• 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!

Giuliani says he is joining Trump's legal team to help bring Mueller probe to a conclusion

Giuliani is nothing but an old, fat, over weight, angry, old white guy; exactly what the GOP stands for.

The world will be a better place once he is gone.
 
Moderate Right said:
If Mueller is not after Trump then there is really no reason for him to need to interview Trump, other than trying to entrap Trump into something. And, if he has to entrap Trump into something then that means he doesn't have enough evidence to charge Trump with anything unless he can entrap Trump into saying something incriminating.
Click to expand...

Excellent critical thinking skills at play here...
Good post, MR.

Trump's legal team should strongly advocate against Trump sitting down for a "friendly chat" with Mueller's team.
 
Moderate Right said:
Doesn't matter how technical you want to get. You know darn well what I meant.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't. Do you mean "entrap" as in

  1. "convince to engage in a criminal enterprise which the 'entrapped' person would not have engaged in absent the intervention of law enforcement agencies", or
  2. "encourage the person who engaged in a criminal enterprise admit that they had engaged in that criminal enterprise by showing them the evidence that you have collected that indicates that they did so"?

The first is something that is not permitted by law and the second is perfectly proper.

If you believe that there is something improper about the second, then you are going to have to write a whole new book on what law enforcement agencies, investigators, prosecutors, and the courts are allowed to do in the legal system since it would be "improper" to convict anyone who does not come forward of their own volition and confess as to use anything other than the accused person's voluntary confession would constitute "entrapment".

If you do NOT believe that there is something improper about then second, then I fail to understand what your objection to it is.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Actually I don't. Do you mean "entrap" as in

  1. "convince to engage in a criminal enterprise which the 'entrapped' person would not have engaged in absent the intervention of law enforcement agencies", or
  2. "encourage the person who engaged in a criminal enterprise admit that they had engaged in that criminal enterprise by showing them the evidence that you have collected that indicates that they did so"?

The first is something that is not permitted by law and the second is perfectly proper.

If you believe that there is something improper about the second, then you are going to have to write a whole new book on what law enforcement agencies, investigators, prosecutors, and the courts are allowed to do in the legal system since it would be "improper" to convict anyone who does not come forward of their own volition and confess as to use anything other than the accused person's voluntary confession would constitute "entrapment".

If you do NOT believe that there is something improper about then second, then I fail to understand what your objection to it is.
Click to expand...

You know darn well what I meant. Take the word entrap out if you want. Doesn't change a damn thing. You still know what I meant.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
you are using entrap because it makes trump a victim of a wrongful action and malicious intent.
Click to expand...

Trump may also be innocent of anything and yet open his big mouth and say something that could be used against him, even if it were not true. Access Hollywood tapes for example. They do not prove he actually did anything and yet the left tries to claim it as proof that he did. Not one woman has ever come forward to say that Trump grabbed her *****.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
you are using entrap because it makes trump a victim of a wrongful action and malicious intent.
Click to expand...

Use a different word if you want. I've already said that and I've already said that you know what I meant. Fact is, Mueller and the left are hoping that Trump says something they can use against him even if it isn't true and that's why they want him interviewed. They know Trump can say almost anything.
 
Moderate Right said:
You know darn well what I meant. Take the word entrap out if you want. Doesn't change a damn thing. You still know what I meant.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so what you meant by "entrap" was "investigate in order to obtain evidence which might result in a criminal prosecution and/or an admission of criminal conduct".

That sounds reasonable to me.

Why do you think that law enforcement agencies should NOT be allowed to "investigate in order to obtain evidence which might result in a criminal prosecution and/or an admission of criminal conduct"?

Or do you think that they should NOT be allowed to "investigate in order to obtain evidence which might result in a criminal prosecution and/or an admission of criminal conduct" if you happen to belong to the same political alignment as the person that the law enforcement agencies are "interested in"?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Ahh, so what you meant by "entrap" was "investigate in order to obtain evidence which might result in a criminal prosecution and/or an admission of criminal conduct".

That sounds reasonable to me.

Why do you think that law enforcement agencies should NOT be allowed to "investigate in order to obtain evidence which might result in a criminal prosecution and/or an admission of criminal conduct"?

Or do you think that they should NOT be allowed to "investigate in order to obtain evidence which might result in a criminal prosecution and/or an admission of criminal conduct" if you happen to belong to the same political alignment as the person that the law enforcement agencies are "interested in"?
Click to expand...

No. You know darn well what I meant. I even gave examples. You're just being like this on purpose because you are a rabid partisan who wants to get Trump no matter what the cost. I'll give your side some help though. If you investigate enough you may find that Trump may have bought cold diet cokes from a liquor store in Indiana, which violates the law. Even though the law is aimed at the liquor store, you might be able to prove that Trump colluded with the liquor store to buy cold diet cokes. Please pass this information on to Mueller and his team.

Strangest most ridiculous laws in America - Business Insider

"In Indiana, liquor stores can't sell cooled water or soda. However, they can sell unchilled soda, so expect warm Coke if you purchase it alongside your rum. The code specifically lists what types of beverages (and at what temperatures) permit-holding businesses can have in stock."

Or, Mueller may be able to get Trump on this:

"Don't cheat on your spouse in Michigan — it's illegal there. A statute on the books since 1931 makes adultery a felony— punishable by a maximum of four years in prison and a $5,000 fine. And if a married man sleeps with a single woman (or vice versa), even the unmarried party is considered guilty and liable for punishment."

Or this:

In Mississippi, swearing in front of two or more people in public could land you in jail for up to 30 days. Or you could pay a hefty fine to the state swear jar, no more than $100. While this law appears to be a direct assault on the First Amendment, it's thought to have been conceived in order to protect the public.

Or this:

Except for married couples, sex is completely banned in Virginia. No matter your age or your partner's, breaking this law results in a Class 4 misdemeanor.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
Trump may also be innocent of anything and yet open his big mouth and say something that could be used against him, even if it were not true. Access Hollywood tapes for example. They do not prove he actually did anything and yet the left tries to claim it as proof that he did. Not one woman has ever come forward to say that Trump grabbed her *****.
Click to expand...

lol is this a joke?
 
Moderate Right said:
No. Please name and provide proof of any woman who has come forward to say that Trump grabbed her *****.
Click to expand...

Jill Harth claimed Trump attempted to grab her *****.
Jessica Leeds claimed Trump attempted to grab her *****.
Kristin Anderson claimed Trump grabbed her *****.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Jill Harth claimed Trump attempted to grab her *****.
Jessica Leeds claimed Trump attempted to grab her *****.
Kristin Anderson claimed Trump grabbed her *****.
Click to expand...

Not good enough, you have to provide the name of someone who has actually come forward and actually claimed that Mr. Trump actually "grabbed her *****".

Attempts will not suffice.

Legal documents that do not use the specific term "grabbed my *****" will not suffice.

And, of course, unless that person can provide direct video evidence of Mr. Trump doing what she claims he did AND can prove that there is an "unbroken chain of custody" for that video evidence with 0.00000% chance of any alterations having been made to that video evidence, then Mr. Trump is**I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** until:

  1. he has actually been charged with a crime;
  2. AND he has been tried on the charge;
  3. AND he has been convicted at trial;
  4. AND he has appealed that conviction to the first appeal court level;
  5. AND he has lost that appeal;
  6. AND he has appealed that loss to the second appeal court level;
  7. AND he has lost that appeal;
  8. AND he has appealed that loss to the third appeal court level;
  9. AND he has lost that appeal;
  10. AND he has appealed that loss to the fourth appeal court level;
  11. AND he has lost that appeal;
  12. AND he has actually admitted that he is actually guilty;
  13. AND all possible rumours that he was coerced into saying that he was actually guilty have been 100% disproved;
  14. AND there is absolutely no remaining possibility that any facts which might conceivably have a theoretical chance of potentially showing that there is a slim shadow of a ghost of a suspicion that he might have been framed will emerge EVER.
 
Assclown defending assclown.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Jill Harth claimed Trump attempted to grab her *****.
Jessica Leeds claimed Trump attempted to grab her *****.
Kristin Anderson claimed Trump grabbed her *****.
Click to expand...

I think he's asking for video evidence.
 
Investigators inside the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller reacted with a mixture of skepticism and laughter at Rudy Giuliani’s claim that he will negotiate a swift end to Mueller’s probe of President Donald Trump and his alleged involvement in possible Russian election meddling and obstruction of justice, FOX Business has learned.
Click to expand...

As the former New York City mayor’s remarks made their way to Mueller’s investigators, they were said to be “amused,” according to one person with direct knowledge of the matter. Mueller’s team has signaled that its probe of Russia’s possible meddling in the 2016 presidential election is exploring new avenues presented by at least two cooperating witnesses and that there is little Giuliani can do to force Mueller’s hand, these people add.
Click to expand...

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...mused-as-giuliani-pledges-to-end-russia-probe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom