Russiagate

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, rushmc said:

 I spent too much time with you. People who are more thoughtful have chosen not to post at this time because they realize the gravity of the Mueller report. Obviously you don’t. 

Most of the 'more thoughtful people' gave up responding to your "Alice In Wonderland" logic a long time ago. 

[yobnoc 142]

I keep seeing "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as being the standard that must be reached with the President* and it baffles me why this is the standard that it would take for Trump supporters to say "Hey, maybe this guy shouldn't be president."  Impeachment is not limited to whether a criminal statute was violated anyway.  The office of the president is supposed to be held to a higher standard.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a standard used in criminal court for purposes of conviction.  It does not mean that if the evidence falls somewhere short of that, that the person is exonerated or hasn't engaged in nefarious activity; it only means that the evidence is not strong enough to convict. 

If you want to understand how little sense it makes that you hold this standard, ask yourself if you'd entrust your kid to a daycare run by Casey Anthony.  If the answer is anything other than "hell no," I'd call you a liar.  I'd also point out the hypocrisy that you're willing to turn a blind eye to anything less than a criminal conviction on the part of the president* and still trust our country in his tiny hands.

Have some principles.  You look pretty dumb pontificating about how Hillary is guilty of X,Y, and Z when she's been investigated for YEARS longer than Trump and it was a big nothingburger, but then you turn around and say "Oh, well. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is my standard." 

[rushmc 23]

14 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I keep seeing "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as being the standard that must be reached with the President* and it baffles me why this is the standard that it would take for Trump supporters to say "Hey, maybe this guy shouldn't be president."  Impeachment is not limited to whether a criminal statute was violated anyway.  The office of the president is supposed to be held to a higher standard.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a standard used in criminal court for purposes of conviction.  It does not mean that if the evidence falls somewhere short of that, that the person is exonerated or hasn't engaged in nefarious activity; it only means that the evidence is not strong enough to convict. 

If you want to understand how little sense it makes that you hold this standard, ask yourself if you'd entrust your kid to a daycare run by Casey Anthony.  If the answer is anything other than "hell no," I'd call you a liar.  I'd also point out the hypocrisy that you're willing to turn a blind eye to anything less than a criminal conviction on the part of the president* and still trust our country in his tiny hands.

Have some principles.  You look pretty dumb pontificating about how Hillary is guilty of X,Y, and Z when she's been investigated for YEARS longer than Trump and it was a big nothingburger, but then you turn around and say "Oh, well. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is my standard." 

No collision no obstruction 

[rushmc 23]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Most of the 'more thoughtful people' gave up responding to your "Alice In Wonderland" logic a long time ago. 

 That’s because they can’t handle the truth 

[yobnoc 142]

4 minutes ago, rushmc said:

No collision no obstruction 

Thanks for that thoughtful and comprehensive response.

[wmw999 2,558]

Not necessarily woman, just she’s Hillary. 

The report says there’s no provable collusion between the campaign and a foreign power. That’s a good thing; it might not have happened.

Wendy P. 

[rushmc 23]

13 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Thanks for that thoughtful and comprehensive response.

 Your Hypocrisy is on full display. We know, according to Comey, that Hillary Clinton committed felonies. Yet he invented some sort of off-the-wall statute that there was no intent. Which is not in the statute. But you don’t care. So your crocodile tears don’t bother me at all. And your lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation is blatant for all to see. Thank you for making it obvious

Edited April 19, 2019 by rushmc

[rushmc 23]

18 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Thanks for that thoughtful and comprehensive response.

 On the other hand I find it hilarious you use the word thoughtful to somebody else’s response. Remember, no collusion and no obstruction. Sorry your world was blown apart 

[yobnoc 142]

7 minutes ago, rushmc said:

 Your Hypocrisy is on full display. We know, according to Comey, that Hillary Clinton committed felonies. Yet he invented some sort of off-the-wall statute that there was no intent. Which is not in the statute. But you don’t care. So your crocodile tears don’t bother me at all. And your lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation is blatant for all to see. Thank you for making it obvious

Cite your source that felonies were committed.  When did Comey list the felonies?  I can't seem to recall when that happened.  Do you have a transcript?  Corrupt intent is absolutely an essential part of any indictment.  If it wasn't, then Trump would be indicted on obstruction of justice.  The inconsistencies you espouse are mind-boggling.  I'm simply pointing out that the only consistency in your positions is the partisan application of what standard of proof is required to indict someone either criminally or in the court of public opinion.

[rushmc 23]

33 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Cite your source that felonies were committed.  When did Comey list the felonies?  I can't seem to recall when that happened.  Do you have a transcript?  Corrupt intent is absolutely an essential part of any indictment.  If it wasn't, then Trump would be indicted on obstruction of justice.  The inconsistencies you espouse are mind-boggling.  I'm simply pointing out that the only consistency in your positions is the partisan application of what standard of proof is required to indict someone either criminally or in the court of public opinion.

