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 
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.
 
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...
Need to add in the part about not being able to establish due to the Trump administration committing 10 illegal acts of Obstruction of Justice, I think. If we want to be fair.
 
ZenMode said:
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.
Click to expand...
“He just came strolling right in,” Dixon said. “There was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless. Others girls were naked. Our first introduction to him was when we were at the dress rehearsal and half-naked changing into our bikinis.”

Dixon went on to say that employees of the Miss Universe Organization encouraged the contestants to lavish Trump with attention when he came in. “To have the owner come waltzing in, when we’re naked, or half-naked, in a very physically vulnerable position and then to have the pressure of the people that worked for him telling us to go fawn all over him, go walk up to him, talk to him, get his attention…”

That look of the year stuff is super creepy too isn't it?
 
heelinhell said:
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
Click to expand...
I think the simple answer here is that there is no money get from this woman, so a law suit is virtually pointless.
 
ChileG said:
It really isn’t too far of a bridge to go from intentionally walking in on underaged girls to catch them naked and then bragging about it on the radio to actually wanting to have sex with underaged girls.
Click to expand...
I'd bet you have the cart before the horse.
 
I’ll turn back to Epstein after this. But think this battle between Zen and other posters is a bit silly.

Collusion itself was (in some ways) always silly. One, because it gave Trump probably more credit than he deserved (in terms of both planning and execution). But also because it wasn’t even a cognizable legal standard in this context. Collusion (even if it happened) was not a crime except perhaps, in the eye of some bright and creative legal minds, under a very broad reading of campaign finance laws.

If Collusion was genuinely a crime unto itself, the Trump Tower meeting where the highest echelons of the Trump campaign met with a Russian under the auspices she was delivering damaging information on Hillary direct from the Kremlin was probably criminal (as conspiracy to collude) even if (according to those involved FWIW) it was the Trump campaign being bamboozled. Which arguably makes them look not only totally corrupt but also completely inept.

Trying and failing to collude isn’t really the defense I’d cling to.

That said, if people want to criticize the media focus and narrative, there certainly is some room to be critical.

Now back to this Epstein thing…
 
Icky Mettle said:
I think the simple answer here is that there is no money get from this woman, so a law suit is virtually pointless.
Click to expand...
I considered that along with the fact that death threats caused her to drop the case. He probably would have threatened to sue her to get her to drop the case, but the death threats did the trick. According to her complaint, after Trump raped her he told the 13yo that he was a very powerful man and would have her entire family murdered if she ever told anyone about the rape.
 
ChileG said:
It really isn’t too far of a bridge to go from intentionally walking in on underaged girls to catch them naked and then bragging about it on the radio to actually wanting to have sex with underaged girls.
Click to expand...
We’re about 1-2 weeks away from maga talking points uniformly casting doubt on the impropriety of statutory rape. Then it’ll be “can you imagine how much these young women wanted to get with a man as powerful, rich, and HOT as Donald Trump!”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top