Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said:

Damn. 

It starts tomorrow, gang. Jury selection. 

The whole trial is going to take forever (well, it'll seem that way)...but we're at the coin toss. I'm curious to see which side gains the advantage with the voir dire questions. ?‍♀️

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DogofWar1]

GRU assets supporting GRU goals?

 

NO

****IN'

WAY

 

 

[Mad Mike]

Here is what I strongly suspect is happening. 

Mueler is prosecuting the low hanging fruit first to establish that there was in fact criminal activity. Once these criminal activities have been proven to have happened  it will make it that much harder for those at the center of the investigation (Trump) to say they did nothing wrong. 

I believe Mueller is building one hell of a case. The only question in my mind is whether the Trump loyalists will ignore the rule of law and commit open treason with an attempted coup. And for those who don't think it could happen... Have you ever seen Trump admit wrong doing or back down from anything?

 

I believe that is the point where we may actually have a second civil war. It won't be like the first. It will be house to house, neighbor against neighbor. I have seen and talked to a lot of crazy right wingers that want it to happen and believe they will slaughter liberals who they believe will be unarmed because "libtards don't like guns"

You may think I'm paranoid. Maybe I am. But if you are as outspoken as me and have pissed off as many crazy right wingers as I have, I recommend you get a little paranoid and prepare to defend yourself. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

6 hours ago, Mad Mike said:

I believe that is the point where we may actually have a second civil war. It won't be like the first. It will be house to house, neighbor against neighbor. I have seen and talked to a lot of crazy right wingers that want it to happen and believe they will slaughter liberals who they believe will be unarmed because "libtards don't like guns"

It's certainly possible. What you're describing isn't war though. It's terrorism.

 

I agree that we could very well see exactly that to one degree or another. That's what happens when a group of people become radicalized.

[AsburySkinsFan]

 

[spjunkies]

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

So I’m just gonna call Trump’s defense the “Thesaurus Defense”, because apparently if the word that people are using doesn’t specifically appear in the law, even though the law absolutely describes the activities described by the word...then no crime.

 

Seriously, this is their thinking.

[PleaseBlitz]

51 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

So I’m just gonna call Trump’s defense the “Thesaurus Defense”, because apparently if the word that people are using doesn’t specifically appear in the law, even though the law absolutely describes the activities described by the word...then no crime.

 

Seriously, this is their thinking.

 

And note that Trump, himself, is the one using the word collusion.  To my knowledge, Mueller has never spoken the word.  

[Momma There Goes That Man]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

And note that Trump, himself, is the one using the word collusion.  To my knowledge, Mueller has never spoken the word.  

 

The word collusion is not even in Mueller's appointment letter for the special counsel. He is tasked with investigating any coordination between Russia and Trump's campaign and any other crimes brought to light by that investigation. 

 

 

order_3915-2017_special_counsel_0.pdf

[FanboyOf91]

Man, Putin might live to see Russia lose its second Cold War with the United States.

[Bang]

He's winning the first one right now. Putin hasn't stopped fighting it..  they just went quiet for a while.

 

Imagine that,, a former KGB strongman returns to Soviet ways.

But he's a good guy. KGB. Good Guy.

 

~Bang

Edited July 31, 2018 by Bang

[Springfield]

33 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

And note that Trump, himself, is the one using the word collusion.  To my knowledge, Mueller has never spoken the word.  

 

I think Trump uses the word collusion to purposefully set the narrative.  That way, if/when Mueller doesn’t outright say that Trump committed collusion then half of the country will think no big deal and Trump will win.

 

This is why it’s a must that Democrats take a large majority of the House.  Doubtful they do anything with the Senate, but at least the house will provide some sort of balance.

[mistertim]

So by that logic could I walk into an Apple store, shove an iPhone in my pocket, walk out without paying for it and get away with it by saying "I don't see 'shoving a phone into my pocket and walking away' in the US code"?

[killerbee99]

Hey, that republican logic for you... 

[AsburySkinsFan]

55 minutes ago, mistertim said:

So by that logic could I walk into an Apple store, shove an iPhone in my pocket, walk out without paying for it and get away with it by saying "I don't see 'shoving a phone into my pocket and walking away' in the US code"?

You got it. That's exactly what their argument is.

Thankfully the law defines what crimes are and not by just one word.

Unfortunately, Trump's supporters aren't smart enough to realize that.

Edited July 31, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan

[Busch1724]

The argument they're using is essentially speeding. In Pennsylvania there are speeding tickets. We all know what speeding tickets are for. However, there are times when you get a nice cop, they'll write you a ticket for "failure to obey traffic signs" instead of "speeding". Still a crime, less severe even though the act was the same. Trump and team are using collusion intently instead of conspiracy. It's essentially the same thing, but lesser offense. Am I right about that point? Mueller will certainly argue conspiracy. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, Busch1724 said:

The argument they're using is essentially speeding. In Pennsylvania there are speeding tickets. We all know what speeding tickets are for. However, there are times when you get a nice cop, they'll write you a ticket for "failure to obey traffic signs" instead of "speeding". Still a crime, less severe even though the act was the same. Trump and team are using collusion intently instead of conspiracy. It's essentially the same thing, but lesser offense. Am I right about that point? Mueller will certainly argue conspiracy. 

