• 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!

U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outside gr

Athanasius68 said:
The standard is not to show innocence. The standard is to show guilt.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and they did, when they accepted Flynn's guilty plea. Flynn, in court, and under oath, admitted his guilt.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
It has already established that the leadership of the Obama DOJ and DNI did not see evidence that there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russia to fix the election. That is simple fact.
Click to expand...

It has already been established that you either don't know how investigations work or you are intentionally twisting the words of these officials to create propaganda in support of Trump. It is not a fact that the leadership of the so-called "Obama" DOJ and DNI did not see evidence that there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russia. There WAS evidence that made people suspect that there may have been a conspiracy between Trump and/or his campaign and Russia. It could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy, and there was no evidence suggesting a direct link between Trump personally and the Russian government. That's not the same thing has them not seeing ANY evidence that there was a conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
In light of the fact there WAS an investigation by the FBI, what did they know that those other folks didn't? And then why didn't Mueller have it when he took over?
Click to expand...

I think after an exhaustive investigation we can feel more comfortable saying there was likely not some sort of criminal conspiracy between Trump and/or his campaign and the Russian government to interfere in the election in Trump's favor.

But that doesn't mean the investigation was unwarranted, and that's exactly the kind of argument you've been trying to make. The evidence that made the investigation necessary in the first place doesn't cease to exist because they cannot find enough evidence to prove the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

And keep in mind that Trump's team lied and hid evidence and did all sorts of strange things that made the investigation difficult. Keep in mind that despite the fact they could not prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, the Special Counsel's investigation still uncovered a multitude of crimes...

For instance:

A total of thirty-four individuals and three companies were indicted by Mueller's investigators. Eight have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including five Trump associates and campaign officials. None of those five convictions "involved a conspiracy between the campaign and Russians" and "Mueller did not charge or suggest charges for [...] whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election". The investigation was, however, more complex. On May 29, 2019, In a press conference, Mueller stated that "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime... A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view – that too is prohibited."

Dozens of ongoing investigations originally handled by the Special Counsel's office were forwarded to district and state prosecutors, other Department of Justice (DoJ) branches, and other federal agencies.The following (in alphabetical order) were indicted during the Mueller investigation:

13 Russians implicated in election interference: Mueller's team indicted thirteen Russian citizens and three Russian entities, including the Internet Research Agency (IRA), for conducting social media campaigns about the U.S. elections, and twelve members of the Russian GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, for hacking and leaking DNC emails in June 2018. The other Russian indicted who was not a direct employee of Fancy Bear was Russian business tycoon Yevgeny Prigozhin, who was alleged to have served as the financier for the organization.

Maria Butina, who had claimed to be a Russian gun activist, was investigated by the Special Counsel investigators and then prosecuted by the National Security Law Unit. She was imprisoned for espionage after entering a guilty plea.

Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer, pled guilty to making hush payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal in violation of campaign finance laws, and was convicted for several unrelated counts of bank and tax fraud.

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who had been appointed as National Security Advisor by the incoming Trump administration, was dismissed from his position and later pled guilty to making false statements to FBI investigators about his conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition.

Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's business partner in Ukraine, was indicted for witness tampering at the behest of Manafort; Kilimnik is suspected of working for Russian intelligence.

Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman was found guilty on eight felony counts of tax evasion and bank fraud, pursuant to his earlier lobbying activities for the Party of Regions of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich. He later pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud and obstruction of justice; in total, he was sentenced to over seven years in jail in February 2018.

George Papadopoulos Trump campaign adviser was convicted for making false statements to the FBI.

Roger Stone, a longtime Trump advisor who had met with a Russian person offering to sell derogatory financial information about Hillary Clinton, was indicted on seven charges of lying to Congress and witness tampering. He pled not guilty. The jury subsequently found him guilty on all seven counts.
Click to expand...

Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) - Wikipedia

And if you go through the Special Counsel's report we can find many separate strands of evidence that Crossfire Hurricane found that Mueller later incorporated into his investigation.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:
It has already been established that you either don't know how investigations work or you are intentionally twisting the words of these officials to create propaganda in support of Trump. It is not a fact that the leadership of the so-called "Obama" DOJ and DNI did not see evidence that there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russia. There WAS evidence that made people suspect that there may have been a conspiracy between Trump and/or his campaign and Russia. It could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy, and there was no evidence suggesting a direct link between Trump personally and the Russian government. That's not the same thing has them not seeing ANY evidence that there was a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

That is not what was testified to. They were asked about any evidence they saw that would indicate Trump was conspiring with Russia and they all testified 'none.'
Denying that reality because of a belief that there MUST have been evidence because otherwise there would NOT have been an investigation doesn't really work.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
That is not what was testified to. They were asked about any evidence they saw that would indicate Trump was conspiring with Russia and they all testified 'none.'
Click to expand...

