• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohen’s Financial Records

Napoleon said:
Assume what you will about the legality but harming the nation? Exposing a man selling access to the White House is a public service.
Click to expand...

That is just silly when CongressCritters spend literally half their days either dialing for dollars or servicing the accounts.
 
ashurbanipal said:
How, exactly, does this "harm" the nation? Cohen's records have revealed a high level of slime at the center of Trumpworld. Not that we didn't already know about said slime, but the leak of Cohen's records just adds to the level of clarity. Why shouldn't we know about such matters?
Click to expand...

How does it harm the nation when stewards of the justice system abuse citizens of the nation?

You are too much work for me this morning.

I take a pass.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
How does it harm the nation when stewards of the justice system abuse citizens of the nation?

You are too much work for me this morning.

I take a pass.
Click to expand...

Your question is slant-wise. When you become President, you and your circle and allies should be subjected to increased scrutiny, and you and they should not have any expectation of privacy during their term of public service. Yes, the law reads differently, but given the power the President wields over everyone else, I have a hard time reaching any other conclusion. This is a man who has the power to literally end all life on earth. The normal rules just don't apply. It is apparent that Cohen abused his position and put justice in jeopardy. The people need to know that.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Your question is slant-wise. When you become President, you and your circle and allies should be subjected to increased scrutiny, and you and they should not have any expectation of privacy during their term of public service. Yes, the law reads differently, but given the power the President wields over everyone else, I have a hard time reaching any other conclusion. This is a man who has the power to literally end all life on earth. The normal rules just don't apply. It is apparent that Cohen abused his position and put justice in jeopardy. The people need to know that.
Click to expand...

He conned corporations into handing him money, he sold the illusion of access, and it was so easy because these assholes have long paid for access, that is what the corruption of Washington is all about.


IT IS TIME TO WAKE Up NOW!
 
American said:
Sessions has been a useless, limpdick POS. Recusing himself was bull****, everyone in this investigation is knee deep in conflict because they all had an axe to grind in getting Trump, plus covering for Hillary. Mueller couldn't possibly have NOT known about that email server. No ****ing way!
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how conflict of interest works. Sessions recused himself because of a conflict of interest.

We're pretty much only a few weeks away from Republicans arguing that Mueller has a conflict of interest in that he couldn't possibly be expected to conduct a fair investigation of somebody he's investigating.
 
Cardinal said:
I don't think you understand how conflict of interest works. Sessions recused himself because of a conflict of interest.

We're pretty much only a few weeks away from Republicans arguing that Mueller has a conflict of interest in that he couldn't possibly be expected to conduct a fair investigation of somebody he's investigating.
Click to expand...

He can't really. But politically he's untouchable, even though legally Trump could walk to his office, throw a cardboard box on his desk, and tell him to GTFO.
 
Cardinal said:
We're pretty much only a few weeks away from Republicans arguing that Mueller has a conflict of interest in that he couldn't possibly be expected to conduct a fair investigation of somebody he's investigating.
Click to expand...

American said:
He can't really.
Click to expand...

When I said "only a few weeks," clearly I should have said "only a few minutes."
 
Cardinal said:
When I said "only a few weeks," clearly I should have said "only a few minutes."
Click to expand...

I've said that before, not just a few minutes ago.
 
Deuce said:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...-the-leak-of-michael-cohens-financial-records




Coverup blown. Nice try, Trump :lamo
Click to expand...

trump-witch-feat-0.jpg


Cohen's got to be sweating bullets.
 
Deuce said:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...-the-leak-of-michael-cohens-financial-records




Coverup blown. Nice try, Trump :lamo
Click to expand...

Nice spin by the media.... No one is buying it!!

The mysterious law enforcement official behind the leak of confidential documents on Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s business dealings is facing new pressure as sources debunk his rationale for leaking -- and one report suggests it won't be long before he's caught.

The leaker could face up to five years in jail if identified and prosecuted.

The individual, who has not been named, came forward in an interview with The New Yorker on Wednesday, taking responsibility for disclosing records that show Cohen used a shell company to receive payments from firms seeking access to the Trump administration -- including AT&T and a New York-based investment firm linked to a Russian oligarch.

