Indictments coming...

[fskimospy]

Fair enough. There is certainly enough evidence to assume that Trump at least had some knowledge of what was going on around him. But the point of my original post was that it's been a year, we've had 2700 posts of speculation. Some people connected to Trump are facing charges that they may or may not be convicted of, but there still isn't a credible case against Trump. What happened to the Russian collusion that started the whole thing? I can't find information about that that isn't spun out of rumor and blog posts. All I can find are extremists on either side proclaiming victory based on speculation.

His eldest son, his son in law, and his campaign manager had a meeting with Russian agents in Trump’s own tower with him a couple floors away. The purpose of this meeting was to supply his campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of ‘Russia and its government’s support for Trump’. The idea that Trump was not aware of that meeting beggars belief. Once news of the meeting leaked out the principals repeatedly lied about it in an attempt to cover up its purpose, including one false statement directed by Trump himself. There is no sane planet on which that is not credible evidence of collusion.

As for the specifics of what criminal statutes may have been violated we will have to wait for the full report. In the meantime though we should all dispense with the ridiculous nonsense that there’s been no evidence of collusion.

 

[zinfamous]

So it's almost the one year anniversary of this thread, and some 2700 posts pointing out Trumps crimes and obvious (to some) guilt. Is Cohen going to be the smoking gun? Is there some evidence of a crime that actually involves Trump? It's surprisingly difficult to find information either way that isn't based on wishful thinking and spin.

Trump is a criminal. It's plainly obvious.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the easily-observable things?

 

[zinfamous]

Fair enough. There is certainly enough evidence to assume that Trump at least had some knowledge of what was going on around him. But the point of my original post was that it's been a year, we've had 2700 posts of speculation. Some people connected to Trump are facing charges that they may or may not be convicted of, but there still isn't a credible case against Trump. What happened to the Russian collusion that started the whole thing? I can't find information about that that isn't spun out of rumor and blog posts. All I can find are extremists on either side proclaiming victory based on speculation.

The Steele Dossier is, again and again, proven to be true on nearly every one of his memos, and Mueller as been informed, by Steele, on the rest of his intel.

"May or may not," "may or may not." None of this is rumor and speculation. It is intel that the FBI, CIA, MI5, Mossad, Australian intelligence, and Congress have been appraised of for nearly 3 years now. This is sourced reporting, and it shows in the indictments and the thugs falling left and right, pleading guilty to the very same crimes that has long been reported of them, and criticized by the acolytes as "just rumor! fake news!"

All signs are green, why do you still debate the possibility of them maybe being yellow? Being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical, especially in the face of observable truth, does not make you look smarter, my friend.

 

[zinfamous]

These things take years to play out. Watergate. Iran-Contra. Whitewater. the Plame affair. There's always a lot of "insider information" & jumping to conclusions over it, too.

OTOH, there are also observable events and the reactions of the players to them. This raid on Cohen's office seems to have unhinged Trump rather badly. Attorney-client privilege does not apply to criminal conspiracy. If the warrant stands then anything the FBI finds in the files is fair game.

It was all going along in a very lawyerly fashion with the back & forth of disclosure & document production & blah, blah, blah up 'til now. This is entirely different. This is Mueller going for the throat, make no mistake about it.

According to a US attorney in NY that I was listening to this morning, it also only applies in the "Act of counseling to a client." So if, for example, the attorney is engaging in business for their client, then there is no privilege. Funny thing that, because there are 3 people in the Trump empire that, for the last 5 or more years, have been in charge of all of Donald's international business affairs and have personally spoken to all of their international partners: Tweedle Dipshit, Jr, Ivanka, and Cohen.

None of those communications that Cohen has records of can be protected. None of them.

 

[ivwshane]

That's some serious rage you have going on there. Pity that it only makes you look the fool.
The only thing you exposed was that I didn't jump to conclusions, and that I'm apparently a fairly reasonable fellow.

Is this the guy that told everyone to wait till the Hillary investigation is over to draw conclusions or the guy who just bumped a thread to ask were the evidence of trumps crimes are after pointing out that this investigation has been going on for a year.

You are a partisan hack and you've been exposed. I suggest you sit in a corner and eat your nothing burger and stfu until the investigation is over, just like you did during the Hillary investigations.

 

[Greenman]

Is this the guy that told everyone to wait till the Hillary investigation is over to draw conclusions or the guy who just bumped a thread to ask were the evidence of trumps crimes are after pointing out that this investigation has been going on for a year.

You are a partisan hack and you've been exposed. I suggest you sit in a corner and eat your nothing burger and stfu until the investigation is over, just like you did during the Hillary investigations.

