• 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!

Special counsel Robert Mueller to make statement Wednesday on the Russia probe, his first public com

Tanngrisnir said:
No one. Where did I ever state otherwise? It's not a criminal charge, so by definition no one can be indicted for it.
Click to expand...

You're right it's not a criminal charge, so all your talk of Mueller documenting "collusion" is a waste of time. There are only two relevant facts from the Mueller report,

1) "did not establish" ....... "conspiracy or coordination",

2) The AG and the AAG reviewed Mueller's OoJ evidence and said no.
 
Cordelier said:
If that was the case - there was nothing wrong and nothing to hide... then why lie about it? Why lie to the Vice President and the WH Press Secretary?
Click to expand...

So now you get the actual point you wanted to make. Why don't you make your assertion and defend it instead of asking questions about the thing you brought up?
 
hanger4 said:
You're right it's not a criminal charge, so all your talk of Mueller documenting "collusion" is a waste of time. There are only two relevant facts from the Mueller report,

1) "did not establish" ....... "conspiracy or coordination",

2) The AG and the AAG reviewed Mueller's OoJ evidence and said no.
Click to expand...

Which is utterly irrelevant to the simple fact that the report established and demonstrated collusion. That collusion supports the assertion that twump committed impeachable offenses.

This seems to fill twump worshipers with impotent rage, since they cannot face that simple reality.

Like, bummer, man.
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
Your intellectual dishonesty is duly noted for the record. The points cited are all collusion despite your rather unbalance pathological rejection of that simple reality.

There's nothing more to be gained here by demonstrating your inability to face facts over and over and over again. That, and you should really learn what 'appeal to the stone' actually means and how to use it.

Go ahead and have the last word. It's pretty clear that you need it.
Click to expand...

You have been looking for an excuse to run from this argument since I asked you actually back something you are asserting with independent thought.

Onto Point 4.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

This is false because Manafort didn't report this information to the greater campaign nor the candidate. "Expectation" is a pretty murky word and argues to intent which is also nearly impossible to prove, which is why Mueller leaned so heavily on Manafort's son to get concessions from him---IE to force him to say what Mueller wanted him to say.

While I dislike Manafort intensely, using family as leverage in a legal matter is slimy in this caliber of case.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
So, IOW, it was collusion, as any rational, intellectually honest adult can recognize.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy rejected. Rational, intelligent, honest adults have not recognized it as collusion.

Any more false logic you want pass off as discussion?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Why don't back your assertions instead of asking me to back their refutation before you have done anything?
Click to expand...

*LOL* Do you even know what you're talking about? Because I sure as hell don't.

If violating the Logan Act and sneaking around and undercutting President Obama's foreign policy decisions wasn't a big deal... then why lie about doing so? Why lie to the Vice President and the WH Press Secretary? Why commit a Federal crime by lying to the FBI?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Which is utterly irrelevant to the simple fact that the report established and demonstrated collusion. That collusion supports the assertion that twump committed impeachable offenses.

This seems to fill twump worshipers with impotent rage, since they cannot face that simple reality.

Like, bummer, man.
Click to expand...

Got da love it, "supports the assertion", what supports this assertion Tanngrisnir "did not establish" ... "conspiracy or coordination" ??
 
hanger4 said:
Got da love it, "supports the assertion", what supports this assertion Tanngrisnir "did not establish" ... "conspiracy or coordination" ??
Click to expand...

Yawn. I don't have to establish anything. The Mueller Report does that for me. Collusion was established, as was OOJ. Those are impeachable offenses not matter how much that infuriates you.

Gotta love how twump worshipers haven't read the report and fear its contents.
 
Cordelier said:
*LOL* Do you even know what you're talking about? Because I sure as hell don't.

If violating the Logan Act and sneaking around and undercutting President Obama's foreign policy decisions wasn't a big deal... then why lie about doing so? Why lie to the Vice President and the WH Press Secretary? Why commit a Federal crime by lying to the FBI?
Click to expand...
Yeah, going to call bs. You started all this off by asking the general question "did he violate the Logan Act?" With no specifics. So you went into this with something specific you wanted to make a point about. Just make the point don't play this game where I need to refute you before you even tried to make an assertion. It's just a lazy way to debate.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yeah, going to call bs. You started all this off by asking the general question "did he violate the Logan Act?" With no specifics. So you went into this with something specific you wanted to make a point about. Just make the point don't play this game where I need to refute you before you even tried to make an assertion. It's just a lazy way to debate.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why don't you just say you don't want to answer the question?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. I don't have to establish anything. The Mueller Report does that for me. Collusion was established, as was OOJ. Those are impeachable offenses not matter how much that infuriates you.

Gotta love how twump worshipers haven't read the report and fear its contents.
Click to expand...

Collusion was established and collusion's not illegal and that's an impeachable offence ?? Yeah, tell the House Majority to run with that.

And the OoJ Trump may have committed, the AG and AAG say otherwise.
 
Cordelier said:
Why don't you just say you don't want to answer the question?
Click to expand...

Why didn't you just start with the questions instead of using the tactics you did? Why don't you prove the Logan act was violated? Why don't you try to prove what you are asserting before you DEMAND I give evidence of someone's intent and thought processes, which there is no way of knowing.

You want to have honest conversation, you don't engage in the sort of things you are.

Last but not least, any policy that could possibly be established would, as a necessity, be done after Trump is in office, so violating the Logan act is an impossible act because policy cannot be set until in office.

PPS under your asserted rules, Obama violated the Logan Act with his interference in Iraq.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Why didn't you just start with the questions instead of using the tactics you did? Why don't you prove the Logan act was violated? Why don't you try to prove what you are asserting before you DEMAND I give evidence of someone's intent and thought processes, which there is no way of knowing.

You want to have honest conversation, you don't engage in the sort of things you are.

Last but not least, any policy that could possibly be established would, as a necessity, be done after Trump is in office, so violating the Logan act is an impossible act because policy cannot be set until in office.

PPS under your asserted rules, Obama violated the Logan Act with his interference in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Opportunity... I'm fast coming to the conclusion that you're not worth talking to.

Do you really want to be in the same league with marke?
 
Cordelier said:
Opportunity... I'm fast coming to the conclusion that you're not worth talking to.

Do you really want to be in the same league with marke?
Click to expand...

Just say what you want to say, don't couch things in open ended questions to elicit agreement. If you have something specific in mind, just state it plainly.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. I don't have to establish anything. The Mueller Report does that for me. Collusion was established, as was OOJ. Those are impeachable offenses not matter how much that infuriates you.

Gotta love how twump worshipers haven't read the report and fear its contents.
Click to expand...

What specific acts of collusion does the report 'establish' that Trump, himself, engaged in?
 
hanger4 said:
Collusion was established and collusion's not illegal and that's an impeachable offence ?? Yeah, tell the House Majority to run with that.

And the OoJ Trump may have committed, the AG and AAG say otherwise.
Click to expand...

Wow. What IS it w/fake conservatives and irrelevancy? You guys just can't help yourselves.

Mueller wrote the report so that congress could take it and continue investigations into his crimes. 8 of the OOJ instances meet all three elements necessary for the crime.

The House majority is running with it.

Pweeze pay better attention.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Wow. What IS it w/fake conservatives and irrelevancy? You guys just can't help yourselves.

Mueller wrote the report so that congress could take it and continue investigations into his crimes. 8 of the OOJ instances meet all three elements necessary for the crime.

The House majority is running with it.

Pweeze pay better attention.
Click to expand...

1) Your use of the word "collusion" is what's irrelevant.

2) Mueller's job was to investigate and report his findings to the DOJ. Mueller concluded no conspiracy or coordination and punted on OoJ. Barr and Rosenstein reviewed the evidence and concluded no OoJ.

3) The House Majority has yet to begin impeachment proceedings, they're running the clock, the investigation is complete.

4) Partisan tripe, dismissed.
 
hanger4 said:
1) Your use of the word "collusion" is what's irrelevant.

2) Mueller's job was to investigate and report his findings to the DOJ. Mueller concluded no conspiracy or coordination and punted on OoJ. Barr and Rosenstein reviewed the evidence and concluded no OoJ.

3) The House Majority has yet to begin impeachment proceedings, they're running the clock, the investigation is complete.

4) Partisan tripe, dismissed.
Click to expand...

LOL!

A. No, it's not irrelevant, since the report demonstrates a LOT of collusion.
B. I've never made any claims about conspiracy, other than he couldn't get enough evidence to warrant a charge. There's your penchant for irrelevancy again! Yay!
C. They're continuing to investigate. To deny this is to admit you're a liar. Which is fun.
D. 'partsian tripe' from a guy who literally worships twump as a god? MORE fun!
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL!

A. No, it's not irrelevant, since the report demonstrates a LOT of collusion.
B. I've never made any claims about conspiracy, other than he couldn't get enough evidence to warrant a charge. There's your penchant for irrelevancy again! Yay!
C. They're continuing to investigate. To deny this is to admit you're a liar. Which is fun.
D. 'partsian tripe' from a guy who literally worships twump as a god? MORE fun!
Click to expand...

A. Collusion is irrelevant, it's not a crime, which is what the investigation was all about.

B. Correct, no evidence to indict. Still no crime.

C. There's no reason to investigate the investigation is done. Mueller's work is far more reaching than a congressional committee.

D. More partisan tripe, dismissed.
 
hanger4 said:
A. Collusion is irrelevant, it's not a crime, which is what the investigation was all about.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It demonstrates the willingness of twump and his campaign to benefit from Russian interference in the election on his behalf. The report specifically stated he welcomed it. That's impeachable.
B. Correct, no evidence to indict. Still no crime.
Click to expand...

Impeachable offenses. Not that you'd care. You worship the man
C. There's no reason to investigate the investigation is done. Mueller's work is far more reaching than a congressional committee.
Click to expand...

LOL! No, the investigation's not done, and congress can go far, FAR further that Mueller ever could. To say nothing of the 28 other state and federal investigations into twump, his family, his businesses, his taxes, his campaign and his inauguration. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
D. More partisan tripe, dismissed.
Click to expand...

Says the twump worshiper who offers nothing but partisan tripe.

Priceless.
 
American said:
There is so much that you don't know about the handling of the classified data, the govt secure network systems and the regulations that every single govt employee is trained (annually) to abide by, that you support this absolute erroneous crap about Hillary. Every single govt employee and military person that deals in handling of classified data and the classification process KNOWS what she did would put everyone else behind bars. Comey made the argument that they couldn't prove INTENT on the part of Hillary. Well 1) INTENT plays no role in the law whatsoever, and he ****ing knows that; 2) the way the secure networks are setup, there was no way the classified data could have gotten onto her private unsecure email server without being done INTENTionally. There is ZERO ZERO ZERO possibility of it getting onto her system without INTENTional spillage; and 3) she was given the same training as everyone else, probably even more, so she KNEW what she was doing. This wasn't her first rodeo, she was a US senator on the Intelligence Committee. Probably even had a clearance as First Lady (guessing). 4) Strzok changed the wording from "GROSS NEGLIGENCE" (actually part of the law) to "EXTREME CARELESSNESS". Comey absolutely let her off the hook. 5) Hillary, as Sec State, was a classification authority; meaning she could classify anything she produced or her department produced. Only a classifying authority can declassify the data they classify. Her office was a Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), so she was producing classified data right in her office. You don't get to do that job without a thorough knowledge of how to handle classified data............so everything is intentional. Having the classification headers removed from emails, doesn't declassify them.

SHE ABSOLUTELY BROKE THE LAW!

Beyond Hillary, what did Obama know?
Click to expand...

the FBI and DOJ disagree with your conclusion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom