Immigration Ban

[bugeater17]

48 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Here is one interesting section of the Mueller report. The report outlines hundreds of interactions with Russia. Mueller just wasn't going to go there in accusing the President of working with a foriegn power, but there is evidence in the report even if it wouldn't be enough to convict in a court of law. Shady stuff nonetheless 

That’s not evidence of conspiracy. Do you know the elements of a charge of conspiracy? Before you start throwing around terms you should have a firm grasp of said term. 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, bugeater17 said:

That’s not evidence of conspiracy. Do you know the elements of a charge of conspiracy? Before you start throwing around terms you should have a firm grasp of said term. 

Tell us why it's not evidence of conspiracy then. It looks like an agreement and an overt act to me but as noted in the report, it would be hard to prove criminal intent.

[bugeater17]

7 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Tell us why it's not evidence of conspiracy then. It looks like an agreement and an overt act to me but as noted in the report, it would be hard to prove criminal intent.

The elements for the underlying crime, intent, and a “meeting” (which is no where close to an overt act based on precedent) are laughable. Even the inherent bias contained within the report acknowledge such in multiple portions of the quoted blurb. 

 

Put simply, if you don’t have evidence of the underlying crime you don’t have evidence of conspiracy to commit that crime. 

[Nebfanatic]

11 hours ago, bugeater17 said:

That’s not evidence of conspiracy. Do you know the elements of a charge of conspiracy? Before you start throwing around terms you should have a firm grasp of said term. 

Actually that is evidence. Is it enough to constitute a conviction? No, but Mueller also didn't pursue the investigation in a way where he was going to indict a sitting president. There is more evidence of contact between Trump and Russia, lots of evidence of Russian interference into the election and a statement that says 'the Trump administration knew Russian interference would benefit them and they welcomed it.' Again, the report doesn't outline a clear case for conspiracy to defraud the US but the idea that there is absolutely no evidence of 'collusion' as you call it, is laughable, as you call it. 

[bugeater17]

12 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Actually that is evidence. Is it enough to constitute a conviction? No, but Mueller also didn't pursue the investigation in a way where he was going to indict a sitting president. There is more evidence of contact between Trump and Russia, lots of evidence of Russian interference into the election and a statement that says 'the Trump administration knew Russian interference would benefit them and they welcomed it.' Again, the report doesn't outline a clear case for conspiracy to defraud the US but the idea that there is absolutely no evidence of 'collusion' as you call it, is laughable, as you call it. 

 

Obviously you are not an attorney. The best I can tell you is that meeting is not evidence of conspiracy. An additional overt act is required. A simple example I can give you is just meeting up with someone about killing your spouse is not conspiracy. If I go to the bank and pull out money (or go buy a gun to provide or do something else), then it becomes evidence of conspiracy. That is specifically why the report states there is no evidence of intent. The problem with the report is there are so many uninformed people that want to make assumptions on a document they have no training (or are not familiar with) interpreting. 

[bugeater17]

1 hour ago, BlitzFirst said:

There's no hope for you man.  Snap out of it and start thinking for yourself instead of allowing journalists and Trump to think for you.

 

Pot meet kettle. 

[Nebfanatic]

6 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

 

Obviously you are not an attorney. The best I can tell you is that meeting is not evidence of conspiracy. An additional overt act is required. A simple example I can give you is just meeting up with someone about killing your spouse is not conspiracy. If I go to the bank and pull out money (or go buy a gun to provide or do something else), then it becomes evidence of conspiracy. That is specifically why the report states there is no evidence of intent. The problem with the report is there are so many uninformed people that want to make assumptions on a document they have no training (or are not familiar with) interpreting. 

Have you read the report? How about when Donald said 'russia should find her emails' then minutes later russia is hacking the DNC? Is that evidence of intent? The fact of the matter is Russia interefered in the elections, there were hundreds of contacts between Trump team and Russia and Trump invited Russian interference because he knew it would help him. All of this is outlined in the report. That is far from no evidence. Since you are so versed in the law you should know that, but I know for a fact you haven't read the report so you only know what Bill Barr and Sean Hannity have told you.

[bugeater17]

19 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Actually that is evidence. Is it enough to constitute a conviction? No, but Mueller also didn't pursue the investigation in a way where he was going to indict a sitting president. There is more evidence of contact between Trump and Russia, lots of evidence of Russian interference into the election and a statement that says 'the Trump administration knew Russian interference would benefit them and they welcomed it.' Again, the report doesn't outline a clear case for conspiracy to defraud the US but the idea that there is absolutely no evidence of 'collusion' as you call it, is laughable, as you call it. 

 

The most bizarre thing about this whole scenario is didn't the DNC not only do the same thing with Ukraine, but with the origins of the entire investigation with the Steele Dossier? They hired an entity which was using a foreign spy to dig up dirt on a political opponent to include in a dossier to be used to spy on that political opponents representatives and campaign?

