Special prosecutors prosecute special crimes. Nothing in these alleged crimes is in any way 'special'.

It's an investigation into Russian interference in the election, which makes it special.

Quote:So you have two choices...
1) the prosecution is ridiculously over-stepped its powers, prosecuting crimes that didn't require a special prosecutor or
2) it hasn't, and by their silence, they're letting someone who was elected by fraud continue in the office unfettered despite having meaningful (even if not absolute) proof of that fraud.... and for some reason, despite some strong evidence, there isn't one person (including many who clearly hate Trump and some no longer in a protected position... even a few who were fired, arguably for the investigation in which case they have a lay down lawsuit) who is willing to even say 'it's coming'

There really IS no middle ground here.

Hambone, don't play naive, because I can tell from reading your posts that you're a smart guy. First of all, a proper investigation like this shouldn't have leaks. The only way information gets to the press is via Bob Mueller or court filings. Second, to your point about meaningful if not absolute evidence, you and I and everyone else knows the evidence must be absolute. Especially in this political climate, you can't come out and say, "Well, it looks like Trump may have potentially colluded with the Russians." That won't hold up in court or the court of public opinion (on either side of the aisle).

If he's going to come out with something, it must be definitive. If it's not definitive that Trump colluded with Russia, then the investigation ends with these people on the periphery and not Trump himself. That's the only way it can go.