Witnesses? Just arrest them. "Rule of Law"
Posts
Total:
29
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I love how NPR just yesterday spins a terror story about Navalny, with the low, trembling radio voice.... and then seamlessly segues into an "upbeat" story about Trump losing a court case that the government brought on him....
Rules are an arbitrary thing these days as well as morality.
The left literally assassinated him and prigozihn.
Putin knows that the US is open to making regime change happen and the left signaled they had a massive erection for the guy.
Prigozihn was mostly his own fault. He pussed out at the last second and pretended be wasn't aiming for power, but given his popular support in Russia and th elections of the left, phtin thought it wasn't worth letting the guy have a quiet retirement and eli.inated the threat
-->
@WyIted
The left literally assassinated him
Such a stupid statement.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Such a stupid statement.
Yes it is stupid to say that when the intelligence community uses the media to signal there next move that it might spoil their plans.
This statement indicates you legitimately believe that signaling strategic plans will never ever result in enemies making moves to interrupt those plans.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
lol, this is a serious take? Basically, a guy said he had conversations that proved biden corruption. The FBI investigated and confirmed his statements were lies and that he hadn't even spoken to the people he claimed to have gotten the information from. Now he is being arrested for lying to the FBI. And since his arrest he has confirmed that he got the "information" from Russian intelligence officials.
Basically, the story here is that the republicans amplified Russian propaganda and are now mad that their Russian agent has been arrested.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't trust the FBI.The FBI investigated and confirmed his statements were lies and that he hadn't even spoken to the people he claimed to have gotten the information from.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't trust the FBI.
I mean, this isn't really an argument of any kind. The man lied to the FBI, they investigated and confirmed he was lying. He then confessed to getting the info from the russian government. Whether or not you trust them isn't particularly relevant. It's not like the guy provided any evidence for any of his claims. He just claimed that people he never spoke to told him things.
It's also important to note that literally no one has been able to find a shred of evidence of biden being corrupt. So it's not like anyone else can corroborate the things he says.
-->
@HistoryBuff
The FBI told you so.The man lied to the FBI
It's also important to note that literally no one has been able to find a shred of evidence of biden being corrupt.
lol
Basically, the story here is that the republicans amplified Russian propaganda and are now mad that their Russian agent has been arrested.
Yeah Republicans!
I don't trust the FBI.
That’s because you’re a MAGA MORON
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The FBI told you so.
uh huh. And some random person you know nothing about said biden was corrupt, and provided no evidence of any kind to support that. You choose to assume the FBI is lying, but the guy who has admitted to being on the russian payroll is telling the truth. That says alot about you.
It's also important to note that literally no one has been able to find a shred of evidence of biden being corrupt.lol
There has never been a shred of evidence put forward to show biden has engaged in corruption. I know you listen to people who tell you the opposite all the time, but they are lying. There is no evidence. There are just people like this "witness" who make baseless claims for their own profit. When those claims are checked, they all come to nothing.
-->
@HistoryBuff
The FBI told you so.uh huh. And some random person you know nothing about said biden was corrupt, and provided no evidence of any kind to support that.
Works for Manhattan juries.
You choose to assume the FBI is lying
Always. They might tell the truth every now and then but it was probably a slip up. Lying by omission is most common, but they'll lie in essence too. They claimed that General Flynn saying "I don't remember" once and giving a guess another time was "lying to the FBI" and proceeded to threaten his children if he didn't confess.
That says alot about you.
It says I pay attention.
I know you listen to people who tell you the opposite all the time, but they are lying.
Yet they don't show a pattern of lying, unlike the so called 'intelligence community'.
There is no evidence.
Well besides the texts and emails.
There are just people like this "witness" who make baseless claims for their own profit.
Does benefiting financially or by escaping prosecution prove that a witness is unreliable?
When those claims are checked, they all come to nothing.
By fact checkers who don't know which way a hat is worn and can't figure out babylon bee is satire. Flipping a coin is more reliable.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Works for Manhattan juries.
I have no idea what you are referring to. By definition all juries hear from people they don't know. So your comment seems pointless.
That says alot about you.It says I pay attention.
no, it suggests a cultish way of think. Law enforcement is always lying. But a man who lied thousands of times as president or a man who admitting to being a russian intelligence asset are telling the truth. It tells me you don't actually think about things and just choose to believe people based on nothing but your emotions.
Yet they don't show a pattern of lying, unlike the so called 'intelligence community'.
I mean, I don't know who exactly you listen to, but with your views being this cultish I can almost guarantee they lie constantly to you. you just choose to ignore their lies.