Cohen record leaker could face jail, as sources debunk missing-file claim | Fox News
 
Hawkeye10 said:
He conned corporations into handing him money, he sold the illusion of access, and it was so easy because these assholes have long paid for access, that is what the corruption of Washington is all about.


IT IS TIME TO WAKE Up NOW!
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree this is hardly an isolated or unprecedented case. Trump and Trumpworld are doing what politicians have been doing for centuries, but that our politicians have been doing to great excess for at least the last three decades. This is just a view into that world, and without constant reminders, people tend to forget about it--all too easy to think it's just an isolated case.

Example in a related but distinct domain: when Enron collapsed, I posted here and mentioned to everyone I knew that we were getting a glimpse into how business actually works in America. It was, and mostly still is, a straw dog, an illusion that creates no real value, but certainly extracts value and gives it to the magicians at the tops of their towers. And didn't we discover that such is precisely the case in 2008? And without any meaningful reform, we're right back where we were, waiting for the next big downturn. It'll be a few years, probably just after the next Presidential election.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Oh, I agree this is hardly an isolated or unprecedented case. Trump and Trumpworld are doing what politicians have been doing for centuries, but that our politicians have been doing to great excess for at least the last three decades. This is just a view into that world, and without constant reminders, people tend to forget about it--all too easy to think it's just an isolated case.

Example in a related but distinct domain: when Enron collapsed, I posted here and mentioned to everyone I knew that we were getting a glimpse into how business actually works in America. It was, and mostly still is, a straw dog, an illusion that creates no real value, but certainly extracts value and gives it to the magicians at the tops of their towers. And didn't we discover that such is precisely the case in 2008? And without any meaningful reform, we're right back where we were, waiting for the next big downturn. It'll be a few years, probably just after the next Presidential election.
Click to expand...

i am intrigued by your forecasts

what should we anticipate over the next say two to six years?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Oh, I agree this is hardly an isolated or unprecedented case. Trump and Trumpworld are doing what politicians have been doing for centuries, but that our politicians have been doing to great excess for at least the last three decades. This is just a view into that world, and without constant reminders, people tend to forget about it--all too easy to think it's just an isolated case.

Example in a related but distinct domain: when Enron collapsed, I posted here and mentioned to everyone I knew that we were getting a glimpse into how business actually works in America. It was, and mostly still is, a straw dog, an illusion that creates no real value, but certainly extracts value and gives it to the magicians at the tops of their towers. And didn't we discover that such is precisely the case in 2008? And without any meaningful reform, we're right back where we were, waiting for the next big downturn. It'll be a few years, probably just after the next Presidential election.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention Enron in a thread that involves Mueller. Isn't that the case where Weissman was overturned by SCOTUS in a unanimous decision in a case that cost 85,000 people their jobs?



"Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide — only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Next, Weissmann creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron. Four Merrill executives went to prison for as long as a year. Weissmann’s team made sure they did not even get bail pending their appeals, even though the charges Weissmann concocted, like those against Andersen, were literally unprecedented.

Weissmann’s prosecution devastated the lives and families of the Merrill executives, causing enormous defense costs, unimaginable stress and torturous prison time. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the mass of the case.

Weissmann quietly resigned from the Enron Task Force just as the judge in the Enron Broadband prosecution began excoriating Weissmann’s team and the press began catching on to Weissmann’s modus operandi.

Mueller knows this history. Is this why he tapped Weissmann to target Paul Manafort?"

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...fing-choices-he-may-not-be-very-interested-in



https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/10/business/andersen-lawyer-accuses-prosecutors-of-misconduct.html
 
justabubba said:
you sound like the republicans back when my friend was shuttling the pentagon papers to various newspapers, to facilitate the publication of those documents. which information led to the end of the war in vietnam

as today with the sars release, it was also then illegal to make such a disclosure. my side's patriot is your side's criminal
Click to expand...



This is Daniel Elsberg all over again.

As the noose tightened Republicans circled the wagons and shot at any distraction they could. Most of Washington knew Nixon was dead the minute the existence of the tapes became know, but the GOP doubled down on the denials and distractions.

This is just a beginning, soon we will be reading that one of the characters in this gong show once cheated at solitaire.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Funny you should mention Enron in a thread that involves Mueller. Isn't that the case where Weissman was overturned by SCOTUS in a unanimous decision in a case that cost 85,000 people their jobs?



"Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide — only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Next, Weissmann creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron. Four Merrill executives went to prison for as long as a year. Weissmann’s team made sure they did not even get bail pending their appeals, even though the charges Weissmann concocted, like those against Andersen, were literally unprecedented.

Weissmann’s prosecution devastated the lives and families of the Merrill executives, causing enormous defense costs, unimaginable stress and torturous prison time. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the mass of the case.

Weissmann quietly resigned from the Enron Task Force just as the judge in the Enron Broadband prosecution began excoriating Weissmann’s team and the press began catching on to Weissmann’s modus operandi.

Mueller knows this history. Is this why he tapped Weissmann to target Paul Manafort?"

Judging by Mueller's staffing choices, he may not be very interested in justice | TheHill



https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/10/business/andersen-lawyer-accuses-prosecutors-of-misconduct.html
Click to expand...

You should really look at why the USSC overturned the Andersen verdict. The judge at trial gave the jury faulty instructions (that is, instructions that were not consistent with federal law), and that is why they overturned the Andersen conviction. They did not overturn the Andersen conviction because they thought the government put on a bad case, or because they thought Andersen actually innocent. The judge failed to instruct the jury that the government had the burden, under federal law, of showing that Andersen intended to break the law by shredding records. Proving positive intent is almost impossible, since intent is a private mental state to which others do not have access--this is an example of regulation that the wealthy have convinced lawmakers to legislate on their behalf, as it is a major loophole through which the most downright obviously bad behavior nevertheless gets through, and the beneficiaries thereof are almost always the 1%-ers.

Due to the nature of the ruling, we don't know, and won't ever know, whether the jury in the case would have ruled that the government sufficiently proved intent. Nevertheless, the facts are pretty obviously damning: Enron had for years been engaged in fantasy-land accounting schemes that were collapsing the company, and Arthur Andersen had been allowing them to get away with it. An SEC investigation was in the works, and Andersen then shredded, on David Duncan's orders, records pertaining to work they had done for Enron.

Duncan admitted in his testimony at trial that he ordered the records be shredded so they would not be available to the SEC investigators.

The Supreme Court overturned the Andersen conviction because that in itself is not illegal. It clearly ought to be, though (see remarks above about laws that the wealthy have had legislated on their behalf).

I have no idea what the comment is about creatively criminalizing what Merrill Lynch and Enron did with the Nigerian barges. It was clearly illegal--it's fraud to report a loan to the SEC as a sale with profits, and a bunch of investors lost their shirts as a result of Enron and Merrill lying to them. The executives in question should have received roughly the same sentence that would be imposed on someone who steals millions of dollars from regular folks--I'm guessing that'd be around 30-40 years.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
You should really look at why the USSC overturned the Andersen verdict. The judge at trial gave the jury faulty instructions (that is, instructions that were not consistent with federal law), and that is why they overturned the Andersen conviction. They did not overturn the Andersen conviction because they thought the government put on a bad case, or because they thought Andersen actually innocent. The judge failed to instruct the jury that the government had the burden, under federal law, of showing that Andersen intended to break the law by shredding records. Proving positive intent is almost impossible, since intent is a private mental state to which others do not have access--this is an example of regulation that the wealthy have convinced lawmakers to legislate on their behalf, as it is a major loophole through which the most downright obviously bad behavior nevertheless gets through, and the beneficiaries thereof are almost always the 1%-ers.

Due to the nature of the ruling, we don't know, and won't ever know, whether the jury in the case would have ruled that the government sufficiently proved intent. Nevertheless, the facts are pretty obviously damning: Enron had for years been engaged in fantasy-land accounting schemes that were collapsing the company, and Arthur Andersen had been allowing them to get away with it. An SEC investigation was in the works, and Andersen then shredded, on David Duncan's orders, records pertaining to work they had done for Enron.

Duncan admitted in his testimony at trial that he ordered the records be shredded so they would not be available to the SEC investigators.

The Supreme Court overturned the Andersen conviction because that in itself is not illegal. It clearly ought to be, though (see remarks above about laws that the wealthy have had legislated on their behalf).