 

Typical Democratic playbook. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, bugeater17 said:

The most bizarre thing about this whole scenario is didn't the DNC not only do the same thing with Ukraine, but with the origins of the entire investigation with the Steele Dossier? They hired an entity which was using a foreign spy to dig up dirt on a political opponent to include in a dossier to be used to spy on that political opponents representatives and campaign?

 

Typical Democratic playbook. 

 

No....that's the propaganda Trump wants you to believe.  But...no.

[bugeater17]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

Have you read the report? How about when Donald said 'russia should find her emails' then minutes later russia is hacking the DNC? Is that evidence of intent? The fact of the matter is Russia interefered in the elections, there were hundreds of contacts between Trump team and Russia and Trump invited Russian interference because he knew it would help him. All of this is outlined in the report. That is far from no evidence. Since you are so versed in the law you should know that, but I know for a fact you haven't read the report so you only know what Bill Barr and Sean Hannity have told you.

 

You should probably work on your timeline a bit there bud. Trump was merely poking fun at the fact the DNC had been hacked. 

 

Again, there are so many commingled facts in your head that your making outright misstatements of fact. Also, yes I have read the majority of the report.

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

No....that's the propaganda Trump wants you to believe.  But...no.

 

What part of what I said was propaganda or not true?

[bugeater17]

11 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Have you read the report? How about when Donald said 'russia should find her emails' then minutes later russia is hacking the DNC? Is that evidence of intent? The fact of the matter is Russia interefered in the elections, there were hundreds of contacts between Trump team and Russia and Trump invited Russian interference because he knew it would help him. All of this is outlined in the report. That is far from no evidence. Since you are so versed in the law you should know that, but I know for a fact you haven't read the report so you only know what Bill Barr and Sean Hannity have told you.

 

In fact, to be more specific Hillary's missing emails and the DNC hacking are completely different. If anything you could criticize Trump for commingling those two - just as you did.

 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, bugeater17 said:

What part of what I said was propaganda or not true?

 

This.

 

5 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

They hired an entity which was using a foreign spy to dig up dirt on a political opponent to include in a dossier to be used to spy on that political opponents representatives and campaign?

 

Obama and Hillary did not have the FBI spy on Trump for their own political gain.  That is just a flat out trumped up propaganda piece of crap that Trump is begging for you to believe.  

 

Look, I honestly don't have that big of a problem with Trump meeting with someone who says they have dirt on a political opponent.  (I have a REAL problem with it once they realized it was gained illegally.  But, that's for another discussion).  That said,  Trump hired people with ties to Russia and the Ukraine.  He then meets with Russian officials over and over again.  The FBI found out about it.  If they didn't start investigating the Trump campaign and monitoring it, that would been a severe dereliction of duties on their part.  Trumpees now claim...well, the FBI should have told Trump about this.  Are you serious?  Do you seriously think the FBI walks in and tells everyone they are investigating about it?

 

Open your eyes.  Trump personally gains by you thinking the FBI is out to get him and is evil and Trump supporters are eating it up.  These people have done more for YOU as an American citizen than Trump will ever even dream of doing.  But, he's convincing you that they are horrible for personal gain.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, bugeater17 said:

 

The most bizarre thing about this whole scenario is didn't the DNC not only do the same thing with Ukraine, but with the origins of the entire investigation with the Steele Dossier? They hired an entity which was using a foreign spy to dig up dirt on a political opponent to include in a dossier to be used to spy on that political opponents representatives and campaign?

 

Typical Democratic playbook. 

Steele reported his information to the FBI, CIA ect. You see, there is the difference. Trump did all of this secretly, then proceeded to try and hide it from intelligence agencies when asked about it. Hell he was warned that Russia would try to interfere and was told to contact FBI when they did. Instead he took the meeting with the Russians. I am no lawyer. I'm just a guy with common sense, and my common sense tells me a guy who has multiple ties to Russia, won't call them out for messing with our elections, believes their dictator leader over our inteligence agencies, lets them off the hook for sanctions, then after all of the heat he has taken over the course of his presidency, says he would do what he has been under fire for this whole time, he probably took some help from Russia.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/12/trump-fbi-foreign-information-1362788

 

[Nebfanatic]

6 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

 

In fact, to be more specific Hillary's missing emails and the DNC hacking are completely different. If anything you could criticize Trump for commingling those two - just as you did.

 

How are they complety different may I ask? 

[bugeater17]

6 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

How are they complety different may I ask? 

 

Yikes - and you are really trying to argue with me on this point? Nonetheless, and in short, Hillary's missing emails were from her time as secretary of state in which she stored on a private server / email and then deleted and white washed the system although under subpoena to produce. 

 

The DNC hacking was done later and revealed the rigging of the primary election against Bernie.