Democrat Schiff draws Trump ire with House intel probes

[348GTS]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Sigh.  You are significantly rephrasing your incorrect statement so you can pretend you didn't post something stupid.  You posted:

 

" If there was "abundant" evidence of crimes, then there would have been indictments and prosecutions, however there have been NONE." 

 

You did not limit your post to crimes of collusion.  This topic isn't limited to crimes of collusion.  Collusion isn't a crime.  However obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI, money laundering, tax evasion, and violating campaign finance laws are crimes.  There have been indictments, charges, prosecutions and guilty pleas regarding many crimes.  Trump has a knack for hiring people who have had suspicious dealings with unsavory Russians.  He also fathered at least one child who did the same.

 

BTW:  The intelligence agencies believe that the DNC was hacked by Russian trolls.  They won't release the evidence because that would show the trolls how they were discovered and allow them to become better trolls.  You may choose to trust the words of a sexual predator over the US intelligence agencies, but I don't.

 

Do you have any source for information other than Fox pundits?

 

 

Sigh. Now you're just cherry picking selective remarks without the proper context. It was already clarified in the thread to which I was responding that I was talking about crimes related to the basis of the Special Counsel. I suspect you already knew that but are just splitting hairs now. Especially considering that the reply was to something you wrote. You should really try to keep up because you're just confusing yourself now. I initially called you out on Cohen "going to prison for campaign finance violations" and my (paraphrased) comments in later postings referred to there being no convictions of anyone in the Trump campaign that were related to Russian Collusion in the election of which you lot seem hellbent on accusing them of despite ZERO evidence.

 

You are clearly not that informed regarding this topic and seem to think that committing an assortment of crimes a decade before the Trump campaign somehow makes someone guilty of something else entirely. You also don't seem to understand that a lot of these process crimes people are being convicted of are as a direct result of the investigation itself, and are not related to the actual scope of the Special Counsel Investigation and in some cases those accusations are being used as leverage to pressure people into admitting other crimes, or as an attempt to get them to incriminate others. So far this has failed. I also explained that "lying to the FBI" could be as simple a situation as mis-remembering a date or two accounts being different, it doesn't imply deliberate deception to conceal the truth. You are the one back pedaling and trying desperately hard to "win" the argument by attempting to invalidate my earlier points by accusing me of changing my story.

 

Oh and nice try with the "Fox pundit" quip, as if that somehow invalidates what is said. So a renowned Harvard Law Professor and expert in constitutional and criminal law who disagrees with you and your TVF echo chamber must be wrong then because he gets interviewed on Fox News?? Go and listen to him saying the same things on other "news" networks then. You need to wake up to facts and realize that wanting or wishing or hoping someone is guilty of something does not in itself make them guilty. If someone is accused of stealing a car and then the police arrest him for unpaid parking tickets 5 years earlier, does that mean that is evidence he stole a car ?? Wow. The Special Counsel was convened to investigate Russian interference in the election and accusations of collusion with the Trump campaign. So far, 2+ years later, no evidence of collusion with the Trump campaign has been found. Tax evasion a decade ago, lying to the FBI, taxi medallions, (even campaign finance violations) are all out of the scope of the Mueller probe and have nothing to do with the initial basis of the investigation. Which is what I have been saying all along. So nice try. Not really, it was actually quite a desperate and feeble try. In any event, this is the last I am going to respond to you on the matter as it is clearly a pointless exercise trying to get through to you.

[348GTS]

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

 That you only care they were not convicted of another crime is ludicrous. 

 

You're clearly confused and are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. At no point did I state that I did not care about what they were convicted of. And the basis of the investigation does not by definition constitute "another crime", you have it all backwards. The point has always been to dispute that there were any convictions for conspiracy to collude with Russians to interfere with an election, of which so many here seem to think there have been. The people who have been prosecuted were for crimes unrelated, in some instances a decade earlier. This is a matter of public record, there is no room for ambiguity.

[Basil B]

On 2/7/2019 at 3:04 AM, Berkshire said:

If his kids ever flipped on him, they're no longer his kids.  My money is on Khun Eric. 

Better they push him under the bus before he gets chance to disinherit them...

