Read: James Comey's memos

[PoliSciXtina]

Please don't tell me that you somehow thought I was posting anything other than my own analysis.

Obviously, at least to most, I never said that I know what he knows.

Others called you out on it as well. Instead of just admitting it, now you will deny you never said it?

"Of course Mueller's goal is to set up an impeachment, he can't indict him for anything. He knows there is nothing to the collusion BS."

This is you claiming that you know what Mueller knows. You are admitting to posting your own analyses, which is fine if that's what you were trying to do, but also admitting you never said what you said. Which is it? Pick one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xelor]

Read em....Get your memo's here!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/comey-memo-release/index.html

Looking for "collusion" or obstruction....Not seeing it....

See attachment.

 

[OscarLevant]

And after almost a full year of investigation, still no flipping and no target.
Go figure.

Watergate investigation was 2 years before it bore fruit. Be patient. Mueller is meticulous, and thorough, this is a guy you can't rush.

Whatever is there to be had, if there is anything to be had, he will get it. If not, then he will be cleared.

I'd be really surprised if Mueller didn't find anything on Trump, like money laundering, I mean, he's been selling quick flip condos to shell corps, within shell corps, traceable back to Russian Oligarchs, for years, the go to bank used was Deutschebank, which was fined $630 million for money laundering.

It would explain why he is so beholden to the russians, he's been propped up by them ( when American banks abandoned him) for years.


https://www.buzzfeed.com/thomasfran...ng-condos-to?utm_term=.hqxbR05QKn#.ngEvlEbwjN

If one journalist can dig up all this info, I can imagine what Mueller will find.

 

[cabse5]

Ignored? iLOL
Let me quote that post.

​

You cited an opinion.
1. It does not mean that opinion is correct.
2. It is an appeal to authority which a logical fallacy.
3. If you wish to continue down the path of letting a supposed legal authority make your argument for you then please note that Alan Dershowitz, who is far more a preeminent legal expert, disagrees.

Mike drop.

 

[cabse5]

in order to enlighten you, i cut out the middle man and cited the law.

If you don't like the law that trump broke. Work to change it.


Sent from my iphone using tapatalk

nm....

 

[cabse5]

Impeachment is not likely to happen with this congress unless an actual crime was committed, and as we now know Trump is not a target of investigation.


As for the second expert, Jeffrey Toobin? No where near Dershowitz.
And maybe you missed it, but "opposing opinion" is what I also pointing out.

Unless Mueller can get Trump sworn in and Trump lies.....but then again, Trump could ask for 'Hillary considerations' and ask not to be sworn in.

Side note: still waiting for indictments for Christopher Steele of Steele dossier fame for leaking to the press and lying to the FBI. Mebe the prosecution isn't pressing the issue with Steele because, if Steele were indicted, their case would evaporate? Elitists 2 common man 0.

 

[Winston]

Oy vey!
Your reply is as stupid as it is wrong, especially as that portion was already addressed.

They do not agree with you as that decision only addressed the law that was in effect at the time that pertained to the firing of an Independent counsel, not an FBI Director which we are discussing.
Secondly, the law that decision is based on no longer exists so it has no effect on any possible firing of Mueller by Trump.

Are you sure that decision doesn't set a precedent that would be used should Trump try something illegal?

 

[Anthony60]

Others called you out on it as well. Instead of just admitting it, now you will deny you never said it?

"Of course Mueller's goal is to set up an impeachment, he can't indict him for anything. He knows there is nothing to the collusion BS."

This is you claiming that you know what Mueller knows.

No, it's you lying about what I posted. Have you seen any posts here that say, "Trump thinks..." and then attacked them for claiming that they know exactly what Trump is thinking?

You are admitting to posting your own analyses, which is fine if that's what you were trying to do, but also admitting you never said what you said. Which is it? Pick one.

Haha, that's funny! If you can't understand simple stuff like that here, you really shouldn't be on a debate board.

 

[JasperL]

And? We know he is not now a target.

We know that he is also not a target of the Cohen investigation.

So again, "All this time and no such evidence has been presented to support such a claim."
After all this time, no such evidence exist in the hands of the investigators to make him a target.

Really? So who are all these anonymous sources the Press have been citing in relation to the investigation?
No. The OIG was good at not leaking. Team Pompeo was good at not leaking. Team Mueller? Not so much. Given the leaks that have occurred, any actual wrong doing by Trump would have immediately been leaked.

We don't know who has been leaking, but you can cite no evidence they're coming from Mueller's team. Two weeks ago, you'd be repeating over and over there is no evidence anyone was looking at Cohen, and then we heard about the raid, and found out he'd been a target for months. That's by far the biggest threat to Trump to emerge to this point, and NOTHING about that was leaked.

