Immigration Ban

Agreed - but again, you have to look at the elements of the underlying crime. Here, the potential crime was campaign finance violations. So then you must ask, was there an overt act that furthers the underlying crime - to which there was not. That is why the portion about "intent" in the quoted blurb is important. 
Except the special counsel explicitly states why they didn't charge Jr. and Kushner. It's not because they didn't believe they committed conspiracy, it's because they felt they were too stupid to know what they did was illegal and it was difficult to establish a monetary value for the information they received.

 
I must have missed where there was evidence Trump directed the deletion? Also, didn't see anything about matters being deleted or erased from Trumps computers.. so nice try. Just because a witness may have deleted does not mean Trump was complicit. If there was evidence of such, I would agree Trump was in the wrong. 

 
I must have missed where there was evidence Trump directed the deletion? Also, didn't see anything about matters being deleted or erased from Trumps computers.. so nice try. Just because a witness may have deleted does not mean Trump was complicit. If there was evidence of such, I would agree Trump was in the wrong. 
That's right.  If someone has a D beside their name, they're EVIL and should be LOCKED UP.

If they have an R.....well....that's different.

 
  50 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

If you are going to investigate him do so with unbiased investigators. Do so with investigators who aren't using the investigation as an insurance policy. Do so with actual verifiable facts and not those made up and/or paid for by a political opponent. 

Completely made up propaganda by someone who personally benefits from you believing that.


What is made up or untrue? Stzrock, the lead investigator, was biased. His texts are self explanatory. The Steele Dossier was full of unverifiable facts.

 
Are we talking about Hillary now?

Because Trump hasn't been accused of deleting or hiding evidence. Instead, the potential obstruction issues have to do with how he reacted to being investigated and conversations about firing individuals...


I must have missed where there was evidence Trump directed the deletion? Also, didn't see anything about matters being deleted or erased from Trumps computers.. so nice try. Just because a witness may have deleted does not mean Trump was complicit. If there was evidence of such, I would agree Trump was in the wrong. 
The backtracking is real. All I said was he was hiding evidence. You say he hasn't been accused of hiding or deleting evidence which isn't true, he has been accused of such, now its 'well there is no evidence he directed deletion of evidence...from a computer!' 

Come on bro, this is getting ridiculous. Until you start providing actual sources like everyone else then I can't take your arguments seriously. You clearly haven't read any of the report and you are just spouting Fox talking points. 

 
BlitzFirst said:
Actually, no.

I supported Trump previously.  I changed my mind when it was obvious the guy was a buffoon and he LIED directly to people constantly.  Instead of relying on the sewage coming out of his mouth, I did my own research.  I started finding out that I had been lied to by him and by the media.  Now if opinion pieces come out, I ignore them.  I research on my own and I make informed decisions on topics.

You should do the same.  You're currently not doing that.


HA! Ok.  :thumbs

 
The backtracking is real. All I said was he was hiding evidence. You say he hasn't been accused of hiding or deleting evidence which isn't true, he has been accused of such, now its 'well there is no evidence he directed deletion of evidence...from a computer!' 

Come on bro, this is getting ridiculous. Until you start providing actual sources like everyone else then I can't take your arguments seriously. You clearly haven't read any of the report and you are just spouting Fox talking points. 


Your misunderstanding of the report is real. Evidence from certain witnesses was not available due "that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records."

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/708965026/highlights-from-the-mueller-report

In fact, the report does not even go so far as to say there was anything nefarious about the encryptions of witnesses systems or document retention policy. There are a whole host of reasons why and the fact you choose to make assumptions is not something anyone else other than yourself control. 

Put simply, there is NO evidence the unavailability of that evidence has anything to do with Trump. 

 
BlitzFirst said:
Great rebuttal!  Being serious man.  Stop relying on opinion fluff pieces.  Do your own research.  Make up your own mind.  When someone else makes it up for you, you're in a cult.


Your post was an attack on my intelligence and research abilities and ability to comprehend what I read. Similarly, your post was based on a false premise that I don't do my own research or can analyze what I read. 

Therefore, your post got the attention that it deserved. 

 
Your post was an attack on my intelligence and research abilities and ability to comprehend what I read. Similarly, your post was based on a false premise that I don't do my own research or can analyze what I read. 

Therefore, your post got the attention that it deserved. 


Well, when you do nothing but repeat what trump tells you, it’s a pretty easy conclusion to come to. 

 
I’m a Jewish historian. Yes, we should call border detention centers “concentration camps.”

Meanwhile, Americans offended at the use of “concentration camp” should acquaint themselves with our own history of civilian detention. As early as 1862, American forces interned Dakota women and children at Fort Snelling. George Takei tweeted this week regarding the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, “I know what concentration camps are. I was inside two of them, in America. And yes, we are operating such camps again.”

Applying the term “concentration camp” to the indefinite detention without trial of thousands of civilians in inhumane conditions — under armed guard and without adequate provisions or medical care — is not just appropriate, it’s necessary. Invoking the word does not demean the memory of the Holocaust. Instead, the lessons of the Holocaust will be lost if we refuse to engage with them.

 
It makes me sad in my fellow human being that this doesn't appear to be a bigger deal to people. Hell, I'm sure there are stringent anti-immigrant folks out there who love the crack down on illegal immigrants and think we're doing the right thing.

I don't get how someone could think these camps are the right thing to do. But I suppose there were people who cheered internment camps at one point, too. Fun fact: The first judge shown that this woman is arguing to was in one of those camps as a boy.

Sounds like they're gearing up for sting operations to detain more illegal immigrants in major cities tomorrow. I'm guessing even harsher policies are going to be the focus for re-election. My heart is heavy after seeing the tactics used by some of these thugs.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not just letting it happen - he's gathering up even more this weekend to subjugate to this torture.  And the GOP idiots are arguing about the semantics of calling them concentration camps.

 
Back
Top