Epstein Files | WSJ releases 50th bday letter from Trump to Epstein

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 27K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
Polling....

From the Mueller Report:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

For many Dems, this is borderline shocking information (because of the aforementioned brainwashing), as I'm sure is the case with many Republicans who get all the news from Fox News, read Breitbart, Daily Wire etc ...
Click to expand...
While you have it open, can you remind us why Don Jr wasn’t charged related to his Trump tower meeting?
 
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...
Conspiring. "Does not establish" means less than a reasonable doubt.
 
ZenMode said:
So, you don't understand the difference between Russia interfering
Click to expand...
There is nothing that you understand that other posters cannot.

If you are typing a sentence that includes a phrase like, "you don't understand . . . " then you should probably check yourself because 99% probability it's you who fail to understand.
 
superrific said:
Conspiring. "Does not establish" means less than a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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...
I answered the question. Colluding/conspiring.

You seem to think "failing to establish" is informative. It's not. It just means they can't make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There could be a 75% chance of collusion that would have been "failure to establish."

Once again, you confuse your own ignorance with the state of the world. Just because you don't know what it means for the FBI or DOJ to "fail to establish" doesn't make it so.
 
superrific said:
I answered the question. Colluding/conspiring.

You seem to think "failing to establish" is informative. It's not. It just means they can't make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There could be a 75% chance of collusion that would have been "failure to establish."

Once again, you confuse your own ignorance with the state of the world. Just because you don't know what it means for the FBI or DOJ to "fail to establish" doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming your brainwashing.
 
ZenMode said:
Polling....

From the Mueller Report:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

For many Dems, this is borderline shocking information (because of the aforementioned brainwashing), as I'm sure is the case with many Republicans who get all the news from Fox News, read Breitbart, Daily Wire etc ...
Click to expand...
Why do you think they shared it with Russia? do you think Putin asked for it or they just volunteered it?What do you think Putin did with the info?
 
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.
 
wmheel1287 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow. Really specific pull.

Haunting.

Effective.
 
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 women, 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top