1. JFC Duh! No reason to state the obvious.

2. As for uncertainties? Four other indictments, no flips and Trump is still not a Target at this time. That is not an uncertainty.

It's awesome how you can read current events about which you are nearly entirely ignorant, and conclude things! It's a gift of yours I guess. I'm just curious, though, who is Gates flipping on, since you know things about which you are in fact ignorant, and what is he telling Mueller? Thanks!

No. It is an exercise in futility as this Congress is not likely to impeach. If you need that to be more specific, over non-crimes and actions that the majority do not consider a crime. The minority isn't going to have any sway over that.

DoJ rules and precedence are that they do not charge POTUS with crimes. You're limiting your discussion to whether Trump can be properly indicted on "obstruction" when the DoJ rules that Mueller is following says NO, he will not be indicted, and it wouldn't matter what they found. So it's not an exercise in futility to discuss impeachment. The exercise in futility is discussing indictment which the DoJ rules say will not happen with POTUS.

And the investigationS (Mueller and now SDNY) are ongoing. We'll see what the results are later.

No. One opinion will bear out while the other will not. Wait and see.

Yes, that's a statement of the obvious. With a binary choice, both can rarely be correct.

Let's see.
Hmmm? No obstruct has been shown. Yep no reason to address your comment.

What's hilarious with you is you selectively omit arguments you're unable to address, but include that one that you dismiss with sarcasm. Interesting and dishonest way to debate IMO.

Speculative nonsense with no basis.
The evidence we have in regards to obstruction is that Trump publicly started numerous times that he wanted the investigation to continue.
Even Comey's memos support Trumps claims.
So what do you have to dispute this actual evidence? Speculative bs?

And what do you have? Speculative bs. It's cute how you apply different standards to your own arguments.

What little we know of Mueller's investigation is he plans to issue a REPORT on obstruction related charges sometime this summer. It's not "speculative" to assume that report will cover more than Comey's firing. As you know that happened a year ago and that act alone isn't enough to sustain even an obstruction investigation, much less a report. You don't know what will be in that report, so any conclusions you have about that are....speculative bs.

No. I am not ignoring anything.
There is no reason to even suggest that will occur and thus has no bearing at this point in time.
Secondly is is absurd speculation as Trump is not a Target. Cohen is the target for something Mueller suspects is criminal. That is all at this time.
If that changes, fine, discuss it. Until then there exists no reason.

I addressed my concerns about the "target" stuff that you ignored.

 

[JasperL]

See attachment.

If you're going to post attachments like that, you should tell us what's in them. It appears to be a Word doc. Why should anyone trust that word doc and open it when you've got three posts on here?

 

[What if...?]

We don't know who has been leaking, but you can cite no evidence they're coming from Mueller's team. Two weeks ago, you'd be repeating over and over there is no evidence anyone was looking at Cohen, and then we heard about the raid, and found out he'd been a target for months. That's by far the biggest threat to Trump to emerge to this point, and NOTHING about that was leaked.



It's awesome how you can read current events about which you are nearly entirely ignorant, and conclude things! It's a gift of yours I guess. I'm just curious, though, who is Gates flipping on, since you know things about which you are in fact ignorant, and what is he telling Mueller? Thanks!



DoJ rules and precedence are that they do not charge POTUS with crimes. You're limiting your discussion to whether Trump can be properly indicted on "obstruction" when the DoJ rules that Mueller is following says NO, he will not be indicted, and it wouldn't matter what they found. So it's not an exercise in futility to discuss impeachment. The exercise in futility is discussing indictment which the DoJ rules say will not happen with POTUS.

And the investigationS (Mueller and now SDNY) are ongoing. We'll see what the results are later.



Yes, that's a statement of the obvious. With a binary choice, both can rarely be correct.



What's hilarious with you is you selectively omit arguments you're unable to address, but include that one that you dismiss with sarcasm. Interesting and dishonest way to debate IMO.



And what do you have? Speculative bs. It's cute how you apply different standards to your own arguments.

What little we know of Mueller's investigation is he plans to issue a REPORT on obstruction related charges sometime this summer. It's not "speculative" to assume that report will cover more than Comey's firing. As you know that happened a year ago and that act alone isn't enough to sustain even an obstruction investigation, much less a report. You don't know what will be in that report, so any conclusions you have about that are....speculative bs.



I addressed my concerns about the "target" stuff that you ignored.

Exxon replies compulsively.

I've drug him around by his compulsion til I got gigged for it.

(It was an experiment.)