You need only watch the Comey news conference.

 

He spelled it out very well and then introduced a new legal standard of intent into the statute which did not exist and does not exist today. Funny how ever you know say you need proof. And there is no proof that Trump did anything wrong yet you say he did. Hypocrisy drips off your face

Edited April 19, 2019 by rushmc

[rushmc 23]

32 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Cite your source that felonies were committed.  When did Comey list the felonies?  I can't seem to recall when that happened.  Do you have a transcript?  Corrupt intent is absolutely an essential part of any indictment.  If it wasn't, then Trump would be indicted on obstruction of justice.  The inconsistencies you espouse are mind-boggling.  I'm simply pointing out that the only consistency in your positions is the partisan application of what standard of proof is required to indict someone either criminally or in the court of public opinion.

I will bet that you still believe Hands up don’t shoot is true too don’t you?

[rushmc 23]

35 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Cite your source that felonies were committed.  When did Comey list the felonies?  I can't seem to recall when that happened.  Do you have a transcript?  Corrupt intent is absolutely an essential part of any indictment.  If it wasn't, then Trump would be indicted on obstruction of justice.  The inconsistencies you espouse are mind-boggling.  I'm simply pointing out that the only consistency in your positions is the partisan application of what standard of proof is required to indict someone either criminally or in the court of public opinion.

Just in case doing a search is not  something you were good at 

 

 

[yobnoc 142]

19 minutes ago, rushmc said:

I will bet that you still believe Hands up don’t shoot is true too don’t you?

What does that have to do with the matter we were discussing?  I watched the entire video; it was my second time watching this particular news conference.  I guess you expected the law to be applied differently with regard to Hillary than it has been applied in the past?  Comey also only made recommendations; the justice department had free reign to prosecute if they felt the case was strong enough to convict.  They didn't.

 

I find Hillary to be a revolting politician, by the way.  I voted for her because I expected that Trump would be 10,000 times worse for our country than her.  Given that we're not able to examine an alternate universe (except watching Trump supporters' explain away how he's the most law-and-order, non-racist, godly president* of all time), I cannot point to a situation that never happened and say "See, it's better!"

 

I still am convinced, however, that her being president would be far less repugnant than what we're seeing unfold.

[rushmc 23]

8 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

What does that have to do with the matter we were discussing?  I watched the entire video; it was my second time watching this particular news conference.  I guess you expected the law to be applied differently with regard to Hillary than it has been applied in the past?  Comey also only made recommendations; the justice department had free reign to prosecute if they felt the case was strong enough to convict.  They didn't.

 

I find Hillary to be a revolting politician, by the way.  I voted for her because I expected that Trump would be 10,000 times worse for our country than her.  Given that we're not able to examine an alternate universe (except watching Trump supporters' explain away how he's the most law-and-order, non-racist, godly president* of all time), I cannot point to a situation that never happened and say "See, it's better!"

 

I still am convinced, however, that her being president would be far less repugnant than what we're seeing unfold.

Yeah well us smelly Walmart people, Hillary deplorable’s disagree with you.

 

And I am telling you I am proud to be one of those people.

 

And you have every right to be wrong. Live with it.

 

The simple fact that you cannot admit you were wrong speaks volumes. You and your left-wing Hillary loving media supporting people.

 

Thanks for admitting you voted for Hillary. I would have guessed that and said it but I didn’t know. But now we all know.

[rushmc 23]

14 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

What does that have to do with the matter we were discussing?  I watched the entire video; it was my second time watching this particular news conference.  I guess you expected the law to be applied differently with regard to Hillary than it has been applied in the past?  Comey also only made recommendations; the justice department had free reign to prosecute if they felt the case was strong enough to convict.  They didn't.

 

I find Hillary to be a revolting politician, by the way.  I voted for her because I expected that Trump would be 10,000 times worse for our country than her.  Given that we're not able to examine an alternate universe (except watching Trump supporters' explain away how he's the most law-and-order, non-racist, godly president* of all time), I cannot point to a situation that never happened and say "See, it's better!"

 

I still am convinced, however, that her being president would be far less repugnant than what we're seeing unfold.

One things for sure. Given all the statistics of unemployment and the economy you have to admit you’re wrong. Because what Trump is done for this economy and for this country exceeds even my expectations. Given you supported Hillary I know you had no expectations for the country at all.

[yobnoc 142]

59 minutes ago, rushmc said:

One things for sure. Given all the statistics of unemployment and the economy you have to admit you’re wrong. Because what Trump is done for this economy and for this country exceeds even my expectations. Given you supported Hillary I know you had no expectations for the country at all.