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, 348GTS said:

 

Sigh. Now you're just cherry picking selective remarks without the proper context. It was already clarified in the thread to which I was responding that I was talking about crimes related to the basis of the Special Counsel. I suspect you already knew that but are just splitting hairs now. Especially considering that the reply was to something you wrote. You should really try to keep up because you're just confusing yourself now. I initially called you out on Cohen "going to prison for campaign finance violations" and my (paraphrased) comments in later postings referred to there being no convictions of anyone in the Trump campaign that were related to Russian Collusion in the election of which you lot seem hellbent on accusing them of despite ZERO evidence.

 

You are clearly not that informed regarding this topic and seem to think that committing an assortment of crimes a decade before the Trump campaign somehow makes someone guilty of something else entirely. You also don't seem to understand that a lot of these process crimes people are being convicted of are as a direct result of the investigation itself, and are not related to the actual scope of the Special Counsel Investigation and in some cases those accusations are being used as leverage to pressure people into admitting other crimes, or as an attempt to get them to incriminate others. So far this has failed. I also explained that "lying to the FBI" could be as simple a situation as mis-remembering a date or two accounts being different, it doesn't imply deliberate deception to conceal the truth. You are the one back pedaling and trying desperately hard to "win" the argument by attempting to invalidate my earlier points by accusing me of changing my story.

 

Oh and nice try with the "Fox pundit" quip, as if that somehow invalidates what is said. So a renowned Harvard Law Professor and expert in constitutional and criminal law who disagrees with you and your TVF echo chamber must be wrong then because he gets interviewed on Fox News?? Go and listen to him saying the same things on other "news" networks then. You need to wake up to facts and realize that wanting or wishing or hoping someone is guilty of something does not in itself make them guilty. If someone is accused of stealing a car and then the police arrest him for unpaid parking tickets 5 years earlier, does that mean that is evidence he stole a car ?? Wow. The Special Counsel was convened to investigate Russian interference in the election and accusations of collusion with the Trump campaign. So far, 2+ years later, no evidence of collusion with the Trump campaign has been found. Tax evasion a decade ago, lying to the FBI, taxi medallions, (even campaign finance violations) are all out of the scope of the Mueller probe and have nothing to do with the initial basis of the investigation. Which is what I have been saying all along. So nice try. Not really, it was actually quite a desperate and feeble try. In any event, this is the last I am going to respond to you on the matter as it is clearly a pointless exercise trying to get through to you.

Sigh.  Why do I get the sense that I am arguing with someone who reads little but writes a lot?

 

You make bold, unqualified statements then follow up with rambling nonsense.  I reply to the statements, you use your rambling to claim that "It was already clarified in the thread to which I was responding that I was talking about crimes related to the basis of the Special Counsel".  No, that was not "clarified". 

 

However, since you will no doubt claim that your rambling nonsense must also be considered in refuting your nonsensical claims, I will address your latest clear, indisputably erroneous bit of ramble:  "I initially called you out on Cohen "going to prison for campaign finance violations"".  There was nothing to call out:

 

"Cohen pleaded guilty in connection with hush-money payments to two women who allege affairs with Mr. Trump. He said he made the payments at the direction of a candidate, referring to Mr. Trump.

American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp also said on CNN Wednesday that the campaign finance violations to which Cohen pleaded guilty are not crimes. Prosecutors alleged, and Cohen agreed, that the payments were a type of campaign contribution that weren’t disclosed."   https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/22/trump-cohens-campaign-finance-violations-not-crime/

 

You should try reading instead of watching Fox pundit nonsense.  You might be able to back up your claim that a "a renowned Harvard Law Professor and expert in constitutional and criminal law" disagrees with me.  Try providing a referenced quote explaining how this scholar disagrees with me.

 

Edit:  I just noticed; new member, rabidly pro-Trump, rely on a highly edited and biased version of reality.  I've been arguing with a Russian troll.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Sigh.  Why do I get the sense that I am arguing with someone who reads little but writes a lot?

