Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Dec 2017, 7:04 am

And this anti-Trump bias contention by the Trumpistas is a bs smokescreen. Either Mueller will get the goods on Trump or he won't. Period. End of story.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 7:11 am

freeman3 wrote:First of all, I don't hate him. Second of all, your attempt to ascribe my contentions to hatred is just another form of ad hominem attack. You do seem to have a tendency to attack the person rather than arguments.

Thirdly, Deutsche Bank issued the following statement:

"DB takes its legal obligations seriously and remains committed to cooperating with authorized investigations into this matter.” Why would they not just deny they had gotten a subpoena?


I can hardly wait.

I know you're thrilled if it is true. As for me, I prefer something called "evidence." They may have mentioned it in law school, I'm not sure.

What actual "evidence" of illegality do we have so far?

Oh, you may not "hate" Trump. It just reads like it--or something worse.

Fourth, did you know that Trump Administration has seriously considered having a private spy army? Sarah Sanders when asked about it...instead of just saying to the reporter are you out of their minds basically just said she was not aware of that being done at this time, something like that. This Administration has no respect for American institutions.


As opposed to the great respect Obama showed for "American institutions?" Did O blink when Holder was held in contempt of Congress? Did Obama's Administration unmask American identities in unprecedented numbers?

Apparently, "respect" is in the eye of the beholder.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.the ... emies.html


As for this, we'll see. Who would fund it? Maybe there's money sloshing around from one of Obama's slush funds?

Hint: just because you read some wingnut story doesn't mean it's true.

I know, I know--crazy, huh? I mean if it's negative about Trump, it has to be true, right?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 7:12 am

freeman3 wrote:And this anti-Trump bias contention by the Trumpistas is a bs smokescreen. Either Mueller will get the goods on Trump or he won't. Period. End of story.


Like they got the "goods" on Flynn?

Oh brother.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 7:17 am

For example, here's a somewhat dispassionate account of the Don Jr./Russian lawyer meeting (this site is conservative, but decidedly anti-Trump):

So we have three accounts of the meeting from three different participants all of which seem to generally agree about what happened. Trump Jr. wanted dirt on Clinton which he didn’t get and Veselnitskaya wanted to interest Trump Jr. in her Magnitsky Act story but found Trump Jr. wasn’t interested.

Could the story change? Of course. As Tom Hanks said in Cast Away, “tomorrow the sun will rise, and who knows what the tide will bring in.” Maybe Mueller will get Paul Manafort to contradict his own notes from the meeting. Maybe Jared Kushner will sing a different tune. But at least for the moment, it doesn’t seem that any collusion with Russia took place at this meeting.


https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/05/ ... t-hillary/

There's a word for what Mueller is doing . . . fishing. He has no crime, was tasked with investigating no crime, and is producing evidence of no crime.

But, the conspiracy theories make liberals happy.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10945
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 7:57 am

fate
What actual "evidence" of illegality do we have so far?


Probably lots. Or Flynn wouldn't have copped a plea to a lesser charge and turned states evidence. we'll have to wait and see. Flynn is small fry. His testimony is what they want.

The question has always been "why would Trump" be colluding? And the answer is probably to be found at Deutsche Bank .
Deutsche Bank is synonymous with Russian money laundering, They've already paid fines twice for laundering Russian oligarch money. The second time, a $670 million dollar fine for laundering about $10 billion.
And Deutsche Bank has a long ugly history with Trump.

The bank’s $300 million loan to Trump, after the oft-bankrupt magnate fell behind on a separate loan from the German bank, was highly unusual according to banking experts, and likely raises questions for Mueller’s investigators about who or what was backing the additional funds.
In 2008, according to Harding’s book, Trump was refusing to pay off a $640 million loan, which he was using for a project in Chicago. He blamed the financial crash for his failure to pay. When Deutsche Bank tried to collect, Trump went on the offensive, and sued the bank in Queens, New York, demanding $3 billion for its role in the crash.

Someone under wrote the $300 million dollar loan to Trump, that bailed out Trump and helped DB out of their problem.
Probably a Russian Oligarch...... Meulller will find that out soon enough. And he'll find out if there are charges of money laundering that can be levelled against any of the Trumps. Or perhaps Wilbur Ross as well. He did business with Putins son-in-law until just a sort time ago. And was vice chairman of the favorite bank for Russian money laundering not named Deutsche.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/n ... ise-papers

The Flynn thing won't resolve itself until he testifies in other cases. And he has to have enough to say that a deal was worth making.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 8:20 am

rickyp wrote:fate
What actual "evidence" of illegality do we have so far?