I have no idea what the comment is about creatively criminalizing what Merrill Lynch and Enron did with the Nigerian barges. It was clearly illegal--it's fraud to report a loan to the SEC as a sale with profits, and a bunch of investors lost their shirts as a result of Enron and Merrill lying to them. The executives in question should have received roughly the same sentence that would be imposed on someone who steals millions of dollars from regular folks--I'm guessing that'd be around 30-40 years.
Click to expand...

The DOJ screwed it up. They know the rules. Why would they stoop to the tactics that they did if they had a solid case? You are correct. We don't know how the jury would ahve ruled if they had the proper instructions but we could assume that they would have thrown out the case. Again that is an assumption. I will stand by my claims. Weissmann is a bad actor. The most Duncan would have received for shredding documents is obstruction. That doesn't give validity to all of the allegations made during the trial.
 
NonoBadDog said:
The DOJ screwed it up. They know the rules. Why would they stoop to the tactics that they did if they had a solid case? You are correct. We don't know how the jury would ahve ruled if they had the proper instructions but we could assume that they would have thrown out the case. Again that is an assumption. I will stand by my claims. Weissmann is a bad actor. The most Duncan would have received for shredding documents is obstruction. That doesn't give validity to all of the allegations made during the trial.
Click to expand...

Tactics? You mean, bringing a case to trial in a court of law? I've no idea what your point could be here.

The judge was the screw up in the Andersen trial, as the USSC decision makes clear. The conviction was not overturned due to anything the prosecutors did. Judges issue instructions to juries, not prosecutors.

I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your post; it's not clear enough that I know what you're saying--not to mention that you ignored roughly 70% of my post, so while the claims you "stand by" have at least been rebutted, you're leaving mine to stand. Not that there's much you could say in response anyway, but feel free to try.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Tactics? You mean, bringing a case to trial in a court of law? I've no idea what your point could be here.

The judge was the screw up in the Andersen trial, as the USSC decision makes clear. The conviction was not overturned due to anything the prosecutors did. Judges issue instructions to juries, not prosecutors.

I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your post; it's not clear enough that I know what you're saying--not to mention that you ignored roughly 70% of my post, so while the claims you "stand by" have at least been rebutted, you're leaving mine to stand. Not that there's much you could say in response anyway, but feel free to try.
Click to expand...

You ignored most of my original post. I replied to the relevant parts of your post. You choose to ignore what you choose to ignore. That isn't my problem.
 
NonoBadDog said:
You ignored most of my original post. I replied to the relevant parts of your post. You choose to ignore what you choose to ignore. That isn't my problem.
Click to expand...

The only thing I "ignored" in your original post was this:

Mueller knows this history. Is this why he tapped Weissmann to target Paul Manafort?"
Click to expand...

But given what I wrote, there's no need to respond to this, because it's obviated. I'm sure Mueller does know the history, and unlike you and the author of that Hill piece, he has likely actually read the USSC decision on Andersen.

In any case, a couple lines is not "most" of your post. You posted a bunch of shoddily supported propaganda (most of it direct quotes from the Hill piece), and now you're trying to shore it up when obviously you cannot. To repeat:

1. Weissmann was not the problem in the Andersen trial--the judge was, as the USSC decision clearly indicates. Here's the text of the decision:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZS.html

2. The law by which the Andersen decision was overturned is corrupt in the first place, for reasons already explained. This is a simple case of cui bono. Prosecutors should not have to prove intent, and what Andersen did ought to be illegal, even if technically it was not. The guy who ordered the documents be shredded admitted at trial that he did so in order to make them unavailable to the SEC investigation.

3. Similarly, there was no fancy legal footwork in the Merrill Lynch case--the Nigerian barge deal was clearly illegal, and the Merrill execs ought to have gotten more time than they did. Here's a very simple summary of what happened:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nigerian-barge-deal.asp

Those points cover your entire post, either directly or by fairly simple inference. By inference? See above on the question about Mueller for an example--I didn't respond directly, but in light of the points I did make, the question and the point lurking behind it lose all force. There's no reason to think Mueller or Weissmann are or were up to any shenanigans, at least not that you've posted in this thread.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
The only thing I "ignored" in your original post was this:



But given what I wrote, there's no need to respond to this, because it's obviated. I'm sure Mueller does know the history, and unlike you and the author of that Hill piece, he has likely actually read the USSC decision on Andersen.