So you're upset that I wanted to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt? Or is it just that I'm not on the band wagon with you?
Maybe try communicating, use you words and try to tell me what's bothering you.

 

[Greenman]

The Steele Dossier is, again and again, proven to be true on nearly every one of his memos, and Mueller as been informed, by Steele, on the rest of his intel.

"May or may not," "may or may not." None of this is rumor and speculation. It is intel that the FBI, CIA, MI5, Mossad, Australian intelligence, and Congress have been appraised of for nearly 3 years now. This is sourced reporting, and it shows in the indictments and the thugs falling left and right, pleading guilty to the very same crimes that has long been reported of them, and criticized by the acolytes as "just rumor! fake news!"

All signs are green, why do you still debate the possibility of them maybe being yellow? Being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical, especially in the face of observable truth, does not make you look smarter, my friend.

What exactly in the Steele dossier has been proven true?
Back to my original comments, what happened with the Russian collusion by Trump?

 

[Greenman]

According to a US attorney in NY that I was listening to this morning, it also only applies in the "Act of counseling to a client." So if, for example, the attorney is engaging in business for their client, then there is no privilege. Funny thing that, because there are 3 people in the Trump empire that, for the last 5 or more years, have been in charge of all of Donald's international business affairs and have personally spoken to all of their international partners: Tweedle Dipshit, Jr, Ivanka, and Cohen.

None of those communications that Cohen has records of can be protected. None of them.

I heard it differently. According to lawyer on the radio (I forget his name) the attorney client privilege stands unless there is evidence they conspired to commit a crime. The end result is the same, just the path that gets there changes changes.
I'm not a lawyer, and have no idea if either of those two bits of information are correct.

 

[ivwshane]

So you're upset that I wanted to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt? Or is it just that I'm not on the band wagon with you?
Maybe try communicating, use you words and try to tell me what's bothering you.

You are a hypocrite.

How about those words?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I heard it differently. According to lawyer on the radio (I forget his name) the attorney client privilege stands unless there is evidence they conspired to commit a crime. The end result is the same, just the path that gets there changes changes.
I'm not a lawyer, and have no idea if either of those two bits of information are correct.

Zin has it right. Only communications related to legal matters are privileged unless they are related to criminal activity. As in house council he could be acting in many capacities. It has to be in his capacity as a lawyer to be privileged.

This might help.

https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/attorney-client-privilege-is-not-a-given-heres-why

Not every communication touched by a lawyer is privileged. Some or all of these communications might be discoverable depending on the capacity in which the lawyer is functioning in at the time of the particular communication. Remember, lawyers can play various roles depending on the circumstances, and not all of these roles are law-related; some are business-related. For example, in-house counsel, of course, can be involved in many aspects of a company’s activities, but there are risks posed by such a multifaceted role. To minimize such risk, it’s important to identify and document the role the counsel is playing in certain key communications. For example, if in-house counsel is the senior company representative on a license agreement negotiation, is that employee acting as a lawyer or a business person? In such a context, merely sending the company’s senior negotiator information does not automatically mean such a communication is privileged. If her title is “Senior VP of Business and Legal Affairs,” for example, that does not help. In such cases, simple terminology may help clarify the role. For example, instead of merely appointing a lawyer as a member of a task force, a CEO can appoint that lawyer “counsel to the task force”.

 

[Greenman]

You are a hypocrite.

How about those words?

Well, if that's the best you can do then I guess I'll accept it as the limit of what you're capable of.
I will give you a couple of pointers though. First off, anger doesn't help you're argument, and it doesn't bother me, it simply limits your ability to assemble coherent thoughts. As an example, I still don't understand how you've linked my comment that Hillary should be given the benefit of the doubt, and asking about the charges against Trump. The Trump question triggered you for reasons that I understand, I just don't agree with them.
Secondly, personal attacks and insults are the refuge of the incompetent and the angry. They're also misplaced in this case. I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for Trump, but I don't assume anyone that did is an enemy. Trump has done things I don't like, he's also done things I agree with, I can say the exact same thing about every single president that's been in office since I started paying attention to politics, and that would be Nixon.
It's foolish to rage over something you can't affect in any meaningful way. Not even being able to discuss the topic rationally does you and the point you're trying to make a disservice. Scroll up a little bit and read what Zinfamous wrote. That was an intelligent post that made me think about what I was asking, there were a couple more as well. I don't often agree with Zin, but I do read what he says and think about his position. That's communicating.

 

[umbrella39]

I don't understand how impotent rage is a "steaming pile of STFU". It comes across as a childish tantrum to me.
You seem to be under the impression that your opinion is beyond reproach, that anyone who questions your decrees is an enemy that has to be stopped. But all your doing is holding your breath and kicking your feet. I asked a somewhat reasonable question, you fellows are responding with a tantrum. That isn't winning.

Making patently ridiculous posts sometimes get you responded to in kind... The motivation of your post was clear to everyone including you... You weren't looking for discourse or debate. You just wanted to to put on your tap shoes and perform a thinly veiled premature celebration dance. One with two left feet. Then someone points out your wanton hypocrisy and you got triggered... Tough shit. Just like you suggested for Hillary and have yet to make any similar posts regarding how nothing has ever stuck to her after years and years and years.... It's surprisingly difficult to find information either way that isn't based on wishful thinking and spin. When should we expect the next Benghazi witch hunt? When will those indictments be handed down? Been at least a year now and probably at least 2700 posts... Odd how she and all that doesn't seem to matter to anyone any longer... So

Pft.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, if that's the best you can do then I guess I'll accept it as the limit of what you're capable of.
I will give you a couple of pointers though. First off, anger doesn't help you're argument, and it doesn't bother me, it simply limits your ability to assemble coherent thoughts. As an example, I still don't understand how you've linked my comment that Hillary should be given the benefit of the doubt, and asking about the charges against Trump. The Trump question triggered you for reasons that I understand, I just don't agree with them.
Secondly, personal attacks and insults are the refuge of the incompetent and the angry. They're also misplaced in this case. I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for Trump, but I don't assume anyone that did is an enemy. Trump has done things I don't like, he's also done things I agree with, I can say the exact same thing about every single president that's been in office since I started paying attention to politics, and that would be Nixon.
It's foolish to rage over something you can't affect in any meaningful way. Not even being able to discuss the topic rationally does you and the point you're trying to make a disservice. Scroll up a little bit and read what Zinfamous wrote. That was an intelligent post that made me think about what I was asking, there were a couple more as well. I don't often agree with Zin, but I do read what he says and think about his position. That's communicating.

I see the other resident hypocrite liked your post, how fitting. Birds of a feather flock together.

 

[frowertr]

Still no indictments, still no evidence of collusion, still no arrests. I enjoy reading the silly liberal forum. Come for the snowflakes.

 

[fskimospy]

Still no indictments, still no evidence of collusion, still no arrests. I enjoy reading the silly liberal forum. Come for the snowflakes.

There have been multiple indictments and arrests.

As for ‘no evidence of collusion’ I see you’re also trying to play the game where you pretend to forget that Trump’s son, son in law, and campaign manager all met with agents connected to the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton and then lied about it.

 

[skull]

There have been multiple indictments and arrests.

As for ‘no evidence of collusion’ I see you’re also trying to play the game where you pretend to forget that Trump’s son, son in law, and campaign manager all met with agents connected to the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton and then lied about it.

They don't just forget, they completely ignore it. Just like greenman did your whole post up there about it. You had a completely calm, coherent post making a hell of a point right above zin and he just completely ignored it. I don't understand how being in denial can make you ignore something so obvious.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Gentlemen what we have is more evidence of just how powerful confirmation bias can be. Uneducated persons are more susceptible to it which is why the GOP doesn't support any expansion of the education system. Keeping their base in a state of learned helplessness is a primary goal that they are successfully maintaining.

 

[fskimospy]

They don't just forget, they completely ignore it. Just like greenman did your whole post up there about it. You had a completely calm, coherent post making a hell of a point right above zin and he just completely ignored it. I don't understand how being in denial can make you ignore something so obvious.

It is pretty bizarre how we literally have an email exchange where the Russian side says ‘this is part of the Russian government’s support for you’ and the Trump side says ‘I love it!’ and still people attempt to claim there’s no evidence of collusion.

Partisanship is a hell of a drug I guess.

 

[zinfamous]

So you're upset that I wanted to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt? Or is it just that I'm not on the band wagon with you?
Maybe try communicating, use you words and try to tell me what's bothering you.

Well let's be honest: after one investigation into Hillary, you still weren't satisfied. 2, nope. 3? nuh uh. 5 investigations in, you were thinking "hey guys, let's be nice: she deserves the benefit of the doubt until "this" investigation is over." ....which means until we learn whether or not we need to start another one, the results being unsatisfactory.