This is an inaccurate representation of what the various officials said. The people close to the investigation, if asked a question similar to this would say something like, "While there is no direct evidence linking Trump personally, there is significant indirect evidence suggesting some sort of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government."

Now, I haven't read every single transcript of every single official, in fact, I've read only about 3 to 4 of them from the list prior, but I know enough about this particular case, and enough about how investigations work, in general, to know that your characterization of what they said is inaccurate.

Now, if you can find a statement from any of the officials that says, "There is NO evidence AT ALL! The investigation was a hoax! MAGA!" then I'm all ears. Until then, I am not just going to blindly accept your assertions.

Denying that reality because of a belief that there MUST have been evidence because otherwise there would NOT have been an investigation doesn't really work.
Click to expand...

At no point throughout this thread or during the entire time I've been contributing to this forum have I ever wrote that "there must have been evidence otherwise there would not be an investigation." This is a strawman argument.

We all have access to the same information. Read the Special Counsel's report. The Special Counsel's report is chock-full of evidence and details significant evidence justifying Crossfire Hurricane such as the incidents involving George Papadopolous.

The more I talk to you the more I realize that you haven't actually read any of the material we are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:
This is an inaccurate representation of what the various officials said. The people close to the investigation, if asked a question similar to this would say something like, "While there is no direct evidence linking Trump personally, there is significant indirect evidence suggesting some sort of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government."

Now, I haven't read every single transcript of every single official, in fact, I've read only about 3 to 4 of them from the list prior, but I know enough about this particular case, and enough about how investigations work, in general, to know that your characterization of what they said is inaccurate.

Now, if you can find a statement from any of the officials that says, "There is NO evidence AT ALL! The investigation was a hoax! MAGA!" then I'm all ears. Until then, I am not just going to blindly accept your assertions.



At no point throughout this thread or during the entire time I've been contributing to this forum have I ever wrote that "there must have been evidence otherwise there would not be an investigation." This is a strawman argument.

We all have access to the same information. Read the Special Counsel's report. The Special Counsel's report is chock-full of evidence and details significant evidence justifying Crossfire Hurricane such as the incidents involving George Papadopolous.

The more I talk to you the more I realize that you haven't actually read any of the material we are talking about.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what actually constitutes "evidence".

I think that everyone agrees that - AT TRIAL - "evidence" consists of solid, verifiable, hard, facts presented by someone whose credibility is accepted.

HOWEVER, that is NOT what "evidence" means at the "investigation stage". At that stage, all that is required is an allegation that COULD BE TRUE coming from "a previously reliable source" (which, by the way, does NOT have to be named in order to obtain search/intercept warrants because all that is required is that the person requesting those warrants testify that they believe that the allegation MIGHT BE true [and is serious enough to justify finding out]).

There was lots of "evidence" that would have justified an investigation.

The facts that the investigation uncovered MIGHT have been a sufficiency of "evidence" to warrant charges and trials.

The POLICY of the DOJ prevented the investigators from saying whether they believed that the facts that the investigation uncovered MIGHT have been a sufficiency of "evidence" to warrant charges and trials.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TU Curmudgeon said:
The POLICY of the DOJ prevented the investigators from saying whether they believed that the facts that the investigation uncovered MIGHT have been a sufficiency of "evidence" to warrant charges and trials.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of how this policy might change as it relates to Congressional testimony, but I would like to add to your comment that I do know many of the questions directed at those testifying were about any indication of direct evidence or strongly compelling indirect evidence linking Trump, personally, to some possible conspiracy with the Russian government. And part of the reason why Republican Congressmen were asking the question in that way was to give political cover to Trump. And it's these questions and their corresponding answers that Trump supporters often have in mind when they say something like, "There was no evidence!"
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TU Curmudgeon said:
There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what actually constitutes "evidence".

I think that everyone agrees that - AT TRIAL - "evidence" consists of solid, verifiable, hard, facts presented by someone whose credibility is accepted.

HOWEVER, that is NOT what "evidence" means at the "investigation stage". At that stage, all that is required is an allegation that COULD BE TRUE coming from "a previously reliable source"

There was lots of "evidence" that would have justified an investigation.