 

You make bold, unqualified statements then follow up with rambling nonsense.  I reply to the statements, you use your rambling to claim that "It was already clarified in the thread to which I was responding that I was talking about crimes related to the basis of the Special Counsel".  No, that was not "clarified". 

 

However, since you will no doubt claim that your rambling nonsense must also be considered in refuting your nonsensical claims, I will address your latest clear, indisputably erroneous bit of ramble:  "I initially called you out on Cohen "going to prison for campaign finance violations"".  There was nothing to call out:

 

"Cohen pleaded guilty in connection with hush-money payments to two women who allege affairs with Mr. Trump. He said he made the payments at the direction of a candidate, referring to Mr. Trump.

American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp also said on CNN Wednesday that the campaign finance violations to which Cohen pleaded guilty are not crimes. Prosecutors alleged, and Cohen agreed, that the payments were a type of campaign contribution that weren’t disclosed."   https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/22/trump-cohens-campaign-finance-violations-not-crime/

 

You should try reading instead of watching Fox pundit nonsense.  You might be able to back up your claim that a "a renowned Harvard Law Professor and expert in constitutional and criminal law" disagrees with me.  Try providing a referenced quote explaining how this scholar disagrees with me.

 

Edit:  I just noticed; new member, rabidly pro-Trump, rely on a highly edited and biased version of reality.  I've been arguing with a Russian troll.

Agree with you, except for you last sentence. He is just ignorant who thinks he knows it all, not a Russian troll.

[bendejo]

On 2/6/2019 at 7:04 PM, Berkshire said:

If his kids ever flipped on him, they're no longer his kids.  My money is on Khun Eric. 

 

From what I can make out Eric may be the sleeper, the only (somewhat) rational one in the bunch.  They say he's the one managing the day-to-day affairs of the organization.  DT Jr is very much like his dad, thinks he can talk his way through anything and makes a fool of himself: remember how he said conversations with his father are protected by attorney-client privilege?

IMO this thing about junior and the divorce, along with his very visible affair with a Fox News personality (who Roger Ailes at least once referred to as a "Puerto Rican wh_re") is a ploy to keep the family fortune in the family.  If the divorce gets finalized and wifey gets half of whatever that's less that can be sequestered when the crime organization is brought to justice.  But maybe they will find a way to take that as well.  Then when he gets out of prison he re-unites with wifey.  A snowball's chance in hell that Jr. marries Guilfoyle, but there could be a palimony attempt.  It would be interesting to know if Jr's divorce case is being fast-tracked.

On the other hand wifey could go off-script, takes the $$ and "moves on."

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 3:06 PM, smotherb said:

Well, let's see, for two years under a Republican-controlled Congress the investigation continued; now you expect it to fold under a Democrat-controlled House?

I'm pretty sure I said elsewhere that I expect it to continue. I guess I'm just holding out hope of common sense breaking through, but where politics is concerned, there is little or no common sense involved, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 6:09 PM, heybruce said:

ZERO?  What about Don Jr meeting the Russians in Trump tower?  How about Stone being arrested and his connections to the Wikileaks emails?

 

There is ignorance, willful ignorance, and stubborn ignorance.  Trumpies have made their choice.

Americans meet Russians all the time. Junior meeting Russians is not a crime. Is Stone a Russian agent or WikiLeaks a Russian front? No such evidence has been produced, nor is it likely to be, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 8:14 PM, spidermike007 said:

These are anything but ridiculously partisan investigations, against the ridiculously partisan president. The investigations are only beginning, in the Congress, and that is in addition to the other 17 state and federal investigations that Trump has attracted thought his felonies, his vitriol, his hatred, his animosity, his war on the freedom of the press, and his career, built on lies and deceptions. They will continue, and they will either force him from office, or at the very least, force him to not run again. For those of you who consider a 2020 run an automatic thing, think again. It is not going to happen. By next year, Trump will be so radioactive, nobody will even want to be associated with him, except his last few remaining die hard devotees. 

 

Perhaps the only people with more skeletons in their closet, are Papuan Highlander cannibals. 

I should save all your posts to replay to you after the election. 

Do Papuan Highlander cannibals have closets in their grass huts? 555555555555555

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 5:13 AM, heybruce said:

Disingenuous?  Is that because I quoted a sourced reference and challenged you to do the same?

