RussiaGate

[blastula]

Showing yourself to be completely untrustworthy is always a brilliant move.

All warfare is deception Sun Tzu.

Indeed there is a war of sorts.
If Trump had followed the Queensbury rules than anyone could have spun anything.

As opposed to what Trump does?

The desperation is thick in this one.

Actually all presidents should record all presidential business. Too bad.

If a person is honest they do not object to their business conversations being recorded. Dishonest people do object.

Nobody objected. Comey wanted a tape. Dems and delusional trumpsters wanted a tape.

Showing yourself to be completely untrustworthy is always a brilliant move.

Untrustworthy? No biggie - that's just Trump being Trump. </trumpsucker>

I would say this was necessary to prevent yarns being spun.

Comey already leaked the conversations before Trump made his lying threat.Trump lied. On the other hand, when Comey said he had contemporaneous memos, that wasn't a lie.

 

[whichphilosophy]

All warfare is deception Sun Tzu.

Indeed there is a war of sorts.
If Trump had followed the Queensbury rules than anyone could have spun anything.

As opposed to what Trump does?

The desperation is thick in this one.

Actually all presidents should record all presidential business. Too bad.

If a person is honest they do not object to their business conversations being recorded. Dishonest people do object.

Nobody objected. Comey wanted a tape. Dems and delusional trumpsters wanted a tape.

Showing yourself to be completely untrustworthy is always a brilliant move.

Untrustworthy? No biggie - that's just Trump being Trump. </trumpsucker>

I would say this was necessary to prevent yarns being spun.

Comey already leaked the conversations before Trump made his lying threat.Trump lied. On the other hand, when Comey said he had contemporaneous memos, that wasn't a lie.

The Democrats are not following the Queensbury Rules either.
The UK with its faults is far more sensible when an election is over.
As implied in the many posts it's about getting the proper facts across and this has some way to go yet. Therefore there is nothing that can be conclusively decided.

 

[blastula]

more stupid shit

 

[Artemus]

I would say this was necessary to prevent yarns being spun.

LOL! He was so successful in getting Comey to speak the truth that he got a special prosecutor assigned to investigate his campaign and him. This is the most pathetic attempt to defend Trump yet.

Comey doesn't spin yarns and it pisses everyone off. Good for him.

 

[whichphilosophy]

more stupid shit

Yet presenting no basis

- - - Updated - - -

I would say this was necessary to prevent yarns being spun.

LOL! He was so successful in getting Comey to speak the truth that he got a special prosecutor assigned to investigate his campaign and him. This is the most pathetic attempt to defend Trump yet.

Comey doesn't spin yarns and it pisses everyone off. Good for him.

And nothing materialised. Comey didn't say much at all. Since he provided hearsay and not much he could have been saying the truth but it provides no basis to move a basis for the targeted impeachment any closer.

The special prosecutor has not found anything to prosecute.

Indeed the testimony provided no confirmation of collusion or Russian influence of the elections.

 

[Artemus]

I would say this was necessary to prevent yarns being spun.

LOL! He was so successful in getting Comey to speak the truth that he got a special prosecutor assigned to investigate his campaign and him. This is the most pathetic attempt to defend Trump yet.

Comey doesn't spin yarns and it pisses everyone off. Good for him.

And nothing materialised. Comey didn't say much at all. Since he provided hearsay and not much he could have been saying the truth but it provides no basis to move a basis for the targeted impeachment any closer.

You don't even know what hearsay is.  Hearsay is when a third party describes an event to which they were not a witness. Comey participated in the conversation and details of his testimony have been corroborated by other witnesses (Trump cleared the room before talking with Comey). That makes him a very reliable witness.

The special prosecutor has not found anything to prosecute.

A ludicrous statement when the investigation is ongoing. Mueller has just hired more than a dozen attorneys. We will know what happened eventually. Claiming to know either way right now is idiotic.

Indeed the testimony provided no confirmation of collusion or Russian influence of the elections.

But it did confirm obstruction of justice.

Trump said he fired Comey to end the pesky investigation of his campaign. The result was a greatly expanded investigation of his campaign and an investigation of Trump himself. Not the brilliant move you want to claim.

 

[Opoponax]

And nothing materialised. Comey didn't say much at all. Since he provided hearsay and not much he could have been saying the truth but it provides no basis to move a basis for the targeted impeachment any closer.

Would you stop using legal terms, the meaning of which you don't know and continue to use improperly. You don't understand the hearsay rule, or its exceptions or exclusions. You also don't understand the difference between what's admissible as evidence in different forums. And you have no clue about how discovery works; you barely seem aware of the process. Yet you've bloviated on all of these things and more with great consistency since I've been here.