Probably lots. Or Flynn wouldn't have copped a plea to a lesser charge and turned states evidence. we'll have to wait and see. Flynn is small fry. His testimony is what they want.


"Probably" is wishful thinking.

"Flynn is small fry" is stupid.

Did you know he sold his house to pay his legal bills? Could it be that he plead guilty to stop the bleeding, knowing that he did mislead the FBI?

Is there any evidence he's rolling on Trump, or that he has actual "evidence?"

The thing about you libs: you are willing to believe your wildest dreams about what Trump did, evidence be damned! You don't need evidence! You already know the truth!

The question has always been "why would Trump" be colluding? And the answer is probably to be found at Deutsche Bank .


Well, of course it is.

Then again, when it's not at DB, it will be somewhere else. Next stop: Atlantis!

Deutsche Bank is synonymous with Russian money laundering, They've already paid fines twice for laundering Russian oligarch money. The second time, a $670 million dollar fine for laundering about $10 billion.
And Deutsche Bank has a long ugly history with Trump.

The bank’s $300 million loan to Trump, after the oft-bankrupt magnate fell behind on a separate loan from the German bank, was highly unusual according to banking experts, and likely raises questions for Mueller’s investigators about who or what was backing the additional funds.
In 2008, according to Harding’s book, Trump was refusing to pay off a $640 million loan, which he was using for a project in Chicago. He blamed the financial crash for his failure to pay. When Deutsche Bank tried to collect, Trump went on the offensive, and sued the bank in Queens, New York, demanding $3 billion for its role in the crash.


More crap. Has Trump EVER declared personal bankruptcy? That would be the meaning of "oft-bankrupt magnate."

No, he has not. If your source lies about that, why would I believe it? https://www.snopes.com/2016/08/01/donal ... kruptcies/

Someone under wrote the $300 million dollar loan to Trump, that bailed out Trump and helped DB out of their problem.
Probably a Russian Oligarch...... Meulller will find that out soon enough. And he'll find out if there are charges of money laundering that can be levelled against any of the Trumps. Or perhaps Wilbur Ross as well. He did business with Putins son-in-law until just a sort time ago. And was vice chairman of the favorite bank for Russian money laundering not named Deutsche.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/n ... ise-papers


I'll bet Trump is a charter member of the Illuminati!

Image

The Flynn thing won't resolve itself until he testifies in other cases. And he has to have enough to say that a deal was worth making.


You don't know that. Sometimes prosecutors accept plea deals because . . . there's no reason not to.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Dec 2017, 9:59 am

I'll ignore yet another ad hominem attack . I guarantee you people don't want to read that stuff, though you seem to believe that's an effective argument technique.

As for the "analysis" you cite with regard to the Don, Jr...this guy gets paid for that stuff? What we know is that Don, Jr went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary. We also pretty much know that the Russians had the DNC emails at that time (given that the last DNC emails are from May, 2016). We also know from Goldstone that the Russian government was involved because the highest Russian prosecutor contacted Goldstone's client's Russian oligarch father about it. Goldstone said a Russian government attorney was going to meet with Don, Jr.

So what happened? I don't have any problem believing what people say happened at the meeting...happened. But what really happened? It's ridiculous to think that somehow this Russian attorney was sent out to meet with Don, Jr to discuss her own private agenda. The Russian government was involved and they could have given the DNC emails to Don, Jr if they wanted to. I guess it's possible (though unlikely) the Russian attorney did not know and was manipulated by the Russian government. In any case, the meeting was simply designed to gauge how much interest the Trump campaign had in dirt that could help them win the election. And Don, Jr. clearly expressed a lot of interest and he brought important people to the meeting. After that meeting...how did the Russians make further contact?

First of all perhaps they could make contact through Manafort. But the Russian ambassador enters into the picture at this point. And it may be that the collusion was not that direct. "How about those DNC email leaks...they are really helping you, eh? What can be done about sanctions?" Clearly, Trump got the message as can be seen from his repeated attempts to mollify the Russians. And of course there is the money angle--Trump got a lot money from Deutsche Bank and they had to pay a 600 million fine for laundering Russian money. So we'll find out soon enough about that.