 

[Greenman]

Well let's be honest: after one investigation into Hillary, you still weren't satisfied. 2, nope. 3? nuh uh. 5 investigations in, you were thinking "hey guys, let's be nice: she deserves the benefit of the doubt until "this" investigation is over." ....which means until we learn whether or not we need to start another one, the results being unsatisfactory.

I don't recall supporting 5 investigations. It's possible, but right now I can't name them.

 

[umbrella39]

Still no indictments, still no evidence of collusion, still no arrests. I enjoy reading the silly liberal forum. Come for the snowflakes.

So in other words time for more Benghazi? That IS what you are saying, right? LOL. Way to show off the new helmet your mom bought for you to ride the short yellow bus... Left with the limp wrist of a beta.

 

[umbrella39]

dp

 

[Greenman]

Making patently ridiculous posts sometimes get you responded to in kind... The motivation of your post was clear to everyone including you... You weren't looking for discourse or debate. You just wanted to to put on your tap shoes and perform a thinly veiled premature celebration dance. One with two left feet. Then someone points out your wanton hypocrisy and you got triggered... Tough shit. Just like you suggested for Hillary and have yet to make any similar posts regarding how nothing has ever stuck to her after years and years and years.... It's surprisingly difficult to find information either way that isn't based on wishful thinking and spin. When should we expect the next Benghazi witch hunt? When will those indictments be handed down? Been at least a year now and probably at least 2700 posts... Odd how she and all that doesn't seem to matter to anyone any longer... So

Pft.

I haven't posted about Hillary because she doesn't matter anymore. She's been rejected for the job of president twice. Though I do find it a bit funny that she then sold the rubes a book explaining why she lost.

As far as this thread goes, the title is "indictments coming", and the next line is "There is SO much evidence that Drumpf and many in the GOP colluded with Russia for policy shifts in exchange for Russia helping them win the election (with the primary factor being the Weiner hoax)."
I don't see Russian collusion talked about anymore, and I believe Weiner is in jail at this time, and also a registered sex offender. That hoax seems to have worked out well for the GOP (not so much for Weiner). As I recall, Weiner's wife (her name escapes me at the moment) had some issues as well. Wasn't she fired from the DNC? (That's a real question, I don't remember what happened).
So it's almost a year later, and the only people that appear to be in trouble over Russian involvement in the election is facebook.
I'll grant you that I don't follow this carefully. I listen to news radio for the 2 hours a day I spend in my truck, and they never mention Russian collusion anymore. The narrative shifted to money laundering and the general stupidity of the White house staff until Trumps affair with the porn star came out. That's all I ever hear about now.

So my post stands, where is the Russian connection at? Does anyone know anymore about that investigation than we did a year ago? If the evidence is as ironclad as some here claim, Trump should be impeached today. Finish investigating all the other stuff later, get him out of office now.

 

[ivwshane]

I haven't posted about Hillary because she doesn't matter anymore. She's been rejected for the job of president twice. Though I do find it a bit funny that she then sold the rubes a book explaining why she lost.

As far as this thread goes, the title is "indictments coming", and the next line is "There is SO much evidence that Drumpf and many in the GOP colluded with Russia for policy shifts in exchange for Russia helping them win the election (with the primary factor being the Weiner hoax)."
I don't see Russian collusion talked about anymore, and I believe Weiner is in jail at this time, and also a registered sex offender. That hoax seems to have worked out well for the GOP (not so much for Weiner). As I recall, Weiner's wife (her name escapes me at the moment) had some issues as well. Wasn't she fired from the DNC? (That's a real question, I don't remember what happened).
So it's almost a year later, and the only people that appear to be in trouble over Russian involvement in the election is facebook.
I'll grant you that I don't follow this carefully. I listen to news radio for the 2 hours a day I spend in my truck, and they never mention Russian collusion anymore. The narrative shifted to money laundering and the general stupidity of the White house staff until Trumps affair with the porn star came out. That's all I ever hear about now.

So my post stands, where is the Russian connection at? Does anyone know anymore about that investigation than we did a year ago? If the evidence is as ironclad as some here claim, Trump should be impeached today. Finish investigating all the other stuff later, get him out of office now.

Holy fuck! Did you just bring Anthony wiener into the conversation?

Your memory, like your principals, is shit if you don't remember that manafort not only has Russian ties, has been charged, and changed the GOP platform with regard to Ukraine.

Since you've admitted you don't follow this subject carefully maybe you should just stfu and educate yourself before making an even bigger fool of yourself.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't see Russian collusion talked about anymore

It is, you aren't paying enough attention.

So it's almost a year later

Watergate/Nixon took over a year, and there was far less to unravel.

I'll grant you that I don't follow this carefully.

That's pretty clear.