What's new
By:
Filters

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

  • Total voters
    29
colton said:
Thanks for the detailed reply. I won't comment on c) because I haven't researched it enough yet myself to know what or what not to believe. But let me ask you more about this that you wrote, "The Trump administration believed the entire Russian collusion investigation was politically motivated and unwarranted. He absolutely resisted and tried to obstruct the investigation. There are 10 clear incidents where this is the case."

Is it your opinion that it's OK to obstruct justice when a person feels an investigation is unwarranted?

Also, I think this comment of yours is quite wrong: "Hence the underlying criminality of "collusion" was shown to be a false allegation." It wasn't shown to be a false allegation. Rather, not enough evidence was found to SUPPORT the allegation. Those are two very different things. And personally, I think it's very possible that Trump's obstruction may very well be the REASON they didn't find enough evidence to support the allegation. But it is what it is, and I'll grant that a criminal conspiracy was not proven to exist. (But it wasn't proven to not exist, get it?)

I will also point out another comment of yours that I think is wrong: "The attorney general concluded that they don't constitute obstruction. Hundreds of lawyers are now writing in and making an argument that they do constitute obstruction. The argument becomes moot as a sitting president cannot be indicted." A sitting president cannot be indicted (as per policy) because it is felt that it's Congress's duty to first impeach said president and remove him from office, should the offenses rise to a certain level. Therefore the argument is very much NOT moot, in that Congress now has a duty to determine whether Trump's obstruction is an impeachable offense. If the 900 or so lawyers are correct, then in my opinion Congress should certainly impeach and remove him from office. And then he should be indicted.
Click to expand...

Regarding the line in bold, I start with the premise that politics is a very contentious and dirty business. Both parties in this election were using derogatory language, spin and underhanded tactics. In that context, and in the context that Trump felt he was in the right not to comply with the Mueller investigation, it becomes a question of degrees rather than a moral absolute. Besides, Trump didn't just "feel" he was right, he "knew" he didn't collude. For example, making a speech that says, "I hope the Russia releases Hillary's emails," is crude, but it doesn't constitute collusion with Russia. Neither does being informed that wikileaks is going to release information on Hillary. A meeting took place at Trump Tower and Russia might well have been discussed, but Russian interference didn't require the Trump campaign's involvement. The evidence on collusion turned out to be pretty weak. Enough so, that the attorney general proclaimed that Trump was being "falsely accused." No, Tump can't 'disprove' that collusion didn't take place, but in realty, there's no way to do that (prove a negative), and Trump doesn't have such a burden of proof. It would be like accusing someone of sexual assault nearly 30 years after the fact, providing no evidence--not even a date and location, and then telling the person accused he needs to prove it didn't happen. That's not how justice works.

Regarding your second statement, I'm looking from the attorney general's perspective. He is presented a set of facts gathered in the Mueller report and must make an analysis in a purely legal context. Is there enough evidence here to successfully bring criminal charges under collusion and/or obstruction statutes? The attorney general's answer on both counts was no. Amidst all the accusations that Barr is a liar, or traitor, or is hiding, or is acting to protect the president, I hadn't yet seen anyone actually attempt to refute the merits of his legal conclusions, that is, until this group of attorneys sent a public letter in the last week to make an argument that obstruction could potentially be criminally litigated (were the defendant not the President of the U.S.).

Regarding your third statement, yes, the Congress can consider impeachment, and the Mueller report may have opened the door to explore impeachment. So far, the Democrats haven't rallied enough support to pursue it. The Republican Senate would also likely block impeachment, as for the most part, they support the President. If the Democrats aren't going to pursue impeachment, they don't have anywhere meaningful to go with this, other than to drag out more hearings, issue subpoenas, hold people in contempt of Congress when they don't participate, and complain about it all.
 
silesian said:
You do realize that would be tens of thousands of investigations.

We typically investigate where there is evidence of illegal activity.
Click to expand...

yah. This has been my basic opinion on government generally.....all governments.... all history.

But you are dead wrong. We rarely investigate following evidence..... almost everything we investigate is politically driven, with a sort of arrogance and contempt for the law.

The msm is practicing basic human psycology, not as an objective investigative profession, but as "responsible managers" of public opinion.

In a world with birthing pains for a new world order, which is based on different principles than American traditional values or Constitutional concerns, but on how to achieve a new balance of power that is much more convenient for management, we have the spectacle of prominent Americans receiving huge emoluments from "foreign nationals" now seen as fellow kleptocrats, which are ignored entirely...… while hounding an outsider who isn't already in game for things that might have happened.

The evidence on Joe Biden's billion-dollar "favors" is beyond dispute. His son got a grant from the Chinese in a business he has no skill in. Ukraine officials dumped their investigation of corruption connected to his son.