 

Lying to the FBI and violations of campaign finance laws are "process crimes"?  Right, and the investigation of Al Capone was a witch hunt, resulting in him being convicted of the process crime of tax evasion when the government couldn't get him for murder and tax evasion.

 

I am genuinely interested as to whether you have a news source other than the ranting pundits of Fox.

Equating a proven mobster with unproven allegations against Trump et al is clearly deflection, IMO.

[heybruce]

43 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Americans meet Russians all the time. Junior meeting Russians is not a crime. Is Stone a Russian agent or WikiLeaks a Russian front? No such evidence has been produced, nor is it likely to be, IMO.

Yes, but how often do Americans high up in a presidential campaign meet Russians with the intent to get dirt on their opponent from the Russian government?

 

Regarding Stone and WikiLeaks, I wouldn't rule it out.  The assessment of US intelligence agencies is that the emails "leaked" by WikiLeaks in coordination with Stone were obtained by Russian hackers.  Of course some people would rather take the word of the sexual predator Julian Assange over that of US Intellingence agencies.

[smotherb]

On 2/8/2019 at 5:58 AM, elmrfudd said:

crimes that are invented after an interview, yeah. and yet a myriad of govt officials get off scott free for the same

thing....amazing isn't it? I am sure it is just a coincidence.

Oh yes, that's right, the US Justice Department and US Courts system is known for its partisan behavior, especially when inventing crimes--just under Trump, of course.

[heybruce]

40 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Equating a proven mobster with unproven allegations against Trump et al is clearly deflection, IMO.

Read my post again.  I equated capturing felons by any means possible, including lying to the FBI, to prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion instead of racketeering and murder.

 

I suspect you knew that.  Your post was "is clearly deflection, IMO."

[smotherb]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm pretty sure I said elsewhere that I expect it to continue. I guess I'm just holding out hope of common sense breaking through, but where politics is concerned, there is little or no common sense involved, IMO.

Then why the lament of the downtrodden--oh why, oh why, don't they stop?  When a dog has another dog cornered; do they stop before the beta dog yields to the alpha?

 

That was unfair; I should not just conclude Trump is the beta dog in this situation; we need to see the end of the investigation to clear Trump's good name.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, smotherb said:

we need to see the end of the investigation to clear Trump's good name

Trump, IMO, lost his good name when he ran for POTUS, and I doubt he'll ever get it back. However, IMO, the investigations will drag on till he leaves the presidency because they are a great way to emasculate him politically. If they actually closed them, they would have to publish a conclusion, and saying that they didn't actually find any evidence of collusion would not help the Dems cause.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Gee, you mean the libtards are smarter than the contards? The libtards can keep the investigation going even when Trump did nothing wrong and the contards can't stop them, even when they had control of both houses?

LOL. Probably as many of the GOP congressmen hate Trump as much as Dems do.

Zero to do with being smart, which is definitely not a requirement for political office.

Anyway, surely you know that the investigations is under the control of the Justice department and not congress? Far as I know, congress can only stop it by cutting off the funds for it. Tell me if I'm wrong.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

The allegations that he is a sexual predator are supported by the fact that he fled Sweden and went to the UK,

LOL, he's no more a "sexual predator" than most farangs in Thailand, IMO. Far as I can tell, the charges were politically motivated.

[smotherb]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Probably as many of the GOP congressmen hate Trump as much as Dems do.

Zero to do with being smart, which is definitely not a requirement for political office.

Anyway, surely you know that the investigations is under the control of the Justice department and not congress? Far as I know, congress can only stop it by cutting off the funds for it. Tell me if I'm wrong.

So, the GOP want the investigation to continue? It certainly appears that way, if they are not being outsmarted. And, yes, Congress could cut-off funding the investigation. However, Congress could also approve any firing of any justice official who did not do what Trump wanted; Congress could also simply vote for an impeachment and remove him from office. Nevertheless, they are not doing that either, they are letting the investigation continue.  Since you know everyone wants the investigation to continue, why are you upset that the investigation continues?