The special prosecutor has not found anything to prosecute.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You know nothing of how the process works. Either that or you're completely unwilling to learn, just like that orange sack of shit in the White house. So maybe that's fitting.

Indeed the testimony provided no confirmation of collusion or Russian influence of the elections.

Comey's testimony fucking confirmed Russian influence in the elections, and it was confirmation of the all the confirmation we already had and continue to receive. As for collusion, we'll find out eventually because the process is ongoing. It's really not that hard to understand.

 

[starwater]

Would you stop using legal terms, the meaning of which you don't know and continue to use improperly. You don't understand the hearsay rule, or its exceptions or exclusions. You also don't understand the difference between what's admissible as evidence in different forums. And you have no clue about how discovery works; you barely seem aware of the process. Yet you've bloviated on all of these things and more with great consistency since I've been here.

The special prosecutor has not found anything to prosecute.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You know nothing of how the process works. Either that or you're completely unwilling to learn, just like that orange sack of shit in the White house. So maybe that's fitting.

Indeed the testimony provided no confirmation of collusion or Russian influence of the elections.

Comey's testimony fucking confirmed Russian influence in the elections, and it was confirmation of the all the confirmation we already had and continue to receive. As for collusion, we'll find out eventually because the process is ongoing. It's really not that hard to understand.

And you have no idea what the testimony was behind closed doors due to classified information. Comey has documented everything in memos. He is a patriot and did his duty to the American people.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Would you stop using legal terms, the meaning of which you don't know and continue to use improperly. You don't understand the hearsay rule, or its exceptions or exclusions. You also don't understand the difference between what's admissible as evidence in different forums. And you have no clue about how discovery works; you barely seem aware of the process. Yet you've bloviated on all of these things and more with great consistency since I've been here.



This is exactly what I'm talking about. You know nothing of how the process works. Either that or you're completely unwilling to learn, just like that orange sack of shit in the White house. So maybe that's fitting.

Indeed the testimony provided no confirmation of collusion or Russian influence of the elections.

Comey's testimony fucking confirmed Russian influence in the elections, and it was confirmation of the all the confirmation we already had and continue to receive. As for collusion, we'll find out eventually because the process is ongoing. It's really not that hard to understand.

And you have no idea what the testimony was behind closed doors due to classified information. Comey has documented everything in memos. He is a patriot and did his duty to the American people.

Being a patriot apparently involves more flexibility than in the past. Comey has made blatantly political moves.

While I'm glad he didn't knuckle under to Trump, he's not yet earned a halo.

 

[starwater]

Would you stop using legal terms, the meaning of which you don't know and continue to use improperly. You don't understand the hearsay rule, or its exceptions or exclusions. You also don't understand the difference between what's admissible as evidence in different forums. And you have no clue about how discovery works; you barely seem aware of the process. Yet you've bloviated on all of these things and more with great consistency since I've been here.



This is exactly what I'm talking about. You know nothing of how the process works. Either that or you're completely unwilling to learn, just like that orange sack of shit in the White house. So maybe that's fitting.

Indeed the testimony provided no confirmation of collusion or Russian influence of the elections.

Comey's testimony fucking confirmed Russian influence in the elections, and it was confirmation of the all the confirmation we already had and continue to receive. As for collusion, we'll find out eventually because the process is ongoing. It's really not that hard to understand.

And you have no idea what the testimony was behind closed doors due to classified information. Comey has documented everything in memos. He is a patriot and did his duty to the American people.

Being a patriot apparently involves more flexibility than in the past. Comey has made blatantly political moves.

While I'm glad he didn't knuckle under to Trump, he's not yet earned a halo.

In your opinion. Comey is not without faults (Clinton Server!!!). But at least he stood up to power and so far has won.

 

[Keith&Co.]

he's not yet earned a halo.

In your opinion. Comey is not without faults

Isn't that pretty much what a halo implies, a saint (or better) without faults?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would say this was necessary to prevent yarns being spun.

LOL! He was so successful in getting Comey to speak the truth that he got a special prosecutor assigned to investigate his campaign and him. This is the most pathetic attempt to defend Trump yet.

Comey doesn't spin yarns and it pisses everyone off. Good for him.

And nothing materialised. Comey didn't say much at all. Since he provided hearsay and not much he could have been saying the truth but it provides no basis to move a basis for the targeted impeachment any closer.

You don't even know what hearsay is.  Hearsay is when a third party describes an event to which they were not a witness. Comey participated in the conversation and details of his testimony have been corroborated by other witnesses (Trump cleared the room before talking with Comey). That makes him a very reliable witness.

The special prosecutor has not found anything to prosecute.

A ludicrous statement when the investigation is ongoing. Mueller has just hired more than a dozen attorneys. We will know what happened eventually. Claiming to know either way right now is idiotic.

Indeed the testimony provided no confirmation of collusion or Russian influence of the elections.

But it did confirm obstruction of justice.

Trump said he fired Comey to end the pesky investigation of his campaign. The result was a greatly expanded investigation of his campaign and an investigation of Trump himself. Not the brilliant move you want to claim.

When a person (who can afford to)hires one dozen attorneys, it means a strong case is against him, or he is still trying to put a case together.

While I understand Trump is under investigation it is for possible obstruction of justice and not for collusion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Would you stop using legal terms, the meaning of which you don't know and continue to use improperly. You don't understand the hearsay rule, or its exceptions or exclusions. You also don't understand the difference between what's admissible as evidence in different forums. And you have no clue about how discovery works; you barely seem aware of the process. Yet you've bloviated on all of these things and more with great consistency since I've been here.

The special prosecutor has not found anything to prosecute.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You know nothing of how the process works. Either that or you're completely unwilling to learn, just like that orange sack of shit in the White house. So maybe that's fitting.

Indeed the testimony provided no confirmation of collusion or Russian influence of the elections.

Comey's testimony fucking confirmed Russian influence in the elections, and it was confirmation of the all the confirmation we already had and continue to receive. As for collusion, we'll find out eventually because the process is ongoing. It's really not that hard to understand.

Comey's testimony didn't provide proof of Russian interference. However Trump is under investigation for possible obstruction of justice.

If there is no collusion there really would not be anything to obstruct

Hearsay was wrongly used as this related to Comey talking directly about his conversations with Trump. I'm aware of the hearsay rule which is applicable in the UK and Europe and also on Judge Judy.

That doesn't deflect from the fact that so far there is nothing yet conclusive enough to call for a vote on impeachment.

 

[Deepak]

Comey's testimony didn't provide proof of Russian interference. However Trump is under investigation for possible obstruction of justice.

If there is no collusion there really would not be anything to obstruct

Hearsay was wrongly used as this related to Comey talking directly about his conversations with Trump. I'm aware of the hearsay rule which is applicable in the UK and Europe and also on Judge Judy.

That doesn't deflect from the fact that so far there is nothing yet conclusive enough to call for a vote on impeachment.

Obstruction isn't contingent on the findings of the investigation - this has been explained to you multiple times.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Being a patriot apparently involves more flexibility than in the past. Comey has made blatantly political moves.

While I'm glad he didn't knuckle under to Trump, he's not yet earned a halo.

In your opinion. Comey is not without faults (Clinton Server!!!). But at least he stood up to power and so far has won.

So faulty people deserve halos? Your concept of saints appears to be as flexible as your concept of patriotism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

this has been explained to you multiple times.

It's not even like he's playing Devil's Advocate at this point, either.

 

[Artemus]

[

If there is no collusion there really would not be anything to obstruct

Uh, no. Read the link I gave on the last page. Here, I'll even link it again and quote (emphasis mine):

Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

Is that clear enough for you? Trump admitted on national television that his intent was to interfere with the duties of court officers and bragged about it to the Russian diplomats.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In your opinion. Comey is not without faults (Clinton Server!!!). But at least he stood up to power and so far has won.

So faulty people deserve halos? Your concept of saints appears to be as flexible as your concept of patriotism.

Last saint to have power anywhere in DC was President Carter, and he was railroaded out of town.

 

[Elixir]

If there is no collusion there really would not be anything to obstruct

Obstruction isn't contingent on the findings of the investigation - this has been explained to you multiple times.

You can't cure stupid ... or dishonesty, apparently.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Comey's testimony didn't provide proof of Russian interference. However Trump is under investigation for possible obstruction of justice.

If there is no collusion there really would not be anything to obstruct

Hearsay was wrongly used as this related to Comey talking directly about his conversations with Trump. I'm aware of the hearsay rule which is applicable in the UK and Europe and also on Judge Judy.

That doesn't deflect from the fact that so far there is nothing yet conclusive enough to call for a vote on impeachment.

Obstruction isn't contingent on the findings of the investigation - this has been explained to you multiple times.

The investigation is into possible obstruction. I made a comment based on logic not necessarily on the outcome of the investigation into Russia supposedly interfering in the elections with collusion on behalf of the Trump campaign.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, no. Read the link I gave on the last page. Here, I'll even link it again and quote (emphasis mine):

Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

Is that clear enough for you? Trump admitted on national television that his intent was to interfere with the duties of court officers and bragged about it to the Russian diplomats.

Has that been investigated and the findings presented yet?

- - - Updated - - -

Obstruction isn't contingent on the findings of the investigation - this has been explained to you multiple times.

You can't cure stupid ... or dishonesty, apparently.

The obstruction seems more like grasping straws, and holding onto them with the grip of a dead man.