The facts that the investigation uncovered MIGHT have been a sufficiency of "evidence" to warrant charges and trials.
Click to expand...

I think what you wrote is generally accurate in the abstract. I would like to also add though that with respect to the present case, the evidence is far stronger than the sort of bare minimum you describe. It's important Trump supporters know that the facts the investigations uncovered are more significant than "could be true."

As an example of what I'm talking about, let's look at Flynn: In 2015, Flynn took $45,000 from a Russian-government funded media organization and sat at the same table as Putin at a banquet. During a broader counterintelligence investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election Flynn also lied to White House officials about his conversations with a Russian ambassador, conversations that dealt with the sanctions, the elimination of which was the goal of Russia's interference.

Every single thing I mentioned is a fact that is true and has been verified to a great degree. These facts are independent of any investigation, or any theory of the case. They exist on their own. They continue to be facts, actual things that happened or are known to be true, without regard to any investigation, or trial, or law enforcement activity, or court proceeding.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:
I am not aware of how this policy might change as it relates to Congressional testimony, but I would like to add to your comment that I do know many of the questions directed at those testifying were about any indication of direct evidence or strongly compelling indirect evidence linking Trump, personally, to some possible conspiracy with the Russian government. And part of the reason why Republican Congressmen were asking the question in that way was to give political cover to Trump. And it's these questions and their corresponding answers that Trump supporters often have in mind when they say something like, "There was no evidence!"
Click to expand...

I suspect that the DOJ policy of letting the removal of the President of the United States of America be in the hands of Congress BEFORE pursuing criminal charges isn't likely to change. This, effectively, eliminates ANY prosecution of the President of the United States of America for ANY criminal offence while they are still the President of the United States of America and that is a situation that can be maintained to the end of the President's current term of office as long as they can get 37 Senators to back them up.

W_Heisenberg said:
I think what you wrote is generally accurate in the abstract. I would like to also add though that with respect to the present case, the evidence is far stronger than the sort of bare minimum you describe. It's important Trump supporters know that the facts the investigations uncovered are more significant than "could be true."
Click to expand...

I agree that the evidence most certainly appears stronger than the bare minimum to warrant an investigation, but the position of "Claque Trump" is

If the evidence is not strong enough to convict, and we can't tell that without a trial, and there was no trial, so that means that there is no evidence whatsoever and that means that any investigation was illegal.
​

W_Heisenberg said:
As an example of what I'm talking about, let's look at Flynn: In 2015, Flynn took $45,000 from a Russian-government funded media organization and sat at the same table as Putin at a banquet. During a broader counterintelligence investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election Flynn also lied to White House officials about his conversations with a Russian ambassador, conversations that dealt with the sanctions, the elimination of which was the goal of Russia's interference.

Every single thing I mentioned is a fact that is true and has been verified to a great degree. These facts are independent of any investigation, or any theory of the case. They exist on their own. They continue to be facts, actual things that happened or are known to be true, without regard to any investigation, or trial, or law enforcement activity, or court proceeding.
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant to "Claque Trump" because

If the evidence is not strong enough to convict, and we can't tell that without a trial, and there was no trial, so that means that there is no evidence whatsoever and that means that any investigation was illegal.
​
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:
This is an inaccurate representation of what the various officials said. The people close to the investigation, if asked a question similar to this would say something like, "While there is no direct evidence linking Trump personally, there is significant indirect evidence suggesting some sort of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government."

Now, I haven't read every single transcript of every single official, in fact, I've read only about 3 to 4 of them from the list prior, but I know enough about this particular case, and enough about how investigations work, in general, to know that your characterization of what they said is inaccurate.

Now, if you can find a statement from any of the officials that says, "There is NO evidence AT ALL! The investigation was a hoax! MAGA!" then I'm all ears. Until then, I am not just going to blindly accept your assertions.



At no point throughout this thread or during the entire time I've been contributing to this forum have I ever wrote that "there must have been evidence otherwise there would not be an investigation." This is a strawman argument.

We all have access to the same information. Read the Special Counsel's report. The Special Counsel's report is chock-full of evidence and details significant evidence justifying Crossfire Hurricane such as the incidents involving George Papadopolous.

The more I talk to you the more I realize that you haven't actually read any of the material we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the Obama DOJ and DNI were asked flat out whether they saw evidence, had knowledge of evidence, that would indicate that Trump and/or his campaign were conspiring with Russia.
And all said "No."
That's it.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TU Curmudgeon said:
There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what actually constitutes "evidence".

I think that everyone agrees that - AT TRIAL - "evidence" consists of solid, verifiable, hard, facts presented by someone whose credibility is accepted.