[heybruce]

55 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL, he's no more a "sexual predator" than most farangs in Thailand, IMO. Far as I can tell, the charges were politically motivated.

You think the women who charged him with assault had political motives?   Please explain this.

[Joe Mcseismic]

No matter how many investigations are started, or ongoing, it wouldn't bother an innocent man.

In fact, an innocent man would be keen to cooperate.

[Joe Mcseismic]

37 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Democrats hired a respected British spymaster to research suspicions that Trump had links to Russia that were pertinent to the presidential campaign.  There is nothing wrong with this.  Don Jr met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in anticipation of receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government.  That is illegal.  Denying it doesn't change it.

 

You consider posting referenced information is playing "posting-links-that-support-our-views game"?  No wonder you have views totally detached from reality.

 

Once again I have greater confidence in US intelligence agencies, and the Swedish justice system, than in Julian Assange's word.  My calling him a sexual predator is no worse than you accusing Democrats of collusion for doing legal research.

Actually, the probe was started by a Republican. He eventually pulled out (I wonder why?) and then the probe was taken over by Democrats.

[goferman]

2 hours ago, smotherb said:

Trump's good name.

Surely, you must be jesting.

Trump's name before politics was anything but good save the gullible Apprentice-worshippers.

He was known for lying, cheating, defrauding innocent, hard-working people.

He was also known for his mob connections and being a sleaze.

Need I continue or can you accept my point?

[goferman]

2 hours ago, Brock05 said:

 

the Steele Dossier was compiled from Russian sources by a foreign agent from the UK who was a Russian expert?

Yes. And so far, most of the dossier has been proven true.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-later/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-01-07T21%3A03%3A30&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, goferman said:

Yes. And so far, most of the dossier has been proven true.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-later/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-01-07T21%3A03%3A30&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social

Nothing in the dossier has been proven false.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, smotherb said:

So, the GOP want the investigation to continue? It certainly appears that way, if they are not being outsmarted. And, yes, Congress could cut-off funding the investigation. However, Congress could also approve any firing of any justice official who did not do what Trump wanted; Congress could also simply vote for an impeachment and remove him from office. Nevertheless, they are not doing that either, they are letting the investigation continue.  Since you know everyone wants the investigation to continue, why are you upset that the investigation continues?

I'm not upset, as I'm not paying for it. If I was, I'd be livid.

If they haven't found any evidence after 2 years, either they are incompetent, or there isn't any, perhaps both. It's just a waste of tax payers money.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not upset, as I'm not paying for it. If I was, I'd be livid.

If they haven't found any evidence after 2 years, either they are incompetent, or there isn't any, perhaps both. It's just a waste of tax payers money.

Then nobody can be upset, since it is making money. The only ones paying for it are the convicted criminals.

But maybe you can explain how this can be a waste of tax payers money if it is making money?

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not upset, as I'm not paying for it. If I was, I'd be livid.

If they haven't found any evidence after 2 years, either they are incompetent, or there isn't any, perhaps both. It's just a waste of tax payers money.

As a reminder of the Muller Investigation remit...

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Appointment_of_Special_Counsel_to_Investigate_Russian_Interference_with_the_2016_Presidential_Election_and_Related_Matters.pdf

 

Muller Investigation indictments and plea deals make a nonsense of your claim of no evidence so far...

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Deflecting much? The Benghazi incident resulted in the death of Americans including an ambassador and needed an investigation to prevent such happening again. The witch hunts on Trump are not based on any facts that have been exposed so far, and seemingly will not discover any no matter how long they continue.

Tell that to Manafort, Cohen, Flynn and Stone.

 

They are desperately in need of your denials.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

As a reminder of the Muller Investigation remit...

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Appointment_of_Special_Counsel_to_Investigate_Russian_Interference_with_the_2016_Presidential_Election_and_Related_Matters.pdf

 

Muller Investigation indictments and plea deals make a nonsense of your claim of no evidence so far...

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

Tell us of any arrests for collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to influence the elections. Can't, can you?

Mueller is fishing for a shark and is catching minnows.

[keith101]

Is the commitee going to look into how much of the Trump Inauguration money has gone into his campaign fund and back pocket