All the lies, all the Russian entanglements were done for a reason. The repeated attempts by Trump to interfere in the investigation were done for a reason. Trump wa paying back favors to Russia--for one reason or another--and that's grounds for impeachment.Trump was not trying to help out Russia with regard to sanctions because he is a good guy. It's ludicrous to think that Trump would care so much about improving relations with Russia as some sort of foreign policy objective.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 10:15 am

Enough.

You're tired of my ad hominem attacks?

Have you considered that your assaults on Trump, since they lack actual evidence, are nothing less?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 10:16 am

Here's an easy one: please show me where one vote was altered by Russia.

How did Russia actually change the election results? Should be a piece of cake.

Oh, and if you trot out the $100K in Facebook ads, prepare for laughter. After all, if $100K could change the election, why couldn't Hillary win with hundreds of times more than that?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Dec 2017, 10:33 am

It's impossible to prove individual votes were affected by one particular thing. You can't get inside
voters' heads. So that's not a fair question.

But the DNC and Podesta leaks were damaging. Exit polls revealed that Trump won voters who decided in October--when the Podesta emails came out--51 to 37 percent.

Hillary barely lost a number of swing states. It's hard to believe that some voters were not affected by the constant barrage of leaks during the summer. In fact I think it's ridiculous to believe that.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/13656802
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... inton/amp/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 10:42 am

freeman3 wrote:It's impossible to prove individual votes were affected by one particular thing. You can't get inside
voters' heads. So that's not a fair question.

But the DNC and Podesta leaks were damaging. Exit polls revealed that Trump won voters who decided in October--when the Podesta emails came out--51 to 37 percent.

Hillary barely lost a number of swing states. It's hard to believe that some voters were not affected by the constant barrage of leaks during the summer. In fact I think it's ridiculous to believe that.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/13656802
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... inton/amp/


And, there were no negative stories about Trump, right? I mean, the guy was squeaky clean and beloved by the media!

If you want to blame Russia, if it helps you sleep at night, help yourself. However, innuendo and wishful thinking doesn't hold water in a courtroom.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Dec 2017, 10:48 am

Take this CNN exit poll. Voters who decided before September voted for Hillary 52 to 45%. 60% of voters indicated that they decided before September. So it's reasonable to assume that Clinton was going to win a crushing victory at that time. 12 percent decided in October and they went overwhelmingly for Trump 51 to 37; and voters who decided in the last week were 5% of the voters and Trump won those voters 49 to 41%.

Wikileaks' release of emails started in late July and continued through the summer. The Podesta emails came out in October. Just a coincidence that Trump dominated the 25% of voters who decided in October and November (except for the 8% who voted in the last days which was even; the other 17% he dominated)? And...Trump's domination late was not in any way affected by Wikileaks?

We had a foreign power decide our election. That doesn't bother you?

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls
Last edited by freeman3 on 06 Dec 2017, 10:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 10:49 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Have you considered that your assaults on Trump, since they lack actual evidence, are nothing less?


I wouldn't be so quick to defend him. You're almost sounding like a fan. Trump has no moral compass, so who knows what he did? Best to just stay silent.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 11:00 am

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Have you considered that your assaults on Trump, since they lack actual evidence, are nothing less?


I wouldn't be so quick to defend him. You're almost sounding like a fan. Trump has no moral compass, so who knows what he did? Best to just stay silent.


Nope. “. . . they lack actual evidence . . .” is a statement of fact, not a defense of Trump.

He has no compass. Then again, neither does Pelosi, Franken, Moore, Flake, or about 95% of DC.

I just get sick of the swamp fever circus of accusation sans evidence.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Dec 2017, 11:00 am

And that doesn't count Democratic voters who stayed home because they didn't like Hillary. I recall Wisconsin at the very least being lost simply due to low turn-out among Democratic voters.That low turnout was not affected at all by Wikileaks?

And the Five Thirty Article shows that there was intense interest on Google in the Wikileaks leak of DNC and Podesta emails.

I guess you can't prove 100% that Russia won the election for Trump...but they almost certainly did.