Epstein Files | Ghislaine Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 75K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
My reading is just fine, thanks.

If the most powerful and investigative body on the planet could not establish that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia, what do you think the opinion of informed and reasonable people should be as it relates to the Trump campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia?

I'm not saying anything about 100% certainty. I'm saying, if you are going to lean one way or the other and express an opinion one way or the other, which way should you lean? Should you lean toward The campaign conspiring / colluding or should you lean toward the campaign not conspiring or colluding?
Click to expand...
Knowing Donald Trump?

You lean toward the worst possible answer. Every time. Hes earned that.
 
ZenMode said:
I think the investigation established a lot of things, but collusion/conspiracy with the Russian government are not among them.
Click to expand...
They couldn't prove the back/forth to establish the standard for that investigation. Information was shared.

But do you mind answering the questions?

Why do you think they sent it?

How do you think it was used?
 
ZenMode said:
Again....

(Copy/Paste)

If the most powerful and investigative body on the planet could not establish that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia, what do you think the opinion of informed and reasonable people should be as it relates to the Trump campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia?

I'm not saying anything about 100% certainty. I'm saying, if you are going to lean one way or the other and express an opinion one way or the other, which way should you lean? Should you lean toward The campaign conspiring / colluding or should you lean toward the campaign not conspiring or colluding?
Click to expand...
This campaign? Colluding/cheating and lying about it for sure. Trump has always been that guy.
 
ZenMode said:
Brainwashing.
Click to expand...
Oh stop with the bullshit. What is your counterpoint to show that Trump deserves the benefit of any doubt?

If a teenage boy went missing in Chicago in the 70s after talking to a contractor about a job, should John Wanyne Gacy be considered the likely culprit? Damned right he should.

When a person shows you over and over who they are, then there is no reason to believe they are something else.
 
I post this link because Les raises a question I never considered. Why has Trump not sued Katie Johnson for defamation ? He sues everyone else who says something bad about him.

Katie filed a complaint in court alleging that Trump raped her when she was 13yo at a "model party" in Epstein's NYC apartment.

www.rawstory.com

'That was a confession': Ex-insider claims 'crime happened' with Trump and Epstein

Donald Trump's former "trusted operative" on Sunday made the case that the president is indeed hiding something potentially criminal with his connection to Jeffrey Epstein.Trump has categorically denied all allegations of inappropriate behavior as it relates to underage girls, but that isn't...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
wmheel1287 said:
Oh stop with the bullshit. What is your counterpoint to show that Trump deserves the benefit of any doubt?
Click to expand...
As I mentioned before, the most powerful investigative body in the world could not establish that he colluded/conspired with the Russian government.
wmheel1287 said:
If a teenage boy went missing in Chicago in the 70s after talking to a contractor about a job, should John Wanyne Gacy be considered the likely culprit? Damned right he should.
Click to expand...
Trump was considered to be a corporate and the US government could not establish that he conspired / colluded.
wmheel1287 said:
When a person shows you over and over who they are, then there is no reason to believe they are something else.
Click to expand...
And there were a lot of people who thought that he colluded. After a full investigation, it could not be established that he did.
 
ZenMode said:
Do you believe that you know more about the situation than the US government that said it could not establish that he colluded / conspired?
Click to expand...
You are not answering my question.

I'll answer yours. I believe them
.

You left out:

1) Numerous interactions and a willingness to receive Russian help were documented.

2) Obstruction issue unresolved with evidence and concerns. Mueller declined to pursue charges.



The legal standard for criminal conspiracy wasn’t met per Mueller, but Numerous interactions and a willingness to receive Russian help were documented AND Obstruction issue has lots of evidence, but Mueller punted because Trump
was POTUS.

i believe the gov't and that it was not not a hoax. The standard Mueller was going for is different than what is needed to determine that there was nefarious activity and a cover up...they just didn't piece together the whole story like OJ.
 