Wow.  I think it speaks volumes that you went ahead and put words in my mouth like "Smelly walmart people" and "deplorables." 

Also, you incorrectly stated that I'm in the same basket as the media and apparently we all "love" Hillary.  I actually just stated that I think she's revolting. 

Revolting means something that disgusts.  Since you self identify as a smelly walmart person, I felt I should include that for context.

Deficit spending at a time when the economy is already doing fine (not great, just fine) after one of the worst economic crashes since the depression is a neat little trick that makes everyone richer for a short amount of time.  Then, when the next crash comes (and it will), there is less room to recover by doing more deficit spending.  Of course my 401k looks great right now, but I'm not selfish enough to think that the only thing that matters is me and my money.  There are a lot of people who aren't as fortunate as I am.

You have no way of knowing this because we're strangers, but I'll say it once and hopefully you have the decency to leave it be.  I proudly and honorably served my Country in her Navy.  I love my Country and care deeply about her citizens, her laws, and her constitution.  Don't *ever* presume that you've got some superior sense of patriotism over me.

[turtlespeed 226]

8 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Also from the report:

"The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign" or "Campaign") showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their otential to damage candidate Clinton".

In other words, the current president of the United States welcomed the interference of an foreign nation, a foreign nation generally seen as an enemy to the US, to help him win the election.

Yes - Yes - Welcomed just as much as you welcome the media trashing Trump at every turn.

Welcomed just as much as you would have welcomed the opposite - had it come to pass AGAINST trump.

[headoverheels 333]

3 hours ago, rushmc said:

One things for sure. Given all the statistics of unemployment and the economy you have to admit you’re wrong. Because what Trump is done for this economy and for this country exceeds even my expectations. Given you supported Hillary I know you had no expectations for the country at all.

Trump continued Obama's unemployment rate trend (From 10% down to 4.5% for Obama), and reduced it by about another 1%.  Under Obama, the SP500 went up 178%.  So far under Trump, about 26%.

 

[jakee 1,571]

5 hours ago, rushmc said:

 Your Hypocrisy is on full display. We know, according to Comey, that Hillary Clinton committed felonies. Yet he invented some sort of off-the-wall statute that there was no intent. 

That's exactly what the Mueller report says about the Trump Tower meeting.

[turtlespeed 226]

16 minutes ago, jakee said:

That's exactly what the Mueller report says about the Trump Tower meeting.

. . . And what have we learned from politics in the US? (And around the globe mostly) 

There is the "Them" that does the things that we would be drawn and quartered for.

Two standards - why does this surprise you?

 

Hell - who knows what backroom deals were made?

 

Did the Clinton family have dirt on Donnie - enough that he gave up pushing for her to be indicted?

That seemed to fade away very quickly after the distraction it was there to cause fizzled out.

 

The whole freakin' thing is corrupt in some way, form , or fashion. - 

Poly - "Many"

Ticks - "Blood sucking insects"

 

Can you imagine what would be going on in the US today if the media was on Trump's side as much as Fox News is - 

There is a thread about that in reverse - somewhere in here - 

But seriously . . . can you imagine?

 

 

 

[DJL 235]

16 hours ago, rushmc said:

 

No collusion. That’s for damn sure. No obstruction.

Oh course the only reason there was no obstruction charge is because Trump's staff didn't fulfill his orders.  There was no collusion charge because they were too stupid to know they were attempting to collude.   Ahem....but (wuttabout) her emails.

[billvon 3,089]

11 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Can you imagine what would be going on in the US today if the media was on Trump's side as much as Fox News is - 

We would have ended the judicial branch of government about six months ago.  We would have banned travel to and from all Muslim countries.  We'd have tens of thousands of toddlers dying in cages.  North Korea would be our staunchest ally; the UK and France would be our declared enemies.  Men would grab women by the pussy and be insulated from any reprisals - and those same women would be called ugly whores if they complained about it by the media as a whole.  Our debt would be stratospheric, even more so than it is now.

Right wing heaven.

[kallend 2,117]

On 4/18/2019 at 5:44 PM, rushmc said:

No collision no obstruction 

Clearly you've only read the Barr spin on the report. In no way did the report say no obstruction. 

[Stumpy 284]

Wow. His orangeness is getting very irate about the report that totally exonerates him. It's almost as if it doesn't. At all.

[jakee 1,571]

33 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

Wow. His orangeness is getting very irate about the report that totally exonerates him. It's almost as if it doesn't. At all.

It's quite a conundrum for Rush, isn't it? Barr says the report completely exonerates Trump, and Trump says the report is a fabrication. Which means...