The Chinese have long "bought off" American politicians as regular procedure, and now have significant holding in American media giants and social network monopolies, enough to have some say in what is permitted in our contemporary society.

You can study the way things are in China today, and you are looking at us ten years from now.

And, no Xi doesn't have to accept election results and ours are about to become irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
babe said:
yah. This has been my basic opinion on government generally.....all governments.... all history.

But you are dead wrong. We rarely investigate following evidence..... almost everything we investigate is politically driven, with a sort of arrogance and contempt for the law.

The msm is practicing basic human psycology, not as an objective investigative profession, but as "responsible managers" of public opinion.

In a world with birthing pains for a new world order, which is based on different principles than American traditional values or Constitutional concerns, but on how to achieve a new balance of power that is much more convenient for management, we have the spectacle of prominent Americans receiving huge emoluments from "foreign nationals" now seen as fellow kleptocrats, which are ignored entirely...… while hounding an outsider who isn't already in game for things that might have happened.

The evidence on Joe Biden's billion-dollar "favors" is beyond dispute. His son got a grant from the Chinese in a business he has no skill in. Ukraine officials dumped their investigation of corruption connected to his son.

The Chinese have long "bought off" American politicians as regular procedure, and now have significant holding in American media giants and social network monopolies, enough to have some say in what is permitted in our contemporary society.

You can study the way things are in China today, and you are looking at us ten years from now.

And, no Xi doesn't have to accept election results and ours are about to become irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Great post babe.

No one here can even come close to challenging it without gaslighting.

Here is comes. Upsidedown world

Honk honk.
 
babe said:
You can study the way things are in China today, and you are looking at us ten years from now.
Click to expand...

NPC D4617 said:
Great post babe.
Click to expand...

Oh, I doubt very much that you boys even know the half of it. No, on the contrary, you're babes in the woods about all this. You need to be brought up to speed. It's far more dystopian then you realize.

China is well on its way to implementing a personal scorecard system where each citizen is monitored 24/7 and ranked on their behavior. Read this short piece to get a taste for the social order China is creating. The United States in 10 years?? Really?? Be careful what you think is coming here:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...e/news-story/6c821cbf15378ab0d3eeb3ec3dc98abf

CHINA’S chilling dictatorship is moving quickly to introduce social scorecards by which all citizens will be monitored 24/7 and ranked on their behaviour.

The Communist Party’s plan is for every one of its 1.4 billion citizens to be at the whim of a dystopian social credit system, and it’s on track to be fully operational by the year 2020.

An active pilot program has already seen millions of people each assigned a score out of 800 and either reap its benefits or suffer its consequences — depending on which end of the scale they sit.

Under the social credit scheme, points are lost and gained based on readings from a sophisticated network of 200 million surveillance cameras — a figure set to triple in 18 months.

The program has been enabled by rapid advances in facial recognition, body scanning and geo-tracking.





 
Last edited:
NPC D4617 said:
Great post babe.

No one here can even come close to challenging it without gaslighting.

Here is comes. Upsidedown world

Honk honk.
Click to expand...
https://images.app.goo.gl/J8vwafvr1gu9oT4p8
o.jpg

#D.O.N. is the answer to all our challenges!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Last edited:
babe said:
The evidence on Joe Biden's billion-dollar "favors" is beyond dispute. His son got a grant from the Chinese in a business he has no skill in. Ukraine officials dumped their investigation of corruption connected to his son.
Click to expand...

As you know, I'm nonpartisan and I'm open to this being factual and I wouldn't be surprised. Please share this clear and compelling evidence that is beyond dispute? Thank you.
 
Red said:
Oh, I doubt very much that you boys even know the half of it. No, on the contrary, you're babes in the woods about all this. You need to be brought up to speed. It's far more dystopian then you realize.

China is well on its way to implementing a personal scorecard system where each citizen is monitored 24/7 and ranked on their behavior. Read this short piece to get a taste for the social order China is creating. The United States in 10 years?? Really?? Be careful what you think is coming here:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...e/news-story/6c821cbf15378ab0d3eeb3ec3dc98abf

CHINA’S chilling dictatorship is moving quickly to introduce social scorecards by which all citizens will be monitored 24/7 and ranked on their behaviour.

The Communist Party’s plan is for every one of its 1.4 billion citizens to be at the whim of a dystopian social credit system, and it’s on track to be fully operational by the year 2020.

An active pilot program has already seen millions of people each assigned a score out of 800 and either reap its benefits or suffer its consequences — depending on which end of the scale they sit.

Under the social credit scheme, points are lost and gained based on readings from a sophisticated network of 200 million surveillance cameras — a figure set to triple in 18 months.

The program has been enabled by rapid advances in facial recognition, body scanning and geo-tracking.





Click to expand...


You do know that is why so many people like myself are not down with the direction the left is going right?

Did you see facebook make rules dictating what speech you can have if its about Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, louis Farrakhan, etc..?

Have you noticed the left is in bed with big tech and silencing people on the right?

You guys are too busy thinking anyone not on the left is a racist to realize that isnt the case, its the people fighting for traditional American rights so we dont devolve into something like China, and what they are doing. You guys need to wake up and pay attention to the attack on free speech that is happening right here in America.

You guys are just ok with it for now because you dont care if these people are silenced because you dont like them anyways. Well, if you dont stand up for even "enemy" in times like this its eventually going to bite you in the arse too, and by then it will be too late.

What China is doing is what leftism is when it has gone too far.
 
Red said:
CHINA’S chilling dictatorship is moving quickly to introduce social scorecards by which all citizens will be monitored 24/7 and ranked on their behaviour.

The Communist Party’s plan is for every one of its 1.4 billion citizens to be at the whim of a dystopian social credit system, and it’s on track to be fully operational by the year 2020.
Click to expand...

Dude, this is such old news, like literally over 50 years old. Read up on the Cultural Revolution. All that has changed is the technology they are implementing.
 
babe said:
But you are dead wrong. We rarely investigate following evidence..... almost everything we investigate is politically driven, with a sort of arrogance and contempt for the law.
Click to expand...

Now you are getting a bit crazy. You think if a husband murders his wife, the arrest is politically driven? Dude robs a bank, ditto? Embezzles from his company? Step back from the edge, you are taking this a bit far.
 
NPC D4617 said:
You guys need to wake up and pay attention to the attack on free speech that is happening right here in America.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been focused on our president's non stop attacks on our free press, his full support of a compliant press, such as Fox News state media, and his condemnation of any and all adversarial press. That's the attack on constitutionally supported freedoms with which I've been most concerned.
 
silesian said:
Dude, this is such old news, like literally over 50 years old. Read up on the Cultural Revolution. All that has changed is the technology they are implementing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you brought up the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the first place. That's not even old news. It isn't news at all. It's history. And where exactly did I say Chinese totalitarianism was itself news??

The news is the creation of a "social credits" system under the surveillance of modern technology. My understanding is this initiative began in 2014, with nation wide implementation planned for 2020, if that's possible. I find this totalitarianism supported by modern technology fascinating. Seems to me it was not really possible, to such a degree, before now.

This is 2019. I'm not interested in the Cultural Revolution as predecessor. I did, and do, find it interesting that some Chinese citizens are saying the social credits system is a good thing, but if I were a citizen of China, and in front of a camera, I would not say it's a bad thing. At any rate, the thing you refer to as "all that has changed" is is the very thing I find of great interest. So, to each his own I would say.
 
Red said:
Exactly. But then that's the entire point. A digital dictatorship was not possible before our present era.
Click to expand...

You presented it like it was something that people were completely unaware of and shocking "....you boys even know the half of it. No, on the contrary, you're babes in the woods about all this..." when it is widely understood and consistent with the arc of Chinese history.
 
Red said:
I'm not sure why you brought up the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the first place. That's not even old news. It isn't news at all. It's history. .
Click to expand...

Do you really want to quibble about the semantic difference between "old news" and "history"? Or do you want to discuss something nontrivial and substantive?
 
Red said:
And exporting, as well as implementing....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/technology/ecuador-surveillance-cameras-police-government.html

"They’re selling this as the future of governance; the future will be all about controlling the masses through technology,” Adrian Shahbaz, research director at Freedom House, said of China’s new tech exports."
Click to expand...

The mental model is controlling the masses. That is the common thread. Chinese have always used the latest technology to do so. If the modern issues float your boat, I get it, it is an interesting topic. Perhaps even more interesting when understanding the historical context.
 
Red said:
Yeah, I've been focused on our president's non stop attacks on our free press, his full support of a compliant press, such as Fox News state media, and his condemnation of any and all adversarial press. That's the attack on constitutionally supported freedoms with which I've been most concerned.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between defending yourself with words and actually taking action to prohibit free speech or press. I dont see Trump putting Media out of business or silencing them. He has the right to free speech too, does he not? Notice how its his speech you want to stop? Meanwhile, big tech is taking action to stop free speech, and I notice you and everyone else here is curiously absent in defending free speech when it comes to others free speech you dont like.
 
NPC D4617 said:
There is a difference between defending yourself with words and actually taking action to prohibit free speech or press. I dont see Trump putting Media out of business or silencing them. He has the right to free speech too, does he not? Notice how its his speech you want to stop? Meanwhile, big tech is taking action to stop free speech, and I notice you and everyone else here is curiously absent in defending free speech when it comes to others free speech you dont like.
Click to expand...
If this is a conversation you actually want to have please acknowledge the main argument in favor of allowing big tech companies to limit what people say on their platforms.

(it doesn't mean you agree with it, or even that it's right)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top