I'm usually one who sides with engaging with our conservative interlocutors. If nothing else, it's more interesting than a quiet board. But we should all know by now this is one of Zen's go-to plays when he wants to shift focus from something embarrassing to the Pubs by creating a massively-false equivalence with the Dems. He's done it many, many times before.

And with that said, any chance we could return this thread to the thing Zen is trying to distract from, which is Epstein?
 
ZenMode said:
Do you believe that you know more about the situation than the US government that said it could not establish that he colluded / conspired?
Click to expand...
As Super alluded to earlier, Mueller explained in a later Congressional hearing he did not file a criminal charge because there was not sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy that would result in a guilty verdict in a court of law. He went on to say the failure to establish a criminal conspiracy was due in part to Trump's obstruction of justice which was detailed in the report.

There is a reason Bill Barr issued a preemptive spin on the Mueller Report to feed a media that was too lazy to dig into the details of the report. The actual report was damning and Barr knew it.
 
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
You are not answering my question.

I'll answer yours. I believe them
.

You left out:

1) Numerous interactions and a willingness to receive Russian help were documented.
Click to expand...
That was acknowledged in the excerpt I posted from the Mueller report. Do you agree that a willingness to receive help isn't the same thing as colluding/conspiring?
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
2) Obstruction issue unresolved with evidence and concerns. Mueller declined to pursue charges.
Click to expand...
Correct. There were two parts to the Mueller Report. One dealt with colluding/conspiring and one dealt with obstruction. While Mueller did NOT establish that Trump colluded, he DID seem to lay the groundwork for obstruction.

Obstruction is not collusion.
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
The legal standard for criminal conspiracy wasn’t met per Mueller, but Numerous interactions and a willingness to receive Russian help were documented AND Obstruction issue has lots of evidence, but Mueller punted because Trump
was POTUS.

i believe the gov't and that it was not not a hoax. The standard Mueller was going for is different than what is needed to determine that there was nefarious activity and a cover up...they just didn't piece together the whole story like OJ.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned above, Mueller apparently found more than enough to lay the groundwork for indictment for obstruction, but not enough for collusion.

That being the case, and knowing that the government knows more than ANY of us as it relates to collusion, why would your opinion be that Trump colluded.

Note: Collusion is not a legal reference, but I'm tired of typing collude/conspire, so assume that "collude" is a reference to "conspire".
 
ZenMode said:
As I mentioned before, the most powerful investigative body in the world could not establish that he colluded/conspired with the Russian government.

Trump was considered to be a corporate and the US government could not establish that he conspired / colluded.

And there were a lot of people who thought that he colluded. After a full investigation, it could not be established that he did.
Click to expand...
And your question wasn't what had been established through investigation as to a standard of guilt. Your own question was which way would someone lean as to Trump after reading the findings. I said I would lean toward the worst conclusion for Trump...always.

And no, I do not believe that a willingness to accept help that one knows is patently illegal is any different than colluding.

If Im at a craps table and the dealer consistently pays my pass line bets when the shooter rolls a 7 out while taking everyone else's bet....im totally complicit in theft if I pick up the chips every time.
 
wmheel1287 said:
And your question wasn't what had been established through investigation as to a standard of guilt. Your own question was which way would someone lean as to Trump after reading the findings. I said I would lean toward the worst conclusion for Trump...always.
Click to expand...
Which is fine. In doing so, you aren't aligning your beliefs/opinion with the best available information.

I bet your opinion would align with the Mueller Report if it said he did conspire.

I also believe your unwillingness to adjust your opinion is due to brainwashing at the hands of liberal media and liberal politicians. They (Democrats and liberal media) ran hard with the Russian collusion story for years, treating it as though it was fact. Remember Schiff's smoking gun that was going to be released aaaaaany day now?

Even after the Mueller Report came out and specifically said "could not establish...", they still ran with it and convinced a lot of people that they know more than the federal government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top