Well besides the texts and emails.
texts and emails of what? I'm guessing it's some 3rd party texting about a "big guy" with no evidence that joe biden was involved or ever received a single penny.
Does benefiting financially or by escaping prosecution prove that a witness is unreliable?
benefitting financially, probably. Escaping prosecution no not really. Escaping prosecution in exchange for testimony is a core part of the justice system. Part of those deals include that if you lie your deal is void. So they don't have an incentive to lie.
By fact checkers who don't know which way a hat is worn and can't figure out babylon bee is satire. Flipping a coin is more reliable.
no, by literally everyone who has investigated it. no one has been able to find a single piece of actual evidence joe biden has done anything illegal. Not republicans, not democrats, not the police, not trump, no one. They find lots of claims and inuendo. They find a "witness" who is being paid by the russian government. But no evidence has ever been presented.
I can almost guarantee they lie constantly to you
Your guarantee is worth as much to me as information from russian intelligence is worth to you.
Well besides the texts and emails.texts and emails of what? I'm guessing it's some 3rd party texting about a "big guy" with no evidence that joe biden was involved or ever received a single penny.
Even in this article detailing all the evidence of Joe Biden NBC can't help but lie some more:
Former President Donald Trump has falsely claimed that Joe Biden helped oust a Ukrainian prosecutor, Victor Shokin, when he was “prosecuting” Burisma. Multiple U.S. officials testified to Congress that Shokin was forced out in a joint American and British effort because he himself was corrupt.
The only 'evidence' that there was no investigation is the claims of an underling that replaced Shokin. Shokin himself said there was an investigation and no contemporary records have been produced which indicate the investigation was closed.
Lots in there, here is one that leaves little room to wiggle:
[Hunter Biden talking to his daughter] unlike Pop I won’t make you give me half your salary.
Half of salary > single penny.
Does benefiting financially or by escaping prosecution prove that a witness is unreliable?benefitting financially, probably.
Then E Jean Carroll is an unreliable witness, but Manhattan juries don't care.
Escaping prosecution no not really. Escaping prosecution in exchange for testimony is a core part of the justice system.
Well that core needs to be cut out and buried forever.
Part of those deals include that if you lie your deal is void. So they don't have an incentive to lie.
Of course they have an incentive to lie. They will be put in prison if they don't lie. If it's prison one way and prison another it's the chances of being caught in a lie vs the chance of being put in prison without a deal and those chances depend on how crazy the prosecutor or jury pool are vs how little the prosecutor would want to admit that previous prosecutions were based on lies.
no, by literally everyone who has investigated it.
Except the house oversight committee. Oh and look, they have screen shots.
texts and emails of what? I'm guessing it's some 3rd party texting about a "big guy" with no evidence that joe biden was involved or ever received a single penny.
so your evidence of corruption is that joe biden emailed his own financial advisor? That's what you're going with. This is just getting sad.
if you knew more about this testimony you wouldn't be quoting it. Basically, this witness testified they were selling the idea of contact with Joe biden. They wanted people to have the impression that hiring hunter would give them some kind of connection to Joe. But he also testified that he had no knowledge of Joe biden ever knowingly being involved and never receiving any kind of money. The closest he was aware of was that hunter would call his dad during meetings and talk about non work stuff. "how's the weather, what did you do this weekend" stuff like that. Hunter would use this as evidence to show he wasn't estranged from his father. The witness said he wasn't sure joe even knew he was on speaker phone and they never discussed actual business. It was just a father talking to his son and his son using that to make money.
So this witness' testimony was that he had no knowledge of joe doing anything illegal.
Then E Jean Carroll is an unreliable witness, but Manhattan juries don't care.
ah gotcha. That is your personal opinion. But trump fucked up that case hard. Like saying "she's not my type" then mistaking a photo of her for his ex wife, thus confirming he had been lying. Nothing like repeatedly lying to destroy your credibility.
Well that core needs to be cut out and buried forever.
so you don't want any upper level criminals to ever be prosecuted? Because that is the only way you catch the actual bosses and people ordering crimes. Without it you would just catch the soldiers. The only way to get them to testify about the people above them is by offering them a deal.
Of course they have an incentive to lie. They will be put in prison if they don't lie.
you're not understanding their deal. Their deal is to tell the truth. If they lie, their deal can be taken away from them.
Except the house oversight committee. Oh and look, they have screen shots.
screenshots of what? I haven't seen any evidence of Joe committing a crime yet. Nor have the oversight committee presented any such evidence to the public. So I can't wait to see what you think their proof is, considering the last guy you quoted literally testified that he had no knowledge of joe biden ever committing a crime or being involved in Hunter's business.
-->
@HistoryBuff
You are so patient with these morons. I don’t know how you do it. Can’t you see they are willfully ignorant?
-->
@HistoryBuff
so your evidence of corruption is that joe biden emailed his own financial advisor?
Under a pseudonym right at the time his son was getting an inexplicable amount of cash in Ukraine, the same son that the so called "financial advisor" was also "being advised by"
if you knew more about this testimony you wouldn't be quoting it.
Witness? There are screen shots son. Of course you didn't read it. Wouldn't want to be contaminated by facts. Your 'fact checkers' handle the 'facts' rofl
The witness said he wasn't sure joe even knew he was on speaker phone and they never discussed actual business. It was just a father talking to his son and his son using that to make money.
How stupid are you trying to appear? cause you're overselling. No seriously, I want you to imagine Trump using this excuse. Now what do you think?
Then E Jean Carroll is an unreliable witness, but Manhattan juries don't care.ah gotcha. That is your personal opinion.
Apparently it would be yours, if you had standards instead of excuses.
thus confirming he had been lying
He confirmed nothing of the sort. You're assuming "his type" consists only of appearances and was based on old EJC and not new EJC.
Nothing like repeatedly lying to destroy your credibility.
You can stop anytime you want.
Well that core needs to be cut out and buried forever.so you don't want any upper level criminals to ever be prosecuted?
"but we gota get em" is not a sufficient excuse to motivate dishonesty.
Because that is the only way you catch the actual bosses and people ordering crimes.
It's also how you catch innocent people so I don't care.
Of course they have an incentive to lie. They will be put in prison if they don't lie.you're not understanding their deal. Their deal is to tell the truth. If they lie, their deal can be taken away from them.
If it could be proven to be a lie, then you probably wouldn't need testimony.
Except the house oversight committee. Oh and look, they have screen shots.screenshots of what?
The texts and emails.
I haven't seen any evidence of Joe committing a crime yet.
because he could kill someone on fifth avenue and you would make sure to close your eyes so you don't see it.
considering the last guy you quoted literally testified that he had no knowledge of joe biden ever committing a crime or being involved in Hunter's business.
The last guy I quoted was Hunter Biden. You said something about taking conversations seriously?
22 days later
Even Stephen A Smith starts to see what's going on in terms of objectively predictable outcomes rather than delusions about what is fair or owed.
At 6:00
When the legal system is utilized this way, and people see you get away with trying to cause all of this ruckus towards him as opposed to simply beating him at the polls; that gives them additional fodder to question the legal system; And once they do that it gives them significant license to be lawless, and to engage in lawlessness. Which will explain some of the mayhem and nonsense we've seen in the streets of America.
This is common sense, it is historical fact.
Laws, if they have any authority at all, derive that authority from a social contract. Contracts can be broken.
When I say things like "pseudo judges" certain posters give the impression of "just because you disagree doesn't mean they're not real"
There is a difference between disagreement and perceiving a breach of the social contract. The interpretations of law implied by the relevant rulings are so far outside any rational interpretation as to be immediately apparent as lies.
Now you can ignore one guy on the internet, you can ignore millions of people on the internet, but there are tens of millions of people in the real world. Your neighbors. "Some judge agrees with me" is not going to cut it.
Some breakups are inevitable, but it hurts a lot more if you ignore it until it's too late.
21 days later
DOJ puts people in prison for contempt of congress, also tells people to ignore congress. "Rule of Law"
39 days later
A list of evidence points supporting the existence of lawfare:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You were right about whistleblowers coming out if this case went to far down the rabbit hole...
-->
@Greyparrot
How prophetic of me. Apparently Cohen waived attorney client privilege. Did Trump ever do that for Cohen? Not that psuedojudges would care if he didn't.
Rules are an arbitrary thing these days as well as morality.
As indicated by electing a guy like Trump who thinks rules don’t apply to him and is totally lacking in morals.
Not that psuedojudges would care if he didn't.
Yes, Trump is right and everyone else is wrong. Of course
A list of evidence points supporting the existence of lawfare:
Only morons get their “evidence” from a YouTube blog
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Apparently Cohen waived attorney client privilege.
Apparently. That myth that Trump always takes care of those who take care of him was busted pretty fast.
Underside of bus: meet Cohen.
Underside of bus: meet Cohen.
what a tool