HOWEVER, that is NOT what "evidence" means at the "investigation stage". At that stage, all that is required is an allegation that COULD BE TRUE coming from "a previously reliable source" (which, by the way, does NOT have to be named in order to obtain search/intercept warrants because all that is required is that the person requesting those warrants testify that they believe that the allegation MIGHT BE true [and is serious enough to justify finding out]).

There was lots of "evidence" that would have justified an investigation.

The facts that the investigation uncovered MIGHT have been a sufficiency of "evidence" to warrant charges and trials.

The POLICY of the DOJ prevented the investigators from saying whether they believed that the facts that the investigation uncovered MIGHT have been a sufficiency of "evidence" to warrant charges and trials.
Click to expand...

The leadership from the Obama DOJ and DNI (not the guys doing the investigation, but rather supervising it) were interviewed under oath by Congress after they had left office.
They all testified that they saw nothing that would indicate Trump and/or his campaign was conspiring with Russia.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:
I am not aware of how this policy might change as it relates to Congressional testimony, but I would like to add to your comment that I do know many of the questions directed at those testifying were about any indication of direct evidence or strongly compelling indirect evidence linking Trump, personally, to some possible conspiracy with the Russian government. And part of the reason why Republican Congressmen were asking the question in that way was to give political cover to Trump. And it's these questions and their corresponding answers that Trump supporters often have in mind when they say something like, "There was no evidence!"
Click to expand...

Since the issue was whether Mr. Trump was conspiring with Russia, it would seems reasonable question to ask.
But they also included in the question the campaign in general.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TU Curmudgeon said:
I agree that the evidence most certainly appears stronger than the bare minimum to warrant an investigation, but the position of "Claque Trump" is

If the evidence is not strong enough to convict, and we can't tell that without a trial, and there was no trial, so that means that there is no evidence whatsoever and that means that any investigation was illegal.
​



Totally irrelevant to "Claque Trump" because

If the evidence is not strong enough to convict, and we can't tell that without a trial, and there was no trial, so that means that there is no evidence whatsoever and that means that any investigation was illegal.
​
Click to expand...

The argument is that the Obama folks THEMSELVES said they had nothing. Mr. Comey HIMSELF said he had no evidence.
It would seem kind of hard to argue that there was sufficient evidence to investigate when the guy doing doing the investigation is saying there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
The leadership from the Obama DOJ and DNI (not the guys doing the investigation, but rather supervising it) were interviewed under oath by Congress after they had left office.
They all testified that they saw nothing that would indicate Trump and/or his campaign was conspiring with Russia.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't, in the least, surprise me because the Russians are not dumb enough to "conspire" DIRECTLY with anyone even associated with someone of Mr. Trump's known personality type and reliability.

That, however, is NOT the same as saying that Mr. Trump and/or those associated with him would be in the least bit hesitant to "pick up the goodies that the Russians dropped where they could be found".

It doesn't make me happy to say it, but a "conspirator" would have been better (in the sense that it would be "better" to be dropped into water that was only 190 degrees than to be dropped into water that was 200 degrees) than a "dupe".

The evidence is that the Russians WERE intermeddling in the 2016 election. The evidence is that the Russians ARE LIKELY GOING TO BE intermeddling in the 2020 elections even more than they did in 2016.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
Like I said, the Obama DOJ and DNI were asked flat out whether they saw evidence, had knowledge of evidence, that would indicate that Trump and/or his campaign were conspiring with Russia. And all said "No." That's it.
Click to expand...

And like I said.

You're wrong.

They "all" didn't say that.

Take Strzok, for instance. I went back and skimmed his committee hearing transcript, and during his hearing, they kept asking him similar questions to what you're asking now, and he kept saying he'd respond in a classified setting, or that they should wait for the Mueller report. And I think Strzok is right. We should refer to the Mueller report. You should refer to the Mueller report. In that report it outlines a variety of evidence that indicates Trump and/or his campaign conspired with Russia.

You keep confusing the lack of sufficient evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with a total and complete lack of evidence.

They are two entirely different things. They saw evidence that made them suspicious. They followed those leads. Those leads eventually petered out and did not result in sufficient evidence to prove the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that they could not prove the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean the evidence that made them suspicious in the first place, or the other evidence they found during the investigation, simply ceases to exist. That's not how it works.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
Since the issue was whether Mr. Trump was conspiring with Russia, it would seems reasonable question to ask.
Click to expand...

It is a reasonable question to ask. I agree.