 

[Mach]

How can you say that? Nothing I said was incorrect.

I accept your forfeiture.

 

[Mach]

SS is a failed idea, it borrows against the future, the military isn't socialism, it's a necessary function of Government.

A failed idea that no one has voted to end, that pays out to those who put in, that keeps millions of seniors out of absolute poverty...that’s obviously a successful policy.

Who claimed military as a government power was not a good thing? No one, you are making that up.
How much we spend, and how we spend it, is very much a debate that is alive and well.

 

[JasperL]

Exxon replies compulsively.

I've drug him around by his compulsion til I got gigged for it.

(It was an experiment.)

Yeah, I'm familiar with the drill, and I'm not sure what motivated me to engage. My wife is traveling, so there's that, but I do have other options - tying flies for example!

I blame Trump!

 

[Renae]

A failed idea that no one has voted to end, that pays out to those who put in, that keeps millions of seniors out of absolute poverty...that’s obviously a successful policy.

Who claimed military as a government power was not a good thing? No one, you are making that up.
How much we spend, and how we spend it, is very much a debate that is alive and well.

A success story... we will agree to disagree.

 

[Mach]

A success story... we will agree to disagree.

How has it failed though? Why keep it secret from us?

It's been in place for over 80 years with no signs of losing widespread public support.
It's "currently estimated to have reduced poverty for Americans age 65 or older from about 40% to below 10%".
It uses a regressive tax (better for wealthy), but pays out more progressive (better for lower income), even that looks to be a fairly balanced approach.


Know they will receive benefits 73% agree
Know they would have to support their elderly relatives if not for SS: 73%
Provides security and stability to millions of (disabled, retired, etc.): 81%

https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security

Looks like it's it's getting closer to a hundred years of benefits.

But you claim it's failed?
How specifically did it fail? Why keep this a secret...let the world know how you think what it is you think. Let us judge it on its merits.

 

[Renae]

How has it failed though? Why keep it secret from us?

It's been in place for over 80 years with no signs of losing widespread public support.
It's "currently estimated to have reduced poverty for Americans age 65 or older from about 40% to below 10%".
It uses a regressive tax (better for wealthy), but pays out more progressive (better for lower income), even that looks to be a fairly balanced approach.


Know they will receive benefits 73% agree
Know they would have to support their elderly relatives if not for SS: 73%
Provides security and stability to millions of (disabled, retired, etc.): 81%

https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-social-security

Looks like it's it's getting closer to a hundred years of benefits.

But you claim it's failed?
How specifically did it fail? Why keep this a secret...let the world know how you think what it is you think. Let us judge it on its merits.

Wide spread support, it's called fear and dependency. People have been forced to have a portion of their paycheck taken, whether they wanted it or not taken, and fear losing what they have lost. They fear, because they believe they have to have it, it's bull****, but that's what it is. Did you know most Americans have less then 10k personally saved to retire? Why? Cause of SS, which btw needs today's workers to pay for the benefits given out.

 

[Xelor]

If you're going to post attachments like that, you should tell us what's in them. It appears to be a Word doc. Why should anyone trust that word doc and open it when you've got three posts on here?

My response to the other member's post is what's in it. What it is is what you see is the "Word Post" image attached here. I uploaded it the way I did so readers would, as per forum rules, have access to the links to the sources for the content I cited, paraphrased or quoted.

I didn't previously state that expressly because I thought it'd be obvious what the document contains.

• I tried just posting my answer and the forum software said my response has too many character.
• I tried uploading it as a PDF and the forum software said the file was too large, but as an MS Word document it's not too large. I don't even understand why that is. The PDF file size. is 214 KB, yet the image below, when I save the image from a website, Windows Explorer indicates is about 500KB, making it more than double that size.
  
  When I copy the image above from the Internet, the post editor lets me paste it. When I copy it from my PC, it won't let me paste it. Similarly, when I make a screenshot, the editor won't let me paste the screenshot.

Hell, I've added the imaged in this post using the "manage attachments" feature. I'm now trying to delete one of them using it and God knows how to do that. It's not as though ticking the box and pressing delete or clicking on the image and pressing delete does it.

And, FWIW, I'm accustomed to the Xenforo web forum software, not the vBulletin software this one uses. (Frankly, vBulletin seems incredibly clunky, for lack of a better term.)

 

[Deuce]

That isn't obstruction even in how Comey framed the discussion.

The whole country watched six months earlier when Comey detailed a list of offenses perpetrated by Hillary Clinton and that COMEY, not the DOJ, had deemed her offenses not worthy of referral to the DOJ because Hillary was guilty of poor judgement rather than intentional law breaking. In fact, Comey states that they had already had a very detailed discussion about Comey's work with regard to the Hillary investigation in their previous meeting so the Flynn statement would have been intended to flow from Comey's dealings with Hillary. Trump indicating that Flynn was guilty of poor judgement and deserves the same consideration on a lesser offense isn't obstruction of justice, it is an appeal for what he believed would be justice.

And the clear evidence that the intent was not to obstruct is in the fact that he made no actual effort to close the Flynn investigation, and still hasn't. And Trump's argument still stands. He could legally grant Flynn a pardon at any time and end the Flynn sentencing hearing... and yet he doesn't.

Trump had been informed that Flynn was compromised the day before that meeting.
Trump tweeted that he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI.
Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when that conversation took place.
‘I hope you will let this go.”

 

[Winchester]

Wide spread support, it's called fear and dependency. People have been forced to have a portion of their paycheck taken, whether they wanted it or not taken, and fear losing what they have lost. They fear, because they believe they have to have it, it's bull****, but that's what it is. Did you know most Americans have less then 10k personally saved to retire? Why? Cause of SS, which btw needs today's workers to pay for the benefits given out.

We have SS because far too many people don't save, that hasn't changed.

Interesting Read:

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v48n1/v48n1p14.pdf

Conclusion
At first glance, the argument that social security reduces
private saving appears quite plausible. But as one
delves into the complexity of the saving process-the
effect of induced earlier retirement, other motives for
saving such as emergencies and bequests, shortsighted
planning, demonstration effects, and voluntary transfers
between generations-it becomes equally plausible
that social security may have little or no effect on private
saving, and indeed it may even increase saving.
The authors’ assessment is that if all available empirical
evidence-time-series, international comparisons,
and household surveys-is considered the evidence is inconclusive.
If only time-series data are considered, the
evidence fails to support the hypothesis that social security
has reduced saving. Again, it is important to interpret
these results carefully. These results do not prove
that social security has had no effect on private saving.
They do show, however, that the time-series data provide
little support for the claim that social security has
significantly depressed private saving in the United
States.

 

[JasperL]

My response to the other member's post is what's in it. What it is is what you see is the "Word Post" image attached here. I uploaded it the way I did so readers would, as per forum rules, have access to the links to the sources for the content I cited, paraphrased or quoted.

I didn't previously state that expressly because I thought it'd be obvious what the document contains.

• I tried just posting my answer and the forum software said my response has too many character.
• I tried uploading it as a PDF and the forum software said the file was too large, but as an MS Word document it's not too large. I don't even understand why that is. The PDF file size. is 214 KB, yet the image below, when I save the image from a website, Windows Explorer indicates is about 500KB, making it more than double that size.
  
  When I copy the image above from the Internet, the post editor lets me paste it. When I copy it from my PC, it won't let me paste it. Similarly, when I make a screenshot, the editor won't let me paste the screenshot.

Hell, I've added the imaged in this post using the "manage attachments" feature. I'm now trying to delete one of them using it and God knows how to do that. It's not as though ticking the box and pressing delete or clicking on the image and pressing delete does it.

And, FWIW, I'm accustomed to the Xenforo web forum software, not the vBulletin software this one uses. (Frankly, vBulletin seems incredibly clunky, for lack of a better term.)

OK, but what most of us do if the post exceeds 5000 characters is to split it up into multiple posts. And you should understand the reluctance to download and open a document from an unknown person with zero history on DP. Anyone who has any online security concerns at all won't do it, which includes me...

 

[zimmer]

Read em....Get your memo's here!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/comey-memo-release/index.html

Looking for "collusion" or obstruction....Not seeing it....

Another severely disappointing day for the retards on the Left.

I wonder how demented they’re going to get when Mueller reports there is nothing implicating Trump and his campaign? Phew... it’s gonna be ugly... and funny.

 

[Deuce]

Another severely disappointing day for the retards on the Left.

I wonder how demented they’re going to get when Mueller reports there is nothing implicating Trump and his campaign? Phew... it’s gonna be ugly... and funny.

I imagine it will be similar to your reaction when Hillary Clinton turned out not to have committed a crime.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Comey has something Trump can only dream of. Consistency.

 

[PoliSciXtina]

No, it's you lying about what I posted. Have you seen any posts here that say, "Trump thinks..." and then attacked them for claiming that they know exactly what Trump is thinking?


Haha, that's funny! If you can't understand simple stuff like that here, you really shouldn't be on a debate board.

Trying to tell me I don't belong here? Ha. You're the one who thinks you can see into people's brains and knows Mueller's next move. Delusional. I belong here just fine, deal with it. If you can't handle me, scroll past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk