I don’t understand this. Why is asking for proof a bad thing? Why, in a discussion, is providing proof a taboo in your eyes?
If I told you that Trump is a Gay male stripper and contracted aids as a result of too many nights at Studio 54… would’nt you call BS and ask for proof or shut up?
He talks about games yet he regularly trolls threads and purposely tries to derail them with his nonsense. I don’t even bother with the BS nor engaging with the intellectually bankrupt moron known as Pragmatic. He never backs up anything he says so better just to ignore him. Apparently there are many here who share that view of him! There is plenty of proof on what you are talking about it, so why should you do the work in providing such proof in which he is too lazy to do for himself? Sound familiar? Yep sounds like a dumb-ass socialist! Save you discussions and energy for those who actually can have an honest conversation based on facts, your blood pressure will love you better for it!
Yeah is that a summation you took from the check out aisle? If you actually bother reading half the threads you respond to, we probably would have a pretty constructive conversation! Its people like you and Pragmatic that I don’t even bother wasting my time with any more. Don’t take it personally if I don’t respond to you anymore! Have fun living on the plantation!
Umm, because it was politically damaging to admit to any contacts with Russians when you are being accused of conspiring with Russians to steal the election? And can you tell me why it’s bad for Stone to reach out to wiki to see what dirt they had on Hillary and not bad for Hillary to hire a law firm to send someone to Russia to see what dirt they had on Trump?
You are an annoying troll. Go away.
First - putting aside the fact that I disagree with your assessment that Clinton lied to the FBI and that her staff got special treatment. But I really don’t want to divert the conversation there…or, I don’t know…maybe we should…
BUT
relative to the discussion at hand -
I understand your point completely.
However, the remedy to your hypothetical is either:
or
Those are the only two remedies tot eh quandary at hand.
And that is what you are arguing in the Mueller case - remembering of course that Mueller had OTHING to do with what was or was not investigated for charged against HRC et al. By suggesting his adherence to pure laws and indictments are invalid because others were not charged similarly, your remedies are, allow Roger Stone to lie to congress about his correspondences with Wikileaks, allow Cohan to lie, allow Manafort to…did he lie?
I forget if Manafort lied…if he didn’t lie, should he be forgiven his tax evasion as well since surely not everyone who evades taxes has been caught?
Or, you could change the law so that lying to congress and the FBI is not a crime.
What other remedy is there?
You don’t see a difference between looking for incriminating evidence on a political opponent and timing campaign actives along with the release of information STOLEN by a foreign adversary from a US political party?
One is politcs as usual, the other is using information stolen from US citizens.
You must surely see they are two drastically different enterprises.
Not really looking for a remedy at this point. I’m simply pointing out the double standard. Trump Haters want to ignore the double standard and simply move to the point where he is impeached.
I’m simply asking why. Any objective person knows exactly why. Because it is Trump. He was never supposed to win. How do we make things right? Only by destroying him can elitist Washington get back to normal.
That is a major leap, given that there was no collusion.
We know that stone spoke to wikileaks about the information they were releasing.
We know - and we knew then - that the information was stolen from the DNC
We know - and I’m not sure when we knew this for sure - that russia stole the information.
So it’s not a leap at all that the campaign communicated with wikileaks about replaces of stolen informant. It is a leap perhaps to suggest they knew russian did the stealing.
(But then it’s kind of funny- or weird, or incriminating - the Donald Trump publicly asked the russians to find the stolen emails…)
Do you think Roger stone should be tried for lying to congress? Do you think Cohan should be?
If you want to start a discussion about similar lies you think were ignored by the DoJ (both the obama DoJ and now the Trump DoJ) I would participate, though not much more today. I’d enjoy looking back into those matters.
That’s been debunked repeatedly. It was a tongue in cheek “Where’s Waldo” comment. I listened to it live.
In regards to the rest of your talking points, I’ve heard them all before.
I like to refer to them as “wishing and hoping”
What, I’m not allowed to have a little fun and speculate?
Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kusner colluded with Putin.
I have no interest in dissecting prior testimony over the years, looking for instances where someone might or might not have lied.
Should Stone or Cohan be tried for lying to congress? Should that jaywalker I referenced earlier be tried for jaywalking.
I’m simply asking why the double standard. I believe any reasonable person knows exactly why.
Of course that assumes the guy Hillary sent wasn’t looking for any dirt on Trump, no matter how it was procured by the Russians. And no, I don’t see the problem with it being stolen, if it’s not illegal for a newspaper or television station to print or broadcast it after wiki releases it, it’s not illegal for a political campaign to use it. It’s only a crime if they conspired to steal it.
Do you actually have any doubt democrats were also reaching out to wiki to try and ascertain what they had?
Oh and one more thing, it has not been proven in a court of law, who stole it and still remains at least a possibility it was the result of an intentional leak by someone at the DNC.
Yes Trump is a crook and he surrounds himself with crooks. Assuming Hilary is s crook as well, how does that excuse Manafort, papa, Stone, Cohen and Flynn??
Your like the people who get pulled over and point out how many other were speeding before and after you.
Party of personal responsibility? But but Hilary!!
Bad analogy. It’s a bit different if the guy was singled out for a speeding ticket was singled out because the cop didn’t like his politics now isn’t it?
I’m wondering why you won’t simply answer the question.
Like Seth Rich? Hmm? I wonder?