But they also included in the question the campaign in general.
Click to expand...

Well, having skimmed the Strzok testimony, I can say you're right. And Strzok said he couldn't answer the question in an unclassified setting.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
The argument is that the Obama folks THEMSELVES said they had nothing.
Click to expand...

They did not, in unison, say they had "nothing." This is a false statement.

Mr. Comey HIMSELF said he had no evidence.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said. And we know there was more than "no" evidence because it's in the Special Counsel's report.

You are basically writing pro-Trump propaganda.

It would seem kind of hard to argue that there was sufficient evidence to investigate when the guy doing doing the investigation is saying there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

He did not say there was "no" evidence of wrongdoing.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TU Curmudgeon said:
Which doesn't, in the least, surprise me because the Russians are not dumb enough to "conspire" DIRECTLY with anyone even associated with someone of Mr. Trump's known personality type and reliability.

That, however, is NOT the same as saying that Mr. Trump and/or those associated with him would be in the least bit hesitant to "pick up the goodies that the Russians dropped where they could be found".

It doesn't make me happy to say it, but a "conspirator" would have been better (in the sense that it would be "better" to be dropped into water that was only 190 degrees than to be dropped into water that was 200 degrees) than a "dupe".

The evidence is that the Russians WERE intermeddling in the 2016 election. The evidence is that the Russians ARE LIKELY GOING TO BE intermeddling in the 2020 elections even more than they did in 2016.
Click to expand...

Well, Russia did interfere in the election.
And the Obama Admin investigated whether the Trump campaign and then the Trump Transition was conspiring with that effort.

If we wish to argue whether the Trump folks would have been eager to pick up the "goodies" Russia dropped during their interference, ok. But then we have to consider this:
1. The Trump campaign picked up NO 'goodies" from Russia.
2. The Clinton campaign sought out "goodies" from Russia.
3. The Clinton campaign took "goodies" from Russia.
4. The Obama Admin took those "goodies" from Russia and used in court as evidence against an American AND used it as evidence in its Intelligence report as to what Russia was up to.
5. Mr. Schiff used these goodies from Russia and entered it in to the Congressional Record.

In other words, it would seem the Trump campaign was far more hesitant to pick up and use Russian "goodies" than were the Clinton campaign and Obama Admin and the (then) minority members of Congress.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
Well, Russia did interfere in the election.
And the Obama Admin investigated whether the Trump campaign and then the Trump Transition was conspiring with that effort.

If we wish to argue whether the Trump folks would have been eager to pick up the "goodies" Russia dropped during their interference, ok. But then we have to consider this:
1. The Trump campaign picked up NO 'goodies" from Russia.
2. The Clinton campaign sought out "goodies" from Russia.
3. The Clinton campaign took "goodies" from Russia.
4. The Obama Admin took those "goodies" from Russia and used in court as evidence against an American AND used it as evidence in its Intelligence report as to what Russia was up to.
5. Mr. Schiff used these goodies from Russia and entered it in to the Congressional Record.

In other words, it would seem the Trump campaign was far more hesitant to pick up and use Russian "goodies" than were the Clinton campaign and Obama Admin and the (then) minority members of Congress.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure that you believe all of those things. The fact that they fly in the face of reality, I am equally sure, will not dissuade you from believing them any more than there would be anything that would dissuade you from believing that Mr. Trump has done a super-duper, jumbo-deluxe, whizzer of a fine job of preventing millions of Americans from dying due to the non-existent so-called "COVID-19 crisis" or that the 2020 election was anything other then fraudulent should Mr. Trump not be re-elected and all of the so-called "Democrats" turfed out of office.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
Well, Russia did interfere in the election.
And the Obama Admin investigated whether the Trump campaign and then the Trump Transition was conspiring with that effort.

If we wish to argue whether the Trump folks would have been eager to pick up the "goodies" Russia dropped during their interference, ok. But then we have to consider this:
1. The Trump campaign picked up NO 'goodies" from Russia.
2. The Clinton campaign sought out "goodies" from Russia.
3. The Clinton campaign took "goodies" from Russia.
4. The Obama Admin took those "goodies" from Russia and used in court as evidence against an American AND used it as evidence in its Intelligence report as to what Russia was up to.
5. Mr. Schiff used these goodies from Russia and entered it in to the Congressional Record.

In other words, it would seem the Trump campaign was far more hesitant to pick up and use Russian "goodies" than were the Clinton campaign and Obama Admin and the (then) minority members of Congress.
Click to expand...

Game, Set, Match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom