RussiaGate

[barbos]

By the way, It seems that they are saying the reason why Jr. twitted emails is becasue NY times got a hold of them and was going to release them anyway. So the interesting question is, how did they get these emails? hacking? Gallstone sold them NY Times?

Look! Over there!

Quick, everybody get distracted!

I am not dumb enough to believe you can be distracted from that, I am honestly interested to know how exactly they obtained these emails. But it would be hilariously ironic if some hacking was involved.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

We are now up to a head count of eight people in the room.

The June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort included at least eight people.

The revelation of additional participants comes as The Associated Press first reported Friday that a Russian-American lobbyist named Rinat Akhmetshin said he also attended the June 2016 meeting with Donald Trump Jr. CNN has reached out to Akhmetshin for comment.

So far acknowledged in attendance: Trump Jr., Kushner, Manafort, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, Akhmetshin and publicist Rob Goldstone, who helped set up the meeting. A source familiar with the circumstances told CNN there were at least two other people in the room as well, a translator and a representative of the Russian family who had asked Goldstone to set up the meeting. The source did not provide the names.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Both sides is not a fallacy but a fact. Politics is all about sticking ones snout in the sewer and the trough to find dirt or something naughty about the opposition.

This certainly happened during the election re Pussycatgate and Pizzagate etc.

I'm sure Kushner may be a son like father as this comes often through mentoring but the investigation largely fell down on Russia actually influencing the election.

The politicians share the same sewer and look for dirt of any kind.

God. I can't believe I have to do this. It's been awhile since I had to have this conversation with one of my children, but here goes.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Understand that?

If Hillary has done something illegal, then fine, prosecute her for it as is appropriate. Now, if Hillary did do something illegal, it does not mitigate the illegalities Trump and his people have engaged in.

An attorney doesn't walk into a courtroom with his client, whom the lawyer is representing for aggravated assault and battery and say, "Well your honor, I read yesterday in the newspaper that another defendant who was up on somewhat similar charges had his case dismissed. Therefore, I move to dismiss the charges against my client."

That attorney would get laughed out of the courtroom and the judge might send a letter to the state bar reporting the questionableness of that attorney's character and fitness to practice law.

The same applies here. You don't seem to understand the most basic concepts in play. I'll make no assumptions as to why. I'm pretty sure personal insults are verboten here and I'll honor that.

This^ was 6 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I see where the misunderstanding is. My point is that they are as bad as each other or if you like there is no demarcation between the good guys and bad guys.

In this sense it would not be about two wrongs making a right.

Actually the lawyer would often be correct if he can show that the current case can be reinforced by the one he just read about.

The lawyer would most likely check the court records after reading the newspaper and check the similarities. While we have the laws of precedence, (case law) no two cases are identical. However the lawyer would have to provide that the circumstances of his case and the one he read about were similar enough to win his argument.

The Miranda Warning
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
This decision is referred to as the Miranda Warning where police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning. This ruling overturned a 20 to 30 year sentence on Miranda

Thus we have:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law........

A wrong is a wrong but in most cases bottom feeding, and various tactics in elections are taken for granted.

The Russiagate investigations are far from concluded.

Jared like many I am sure would have welcomed the opportunity to obtain such dirt and if provided with it may have used it, which on the long run would not have backfired sooner or later. I’m sure his close circles are questioning him on what he did not disclose to them.

Don’t be bashful about insults. Barring such doesn’t make the use of insults unpopular.

 

[blastula]

By the way, It seems that they are saying the reason why Jr. twitted emails is becasue NY times got a hold of them and was going to release them anyway. So the interesting question is, how did they get these emails? hacking? Gallstone sold them NY Times?

The whole story has been from WH aides. The leaks are coming from inside the house!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

By the way, It seems that they are saying the reason why Jr. twitted emails is becasue NY times got a hold of them and was going to release them anyway. So the interesting question is, how did they get these emails? hacking? Gallstone sold them NY Times?

The whole story has been from WH aides. The leaks are coming from inside the house!

Ya, it's not hacking. It's just that the people who work in the White House have absolutely no respect for the President and want him humiliated and destroyed because he's a threat to their country. They have access to all of this information and they're sharing it in order to harm Trump.

 

[blastula]

Or WH factions infighting.

 

[Opoponax]

God. I can't believe I have to do this. It's been awhile since I had to have this conversation with one of my children, but here goes.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Understand that?

If Hillary has done something illegal, then fine, prosecute her for it as is appropriate. Now, if Hillary did do something illegal, it does not mitigate the illegalities Trump and his people have engaged in.

An attorney doesn't walk into a courtroom with his client, whom the lawyer is representing for aggravated assault and battery and say, "Well your honor, I read yesterday in the newspaper that another defendant who was up on somewhat similar charges had his case dismissed. Therefore, I move to dismiss the charges against my client."

That attorney would get laughed out of the courtroom and the judge might send a letter to the state bar reporting the questionableness of that attorney's character and fitness to practice law.

The same applies here. You don't seem to understand the most basic concepts in play. I'll make no assumptions as to why. I'm pretty sure personal insults are verboten here and I'll honor that.

This^ was 6 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I see where the misunderstanding is. My point is that they are as bad as each other or if you like there is no demarcation between the good guys and bad guys.

In this sense it would not be about two wrongs making a right.

Actually the lawyer would often be correct if he can show that the current case can be reinforced by the one he just read about.

The lawyer would most likely check the court records after reading the newspaper and check the similarities. While we have the laws of precedence, (case law) no two cases are identical. However the lawyer would have to provide that the circumstances of his case and the one he read about were similar enough to win his argument.

The Miranda Warning
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
This decision is referred to as the Miranda Warning where police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning. This ruling overturned a 20 to 30 year sentence on Miranda

Thus we have:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law........

A wrong is a wrong but in most cases bottom feeding, and various tactics in elections are taken for granted.

The Russiagate investigations are far from concluded.

Jared like many I am sure would have welcomed the opportunity to obtain such dirt and if provided with it may have used it, which on the long run would not have backfired sooner or later. I’m sure his close circles are questioning him on what he did not disclose to them.

Don’t be bashful about insults. Barring such doesn’t make the use of insults unpopular.

Oh god. Just stop talking.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Or WH factions infighting.

Well, infighting happens all the time. This is different. Usually, the infighting involves a bit of courtesy and discretion amongst the participants. You can try and undermine Bob in the eyes of the President, but you don't let the media know how you're trying to undermine Bob. The fact that everything is so public is a direct result of either attempts to harm the President or just plain not giving a shit about the President. The leaks are indicative of a lack of respect for Trump.

 

[Elixir]

I see where the misunderstanding is. My point is that they are as bad as each other or if you like there is no demarcation between the good guys and bad guys.

In this sense it would not be about two wrongs making a right.

Actually the lawyer would often be correct if he can show that the current case can be reinforced by the one he just read about.

The lawyer would most likely check the court records after reading the newspaper and check the similarities. While we have the laws of precedence, (case law) no two cases are identical. However the lawyer would have to provide that the circumstances of his case and the one he read about were similar enough to win his argument.

The Miranda Warning
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
This decision is referred to as the Miranda Warning where police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning. This ruling overturned a 20 to 30 year sentence on Miranda

Thus we have:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law........

A wrong is a wrong but in most cases bottom feeding, and various tactics in elections are taken for granted.

The Russiagate investigations are far from concluded.

Jared like many I am sure would have welcomed the opportunity to obtain such dirt and if provided with it may have used it, which on the long run would not have backfired sooner or later. I’m sure his close circles are questioning him on what he did not disclose to them.

Don’t be bashful about insults. Barring such doesn’t make the use of insults unpopular.

TRANSLATION: "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[Nice Squirrel]

My point is that they are as bad as each other or if you like there is no demarcation between the good guys and bad guys.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

The Russiagate investigations are far from concluded.

That's only because they want very strong cases. We pretty much know what happened and what was traded for what.

 

[Elixir]

This is the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

The Russiagate investigations are far from concluded.

That's only because they want very strong cases. We pretty much know what happened and what was traded for what.

Yeah, WP's trollery can look forward to at least another six months' life cycle. It will be interesting to see where the 'bot goes from here - first, it was "no evidence" now it's "not enough evidence"... in 6-8 months when impeachment proceedings get under way, will he say "too much evidence!"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is the dumbest thing I've heard all day.


That's only because they want very strong cases. We pretty much know what happened and what was traded for what.

Yeah, WP's trollery can look forward to at least another six months' life cycle. It will be interesting to see where the 'bot goes from here - first, it was "no evidence" now it's "not enough evidence"... in 6-8 months when impeachment proceedings get under way, will he say "too much evidence!"?

Kind of like the Russian lawyer's facility with the local tongue. First, she was only less than perfectly fluent, then she was hardly fluent, now she only speaks Russian... By the time of the hearing, i'll expect her to testify in Esperanto.

 

[Deepak]

Yeah, WP's trollery can look forward to at least another six months' life cycle. It will be interesting to see where the 'bot goes from here - first, it was "no evidence" now it's "not enough evidence"... in 6-8 months when impeachment proceedings get under way, will he say "too much evidence!"?

Kind of like the Russian lawyer's facility with the local tongue. First, she was only less than perfectly fluent, then she was hardly fluent, now she only speaks Russian... By the time of the hearing, i'll expect her to testify in Esperanto.

You have not experienced her testimony until you have heard it in the original Klingon.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

The Russiagate investigations are far from concluded.

That's only because they want very strong cases. We pretty much know what happened and what was traded for what.

I've achieved a first in something.
The second point is my point. No indefeasible case yet. We don't fully know what happened but we know what is reported to have happened. It could even be a lot worse or better.

 

[Deepak]

Well now, I was exercising my google-fu and came across a few items - one is Ms Veselnitskaya sitting front row in a Congressional hearing, and while it seems she's live-tweeting for most of the proceedings she does seem to get a chuckle at the 4:55 mark. So regardless of whether she speaks fluent English, does seem to have some understanding of the language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtpaGJYQxJY

The other is a pretty curious picture...

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is the dumbest thing I've heard all day.


That's only because they want very strong cases. We pretty much know what happened and what was traded for what.

Yeah, WP's trollery can look forward to at least another six months' life cycle. It will be interesting to see where the 'bot goes from here - first, it was "no evidence" now it's "not enough evidence"... in 6-8 months when impeachment proceedings get under way, will he say "too much evidence!"?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence
evidence
NOUN
mass noun
1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
‘the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination’
More example sentences
Synonyms
proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation
1. 1.1Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
‘without evidence, they can't bring a charge’
More example sentences
Synonyms
2. 1.2 Signs or indications of something.
‘there was no obvious evidence of a break-in’

In any legal situation or investigation, the differing definitions 1 and 1.1 are used.
As Nice Squirrel says which agrees with me, there is no strong case.

 

[blastula]

Well now, I was exercising my google-fu and came across a few items - one is Ms Veselnitskaya sitting front row in a Congressional hearing, and while it seems she's live-tweeting for most of the proceedings she does seem to get a chuckle at the 4:55 mark. So regardless of whether she speaks fluent English, does seem to have some understanding of the language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtpaGJYQxJY

The other is a pretty curious picture...

How do we know that's Veselnitskaya in that picture? Could be Amelia Earhart.

 

[Deepak]

Well now, I was exercising my google-fu and came across a few items - one is Ms Veselnitskaya sitting front row in a Congressional hearing, and while it seems she's live-tweeting for most of the proceedings she does seem to get a chuckle at the 4:55 mark. So regardless of whether she speaks fluent English, does seem to have some understanding of the language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtpaGJYQxJY

The other is a pretty curious picture...

How do we know that's Veselnitskaya in that picture? Could be Amelia Earhart.

I don't think it is actually - but I was able to track down the source. The other characters are:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...one-emin-agalarov-aras-agalarov-a7838406.html

 

[Elixir]

As Nice Squirrel says which agrees with me, there is no strong case.

Nice squirrel didn't say that. His point was that evidence-gathering is still going on. That means that however "strong" or "indefeasible" the extant case might be, it's getting more so by the day. Nothing is going to happen until ALL the loose strings that can be tied up are tied up. At that point, even if there is no criminal indictment (which seems rather unlikely, even at this early point) there will be a public report and you'll once again have to change your story.
It's looking pretty bleak for this administration - the Sergeant Schultz defense can only go so far.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As Nice Squirrel says which agrees with me, there is no strong case.

Nice squirrel didn't say that. His point was that evidence-gathering is still going on. That means that however "strong" or "indefeasible" the extant case might be, it's getting more so by the day. Nothing is going to happen until ALL the loose strings that can be tied up are tied up. At that point, even if there is no criminal indictment (which seems rather unlikely, even at this early point) there will be a public report and you'll once again have to change your story.
It's looking pretty bleak for this administration - the Sergeant Schultz defense can only go so far.
View attachment 11839

Your making my point. The case is so far not conclusive and evidence gathering is in process which is what I said and inferred.
This is why I posted the 2 slightly differing definitions of evidence.

Assumption before the facts are concluded is a dangerous error to make when investigating for clear facts.