Actually it's more stupid than that.

They are saying that speeding isn't a crime because there aren't any laws that specifically say speeding. 

Next time you get pulled over just start yelling out.

"No speeding!! No speeding!!

The law doesn't say speeding!!

Speeding is not a crime!!!"

Tell us how that works for ya.

[spjunkies]

[PleaseBlitz]

23 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

The argument they're using is essentially speeding. In Pennsylvania there are speeding tickets. We all know what speeding tickets are for. However, there are times when you get a nice cop, they'll write you a ticket for "failure to obey traffic signs" instead of "speeding". Still a crime, less severe even though the act was the same. Trump and team are using collusion intently instead of conspiracy. It's essentially the same thing, but lesser offense. Am I right about that point? Mueller will certainly argue conspiracy. 

 

This is not correct.  "Collusion" is not a crime under the US Code.  Conspiracy is a crime.  Collusion and conspiracy could reasonably be construed as synonyms, so it is a distinction without difference for practical purposes, but in the context of a criminal trial, the prosecution will have to prove all of the elements of whatever crime they charge people with.  

 

Trump is the one that has latched onto the word collusion.  He is correct in saying that collusion is not a crime, but that doesn't make any difference.  If he gets charged with a crime, it won't be collusion, it will be something that is a crime.  Probably conspiracy and probably a host of other financial-related crimes.  

 

 

29 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Actually it's more stupid than that.

They are saying that speeding isn't a crime because there aren't any laws that specifically say speeding. 

Next time you get pulled over just start yelling out.

"No speeding!! No speeding!!

The law doesn't say speeding!!

Speeding is not a crime!!!"

Tell us how that works for ya.

 

I'm trying to think of a good analogy, and the best I can come up with is Trump blows through a red light and keeps whining that driving through an intersection is not a crime.  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

 

[Larry]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the way we got "collusion" as a buzzword was, at first, to try to establish the argument that well, if Russia did actively help the Trump campaign, but that's not illegal if the Trump campaign didn't know about it.  

 

And it's not an invalid argument.  If Russia had done what it did, completely without the knowledge of Trump or his campaign, then it would still be a scandal, (Yeah, the KGB literally conducted ops to help Trump get elected).  But it wouldn't be something you could prosecute the campaign for.  

 

They wanted to move the goalposts from "Did Russia do it?" to "Can you prove that the Trump campaign was involved?"  

 

The problem with the "no collusion" argument is that we absolutely do know that there was collusion.  (And have known it for over a year.)  For the last year, it's simply been a way of reinforcing the GOP base's denial of reality.  

[twa]

So you are saying it is like Hillary's lack of intent?

 

 

add

 or was it her ignorance?....these details matter I guess

Edited July 31, 2018 by twa

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

Actually, I'm pretty sure the way we got "collusion" as a buzzword was, at first, to try to establish the argument that well, if Russia did actively help the Trump campaign, but that's not illegal if the Trump campaign didn't know about it.  

 

And it's not an invalid argument.  If Russia had done what it did, completely without the knowledge of Trump or his campaign, then it would still be a scandal, (Yeah, the KGB literally conducted ops to help Trump get elected).  But it wouldn't be something you could prosecute the campaign for.  

 

They wanted to move the goalposts from "Did Russia do it?" to "Can you prove that the Trump campaign was involved?"  

 

This is the point that has been made over the past few weeks, that Trump is incapable of distinguishing between the two questions;

1) What did Russia do during the 2016 election?

2) What did Trump know and do about what Russia was doing during the 2016 election?

 

As we all highly suspect with good reason, Trump is unable to tell the difference between the two answers because the answers are one and the same.

[Bang]

for some reason, the fact our biggest enemy wanted this guy to win is not enough to make "patriotic" people question their motives.

Used to be if our biggest enemy wanted something, we wanted to know why, and we were inclined to not cooperate because we KNOW what they do. we KNOW their deceptions, their practices and their desires to destabilize the west. It's been their goal throughout the lifetime of every person in here.
Nowadays these "patriots" are the exact opposite. If Russia says it, they buy it. If their puppet repeats it, it is set in stone.

Think what you're told. How embarrassing it must be to live like that.

 

~Bang

Edited July 31, 2018 by Bang

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

23 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I'm trying to think of a good analogy

Just use any of the other examples of when they lied about something never happening and then came back with "well ok, it happened but so what?"