In any case, a couple lines is not "most" of your post. You posted a bunch of shoddily supported propaganda (most of it direct quotes from the Hill piece), and now you're trying to shore it up when obviously you cannot. To repeat:

1. Weissmann was not the problem in the Andersen trial--the judge was, as the USSC decision clearly indicates. Here's the text of the decision:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZS.html

2. The law by which the Andersen decision was overturned is corrupt in the first place, for reasons already explained. This is a simple case of cui bono. Prosecutors should not have to prove intent, and what Andersen did ought to be illegal, even if technically it was not. The guy who ordered the documents be shredded admitted at trial that he did so in order to make them unavailable to the SEC investigation.

3. Similarly, there was no fancy legal footwork in the Merrill Lynch case--the Nigerian barge deal was clearly illegal, and the Merrill execs ought to have gotten more time than they did. Here's a very simple summary of what happened:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nigerian-barge-deal.asp

Those points cover your entire post, either directly or by fairly simple inference. By inference? See above on the question about Mueller for an example--I didn't respond directly, but in light of the points I did make, the question and the point lurking behind it lose all force. There's no reason to think Mueller or Weissmann are or were up to any shenanigans, at least not that you've posted in this thread.
Click to expand...

Here is a better description in what happened in the Nigerian barge case:
"The witness intimidation issue has been festering throughout both of the prior Enron-related criminal trials. It first arose in connection with the trial of the Nigerian Barge case in which the Task Force effectively suppressed exculpatory testimony for the defendants in that case by fingering as unindicted co-conspirators dozens of former Enron and Merrill Lynch executives who were involved in the transaction that was the basis of the prosecution. Every one of the unindicted co-conspirators declined to testify in the Nigerian Barge trial on the basis of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Consequently, four Merrill Lynch executives are serving prison sentences without having had the opportunity to present substantial amounts of exculpatory testimony and related evidence to the jury.

Then, as noted in this earlier post, the witness intimidation issue boiled over in public during the trial of the Enron Broadband case when former Enron Broadband engineer Lawrence Ciscon dramatically testified that Enron Task Force prosecutors had repeatedly threatened him and had fingered him as a target of an indictment in attempting to dissuade him from testifying on behalf of the five Enron Broadband defendants. That dramatic testimony came on the heels of the Task Force eliciting false testimony from former Enron Broadband co-CEO Ken Rice during that trial, which was then followed by the Task Force threatening another witness in connection with her testimony regarding Rice's false testimony. As noted in this post, The Enron Broadband jury ultimately acquitted the defendants on some of the charges and could not reach a decision on the balance of the charges, resulting in re-trials of the defendants next year."
The Complete Humiliation Of The Enron Task Force - Business Insider
 
NonoBadDog said:
Here is a better description in what happened in the Nigerian barge case:
"The witness intimidation issue has been festering throughout both of the prior Enron-related criminal trials. It first arose in connection with the trial of the Nigerian Barge case in which the Task Force effectively suppressed exculpatory testimony for the defendants in that case by fingering as unindicted co-conspirators dozens of former Enron and Merrill Lynch executives who were involved in the transaction that was the basis of the prosecution. Every one of the unindicted co-conspirators declined to testify in the Nigerian Barge trial on the basis of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Consequently, four Merrill Lynch executives are serving prison sentences without having had the opportunity to present substantial amounts of exculpatory testimony and related evidence to the jury.

Then, as noted in this earlier post, the witness intimidation issue boiled over in public during the trial of the Enron Broadband case when former Enron Broadband engineer Lawrence Ciscon dramatically testified that Enron Task Force prosecutors had repeatedly threatened him and had fingered him as a target of an indictment in attempting to dissuade him from testifying on behalf of the five Enron Broadband defendants. That dramatic testimony came on the heels of the Task Force eliciting false testimony from former Enron Broadband co-CEO Ken Rice during that trial, which was then followed by the Task Force threatening another witness in connection with her testimony regarding Rice's false testimony. As noted in this post, The Enron Broadband jury ultimately acquitted the defendants on some of the charges and could not reach a decision on the balance of the charges, resulting in re-trials of the defendants next year."
The Complete Humiliation Of The Enron Task Force - Business Insider
Click to expand...

The articles you have posted so far are all propaganda. You may notice that I took care to link to neutral sources, not cheerleaders for the 1% who would love to be able to do what Enron mostly got away with doing without fear of incrimination. Business Insider is a cheerleader for those types. The claims in the article are one-sided to the point of absurdity, and the holes in logic are stunning. For example, take this part:

Every one of the unindicted co-conspirators declined to testify in the Nigerian Barge trial on the basis of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Click to expand...

The logic is supposed to work that prosecutors leaned on these potential witnesses and threatened to charge them if they gave exculpatory testimony, so they took their fifth amendment rights. Already the reader should be doing a "wtf"? If they had not themselves been guilty of a crime, they should not have feared to give testimony. The only way that kind of pressure could work is if these witnesses themselves at least strongly suspected they would be convicted by a jury. In the meantime, given that they did not testify, is there a single shred of evidence that they would have offered exculpatory testimony? Obviously not. So the author of these articles you've posted is spinning faster than an acme top greased with KY jelly...and not doing nearly as good a job at it. These flaws in logic are right on the surface, such that anyone not already in the iron grip of some ideology ought to spot them immediately. And leaving those aside, the bit you've posted is based entirely on the claims of a man who might have an ulterior motive for making these kinds of claims. How that qualifies as a "better description" is beyond me.

Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely) all the links that are presumably supposed to substantiate the claims in the second paragraph (about the broadband trial) are broken.

Anyway, just so it doesn't get lost: the laws under which these guys mostly escaped prosecution are already corrupt themselves. One does not have to prove intent in rape, armed robbery, burgulary, etc.
 
ashurbanipal said:
The articles you have posted so far are all propaganda. You may notice that I took care to link to neutral sources, not cheerleaders for the 1% who would love to be able to do what Enron mostly got away with doing without fear of incrimination. Business Insider is a cheerleader for those types. The claims in the article are one-sided to the point of absurdity, and the holes in logic are stunning. For example, take this part:



The logic is supposed to work that prosecutors leaned on these potential witnesses and threatened to charge them if they gave exculpatory testimony, so they took their fifth amendment rights. Already the reader should be doing a "wtf"? If they had not themselves been guilty of a crime, they should not have feared to give testimony. The only way that kind of pressure could work is if these witnesses themselves at least strongly suspected they would be convicted by a jury. In the meantime, given that they did not testify, is there a single shred of evidence that they would have offered exculpatory testimony? Obviously not. So the author of these articles you've posted is spinning faster than an acme top greased with KY jelly...and not doing nearly as good a job at it. These flaws in logic are right on the surface, such that anyone not already in the iron grip of some ideology ought to spot them immediately. And leaving those aside, the bit you've posted is based entirely on the claims of a man who might have an ulterior motive for making these kinds of claims. How that qualifies as a "better description" is beyond me.

Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely) all the links that are presumably supposed to substantiate the claims in the second paragraph (about the broadband trial) are broken.

Anyway, just so it doesn't get lost: the laws under which these guys mostly escaped prosecution are already corrupt themselves. One does not have to prove intent in rape, armed robbery, burgulary, etc.
Click to expand...

The article you used was propaganda. The one I referred to was an honest depiction of the events.
 
NonoBadDog said:
The article you used was propaganda. The one I referred to was an honest depiction of the events.
Click to expand...

What article I used was propaganda? I linked to an investopedia article and a Supreme Court decision. Feel free to say what's propaganda about either of those. In the meantime, all you're doing here is making assertions, while I've offered reasoned argument, as just about anyone would recognize.
 
Deuce said:
Coverup blown. Nice try, Trump :lamo
Click to expand...

QUESTION

What walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, hangs around with ducks, went to duck school, and spends a good part of the day singing "I enjoy being a duck!"?​

ANSWER

"A snowmobile."

- Kelly Ann Conway​

NEXT ANSWER

"When I said 'snowmobile' I didn't mean 'SNOWmobile'."

- Kelly Ann Conway
​

NEXT ANSWER

"When I said that when I said 'snowmobile' I didn't mean 'SNOWmobile' I didn't want you to confuse it with 'snowMOBILE'."

- Kelly Ann Conway
​

NEXT ANSWER

"The 'snowmobile' topic is old news and I don't know why you keep harping on it."

-Kelly Ann Conway

​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom