ANOTHER TRUMP FLUNKY CAUGHT TAKING RUSSIAN BRIBES

Author: oromagi

Posts

Total: 28
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
REPUBLICAN PARTY OPERATIVES CHARGED with ARRANGING ILLEGAL TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION

By Jan Wolfe

WASHINGTON, Sept 20 (Reuters) - U.S. prosecutors on Monday unsealed criminal charges against two longtime Republican Party operatives, accusing them of illegally funneling a foreign campaign contribution to former President Donald Trump in 2016.

According to an indictment unsealed in federal court in the District of Columbia, Jesse Benton and Doug Wead "conspired to illegally funnel thousands of dollars of foreign money from a Russian foreign national into an election for the Office of President of the United States of America."

U.S. law bans foreign nationals from donating money to presidential campaigns.

According to the indictment, Benton and Wead helped a Russian national get a ticket to a fundraiser with Trump in Pennsylvania in September 2016.

The Russian, who was not identified in the indictment, donated $25,000 to political action committees associated with Trump in order to attend the event, according to prosecutors.

But the true source of the donation was concealed from the Trump campaign, the indictment said, because the payment was secretly funneled through Benton, who acted as a "straw donor."

Benton, 43, previously managed campaigns for Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky before he was convicted for his role in a political endorsement scheme. Benton avoided jail time and received a presidential pardon in December 2020 from Trump.

Wead, 75, worked as a senior adviser on multiple presidential campaigns and ran for Congress as a Republican in 1992.

It was not yet clear if the two had engaged legal counsel.

Bachmann had narrowly defeated Paul to win the Ames Straw Poll in August 2011, an early measure of support in the state. 

A top aide in the 2008 Ron Paul presidential bid, Dennis Fusaro, provided several emails to OpenSecrets.org. According to the address fields in the emails, Fusaro was copied on the messages, which all date from late 2011.

Five days before the caucus, in late 2011, Sorenson abruptly switched his support from Bachmann to Paul, and the Bachmann campaign at the time charged that he had done so for money.
  • Benton is married to Ron Paul's granddaughter, Rand Paul is Benton's uncle -in-law.  Benton lived in Rand Paul's house for a number of years.
    • Benton ran Rand's run for Senate in 2010 and Grandpa Paul's 2012 Presidential Bid.
      • In an Oct. 29, 2011 email, a representative of Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, a Republican, asks the Paul campaign to provide Sorenson with $8,000 per month in salary for him, $5,000 per month in salary for a Sorenson ally, as well as $100,000 in contributions for a newly created PAC that Sorenson planned to use to support conservative candidates for Iowa state office.
      • In exchange, the email, which was allegedly written by Aaron Dorr, executive director of Iowa Gun Owners, says Sorenson would abandon his support for Rep. Michele Bachmann‘s campaign, endorse Paul, campaign for him and provide access to an email list of Iowans who support homeschooling.
        • That is, the director of Iowa Gun Owners is so deep inside the pockets of the Pauls that he can offer six-figure bribes on the Pauls' behalf.
    • Benton was convicted of bribing Sorenson to throw his support to Ron Paul and given two years probation.  Just two days after his conviction, Benton was setting up the illegal meeting for payment scheme on Roman Vasilenko's behalf.
      • This sort of open corruption and graft was so appealing to Mitch McConnell that he hired Benton to run his 2014 Senatorial bid.  Benton was forced to step down after many reporters questioned such open corruption but to this day, Benton still serves as the primary channel between McConnell and the Pauls.
      • Trump pardoned Benton in January of this year, explicitly as a favor to Rand Paul.
    • Benton is accused setting up a meeting between Trump and Vasilenko in Sept 2016 at a Philadelphia Fundraiser.  Since the price of admission was a $25,000 donation to the Trump campaign and no foreign national should therefore be able to attend, Vasilensko mingled with his translator and had his picture taken with many top GOP officials without batting an eye.  It just wasn't that strange to have Russians openly loitering in the belly of the GOP in 2016, apparently.
    • Wead is a longtime GOP operative and consultant, whose ties to the Russian business magnate go back decades.
      • Wead is credited with authoring the Bush campaign phrase "Compassionate Conservative."
      • Wead has given lectures in Russia bolstering Vasilenko's self-help seminars and  in 2009, Wead appointed Vasilenko to the board of directors for a Christian boarding school where Wead was president.
    • Although the price of dinner with Trump was minimum $25,000, Wead and Benton's consulting firm took a check for $100,000 from Vasilenko.
      • Benton tried to tell the Trump campaign that he had already made his donation (that is tried to hold on to all of the money himself) until Trump's fundraisers insisted.  Benton paid the $25,000 minimum and we can assume Benton and Wead split the $75,000 remainder.  Whether Trump, the Pauls, and McConnell also all get a taste of that money is unclear but that's the way it works in Russia and other mob organizations.  Certainly, nobody in the GOP has bothered to condemn such fairly straightforward bribery by one of America's principle enemies.  I wonder what Vasilenko asked Trump for and whether that request came straight from Putin?  From what little  we can tell of Trump's presidency we should probably assume he got whatever he asked for.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Covertly taped in a GOP meeting on Capitol Hill, June 2016.

KEVIN McCARTHY:  “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,  swear to God.

PAUL RYAN: “This is an off the record . . . No leaks! . . . All right?   This is how we know we’re a real family here.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
And lefties grit teeth in frustration once again that it isn't Trump committing crimes.

Quick, pull out the "guilt by association" fallacy!

No Bill & Hillery, not now!
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Flunk-ster among us.  Herman flunke-ster and his  band of Tumpeteer's running free.  To be free from the atmosphere that contains biologic life on Earth.

Oh to be free, free from the pee, the urine of nations.

One globally free libertarian community, tied to the local thorium-salt nuclear power station.

Tied to the history we have, as many nations, pitted against each other.

Oh to be free, as free as tree.  To see no morality, to see no pain, to not see the sea of reality.

Oh to be free. Free from hard choices. Free from sadness and all.

Free at last, free at last!
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Please don't @ me unless your post is in English. I have no need for jibberish.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Jibberish is as jibberish does Mr E.

It has to be said

There was no greater exponent of jibberish, than President Orange.

And then there are certain Ark theories.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
Quick, pull out the "guilt by association" fallacy!
So the fact that nearly everyone Trump has surrounded himself with has either committed a crime or has secret ties to Russians means nothing to you, is that correct?

949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
@Double_R
just curious, but wasn't the target Trump? Hint: he's a former, not the current. Seems hit pieces hit on associates, but none of them wear the Trump name. No wonder libs lack focus; can't hit the broad side of a barn, but are happy to hit indiscriminately. Like killing a bunch of kids when the target was allegedly a Taliban? Peas in a pod.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
The FBI is not a credible accuser. If Jesus appeared to Trump, He would get accused of a crime by Democrats and hounded. Their TDS causes them to go after Trump, and his innocence causes them to have to settle for smearing his associates.

At least Trump's associates don't end up dead like those of a certain former president and very crooked first lady.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
There was no greater exponent of jibberish, than President Orange.
Your biased opinion you're again conflating with reality. Just pretend that others don't exist between you ears ok?

And then there are certain Ark theories.
They aren't theories. Not out in the real world of outside your head, anyway.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Trump is broke. He is living off  Save America, former President Donald Trump's leadership PAC. He owes Russian investors $4.3 billion.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ethang5
And lefties grit teeth in frustration once again that it isn't Trump committing crimes.

There's not much doubt that Trump is guilty of committing a wide array of crimes.   There's four separate criminal investigations underway now but I'm sure everybody is humbled and uncertain over the potential political  impacts of convicting a former president of some of these crimes. 

Quick, pull out the "guilt by association" fallacy!
I guess you missed the part where access to Trump was the objective of the illegal foreign bribe.  Do you really think Trump never asked why he was required to give a half hour to a Russian national in a room where the only people allowed were people who donated at least $25,000 to Trump.  There's no way Trump can claim ignorance of illegal foreign donations when he's sitting in a donors only room with a Russian and his translator!

Also be sure to notice that Trump pardoned Benton.  Nobody is disputing the fact that Benton bribed an Iowa State Senator to jump ship and change the course of the Iowa Causcuses and totally fuck over the only non white male in the Republican race, Michelle Bachmann. If the Republican Party were clean, figures convicted of high profile disloyal political corruption would have no place, certainly not getting pardoned by a President who is obligated to restrict pardons to cases of injustice or significant repentance.  Trump's pardon can't be treated as a crime in and of itself but nobody can deny that the pardon was blatantly pro-crime, pro-corruption, and as we are now discovering, pro-Russia.

No Bill & Hillery, not now!
No discernable argument.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@949havoc
just curious, but wasn't the target Trump?
Not really, the indicted are members of Paul and Bush tribes.

Seems hit pieces hit on associates, but none of them wear the Trump name.
A deeply ignorant claim.  Trump is the defendant in 13 major civil cases and the subject of at least 3 significant criminal investigations.  Trump Org wears the Trump name and prosecutors seem to have both copies of Trump's books for a couple of decades.  The fact that there's two books alone is a disaster for Trump Org.



Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
just curious, but wasn't the target Trump? Hint: he's a former, not the current. 
First of all, please don’t pretend the republican party is not beholden to this man or that the only thing at this point stopping him from being the clear front runner for the nomination in 2024 is the fact that he hasn’t announced.

As far as him being the target, I don’t even know what that means. If it means he’s the biggest fish then of course he is. The conversation you were responding to was about his associations being very telling when it come to what he’s really about. Do you dispute that?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
The FBI is not a credible accuser.
It must be so wonderful to live in a state of ignorant bliss where you get to believe anything you want merely by hand waiving away anything that doesn’t fit your political narrative.

What really makes me wonder is how you don’t understand why the two sides see things differently. The reason is because some people actually care about reality. I know that’s difficult for you to imagine, but try.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
@Double_R
@Oromagi
There's not much doubt that Trump is guilty of committing a wide array of crimes
Why do liberals even waste time giving lip service to due process and fairness?

There's four separate criminal investigations underway now
Only four? How many have there been now? And of course, for liberals, an investigation IS guilt. Which is why they keep launching them.

No Bill & Hillery, not now!

No discernable argument.
Which was the whole point.

@Double_R
It must be so wonderful to live in a state of ignorant bliss where you get to believe anything you want merely by hand waiving away anything that doesn’t fit your political narrative.
Crooked FBI agents discussing their "insurance policy" against a Trump win fits my political narrative. Did I imagine that?

How about the fake Steele dossier the FBI used to illegally spy on Trump? Smoke and mirrors?

What really makes me wonder is how you don’t understand why the two sides see things differently. The reason is because some people actually care about reality. I know that’s difficult for you to imagine, but try.
If you were so chummy with reality, you wouldn't be so terrified of questions.

When you can answer questions put to you, I will take your buttaching more seriously.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
Not really,
Not accurate. Trump was the target from the time he announced his candidacy in June 2015, and you know it. The powers that be of the Demo party were terrified of him and only played at claiming it was a publicity stunt.

A deeply ignorant claim.
Is it? Didn't your bumkin investigator, Mueller, have some 30 indictments; not a one named Trump? Look it it. No Trump on the list.  

Not to mention:
About 3,500 lawsuits have been filed against Trump or Trump org. About 1,300 completed cases according to USA Today, June 2, 2016
36 cases lost.  3%
175 settled out of court. 13%
450 cases won 34%
137 cases ended with other outcome than guilt or acquittal.  11%
500 cases dismissed by judge.  39%

73% ended completely in Trump's favor.
16% ended against Trump.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
Crooked FBI agents discussing their "insurance policy" against a Trump win fits my political narrative. Did I imagine that?

How about the fake Steele dossier the FBI used to illegally spy on Trump? Smoke and mirrors?

The Peter Strzok and Lisa Page obsession continues. Did you imagine it? Well, as is the case with most conspiracy theories, you didn’t imagine the initial premise, just everything after that. Setting aside the fact that they had every right to be concerned about Trump given the information they were looking at, even if we assume the worst, they’re two people. Two. You’re talking about an entire institution, one that preceded them and one that proceeds them. To pretend that is a strong case for distrusting the entire institution is pretty ridiculous.

The Steele Dossier… Trump’s greatest hits just keep coming. The Dossier first of all was just one document in a trove of documents used, and more importantly the entire thing was admittedly speculative. No one claimed it was hard evidence for anything, but what I find most amazing about the right wing obsession of it is the fact that it was pretty damn accurate. Can you point to just one thing in that document that has been proven false?

If you were so chummy with reality, you wouldn't be so terrified of questions.
Now this is just stupid. I would ask you to prove your implied claim here that I have ever ran away from your questions but we both know it’s completely made up bullshit. Our conversations stop because you stop responding or because your responses become unbearably nonsensical and unserious.

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
can we arrest democrats already?? kinda tired of the law game being so one-sided
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Setting aside the fact that they had every right to be concerned about Trump given the information they were looking at,...
And the correct legal response was to break the law? The "information" they were looking at was all a fabrication. Today Trump is free and unindicted, both FBI lovebirds are shamed and fired.

No one claimed it was hard evidence for anything,...
Untrue. It was presented to a judge to persuade him to grant warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

Can you point to just one thing in that document that has been proven false?
Can I not? It was created by crooked Hillery and is a partisan hack job to it's core, that is why the FBI ran away from it like rats from a sinking ship when it was exposed.

I would ask you to prove your implied claim here that I have ever ran away from your questions but we both know it’s completely made up bullshit.
The claim that you don't answer questions is clearly in your posts, as such, no further response is needed here. Anyone interested can read and see for themselves.
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@oromagi
Not joking, thought you wrote "Brides".
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
For all we know, Biden's taking Chinese bribes. This is just playing into the hands of what the right-wing media thrive in; 'HAHA YOU SUCK WORSE' mentality.

It should be about us being better, not them being worse. Start celebrating what the Dems have done well, let the corrupt right-wing rot in their own misery and spite.

You'd find that Dems, such as Obama, won securely by not trying so hard to demonise their opponent, it's when Dems play the game like the Republicans do that things start to fall apart for them. Don't become the bad guy to make the other appear the villain, just focus on selling yourself.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ethang5
@Oromagi
There's not much doubt that Trump is guilty of committing a wide array of crimes
Why do liberals even waste time giving lip service to due process and fairness?
It's a Democracy thing.  You should look into it some day.

There's four separate criminal investigations underway now
Only four? How many have there been now?
In Trump's lifetime?  Hundreds.

No Bill & Hillery, not now!

No discernable argument.
Which was the whole point.
nice argument.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@949havoc
->@oromagi
Not really,
Not accurate. Trump was the target from the time he announced his candidacy in June 2015, and you know it. The powers that be of the Demo party were terrified of him and only played at claiming it was a publicity stunt.
Non-sequitur.  You asked if Trump was the target of this particular case of espionage investigation and the answer is no.  We can agree that Trump has been under criminal investigation for one crime or another for most of his adult life.
A deeply ignorant claim.
Is it? Didn't your bumkin investigator, Mueller, have some 30 indictments; not a one named Trump? Look it it. No Trump on the list.  
Again, deeply, willfully ignorant.  You pretend to have read the Mueller Report when it is obvious you have not.   Mueller documented at least 170 contacts between Trump or 18 of his associates with Russian nationals during the 2016 campaign, a time when loyal Americans minimize foreign contacts to dissuade the very impression that Trump was cultivating- that this candidate, his morals, politics, and acts are for sale to US enemies and competitors.  There weren't any wiretaps so we don't know what discussed in these hundreds of meetings with Russian spies and plotters but the mere fact that the Trump campaign felt obligated to take meetings from powerful Russians an average of once of every other day of his Presidential campaign is utterly damning all by itself.  Almost all of these meetings were denied by Trump and his inner circle so Mueller also has high officials covering up their contacts with foreign enemies.

Beyond this, Mueller documented 11 specific cases of felony obstruction of Justice committed by Donald Trump personally.  Mueller made it clear that he would have indicted any other American for these many, many crimes but since the Constitution specifies that Congress is the instrument of Presidential justice, Mueller deferred the right of indictment to Congress.  As we all know, the Republican Senate corruptly refused to review Mueller's findings.

To say that Mueller did not indict Trump is a lie.  Mueller specified 11 felonies committed by Trump and submitted them the relevant court.  The corrupt judge (McConnell's Senate) refused to hear any evidence, refused to let the prosecutor even approach the bench and quashed the case without explanation.  Trump has not been found guilty of these crimes but that's not because any judge or jury found him innocent- they simply refused to have a trial.

Mueller specifically said that if he thought Trump was innocent of conspiring with Putin he would have made that plain in his report and then said he could no justify such a claim.


Not to mention:
About 3,500 lawsuits have been filed against Trump or Trump org.
This is a lie.  1900 of those lawsuit (54%) were filed by Trump

About 1,300 completed cases according to USA Today, June 2, 2016 36 cases lost.  
The 1300 number is the number of cases where an outcome could be established.  The fact that USA Today could not establish any outcome for more than 2000 lawsuits that Trump was involved with is by itself highly suggestive of corruption.

3% 175 settled out of court. 13% 450 cases won 34% 137 cases ended with other outcome than guilt or acquittal.  11% 500 cases dismissed by judge.  39% 73% ended completely in Trump's favor. 16% ended against Trump.
Preserving the ratio, let's assume that over 700 of these were filed by Trump.

500 were dismissed.

Why would anybody vote for an asshole who is so litigious that he's had 500 lawsuits dismissed?

700 were personal injury complaints.

Why would anybody vote for an asshole who been in court claiming personal injury or being accused of causing personal injuries on more than 700 occasions in one lifetime?  That's averaging about one personally injury lawsuit for every month of Trump's adult life.  Christ.

165 were violating government regulations and failure to pay taxes.

No wonder Trump consistently lies and covers up his taxes while we taxpayers pay for secret service and improvements to his luxury mansions.  What a fucking crook.

150 were bankruptcies and other.  I guess we should have been surprised that Trump doubled the debt in four short years with absolutely nothing to show for it.  Bush had Iran and Afghanistan to pay for.  Obama had a Great Depression and Obamacare to pay for. In four years,  Trump spent more than twice than those tow combined spent in 16 years without any reason given or receipt shown.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@janesix
-->@oromagi
Not joking, thought you wrote "Brides".
LOL.  Well, mail-order polygamy would certainly be more forgivable in my book than treason.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
Non-sequitur.  You asked if Trump was the target of this particular case of espionage investigation 
No, I did not ask that specific question; you read that detail into words not existing in my post #8; offering you the hint that he was the former president, not the current. I'm surprised at you; you don't usually ignore that much.

Mueller documented at least 170 contacts between Trump or 18 of his associates with Russian nationals during the 2016 campaign, a time when loyal Americans minimize foreign contacts
Oh, yes, but I did read the Mueller Report - every word, including the two conclusions of each section that, 
"Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election." - Mueller Report, "Executive Summary to Vol 1," pg. 9
"…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime"  - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182

Beyond this, Mueller documented 11 specific cases of felony obstruction of Justice committed by Donald Trump personally.  Mueller made it clear that he would have indicted any other American for these many, many crimes but since the Constitution specifies that Congress is the instrument of Presidential justice, Mueller deferred the right of indictment to Congress.  As we all know, the Republican Senate corruptly refused to review Mueller's findings.

Too bad Mueller does not read the proper intent of the Constitution, specifically, Article I, section 3, clause 7 [as most who read this don't get it, such as by DOJ, whose current policy on indicting a President is based on Nixon's AG, John Mitchell's policy he put in place to try to protect Nixon, Mitchell being a co-conspirator trying also to protect himself. The clause:  

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Mueller ignored that the Senate cannot convict beyond removal of office, but the articles of impeachment never raised Mueller's intended indictments, and the clause stipulates by "nevertheless" that in spite of convicting on impeachment, a sitting President can still be indicted. That's Mueller's conspiracy of ignorance.

To say that Mueller did not indict Trump is a lie. 
 Cite the indictments. Trump was never indicted by Mueller. That Mueller talked around it does not imply that he, in his position, could have easily pulled that trigger, but he did not, and to say he did is poppycock. He smashed against Mitchell's DOJ policy, and died on that rocky shore.

Why would anybody vote for an asshole who is so litigious that he's had 500 lawsuits dismissed?
Oh, I don't know, maybe because the judges thought the lawsuits were absurd? Face it, your Trump animus slip is showing, and it's passes Labor Day. It's my turn to be animated about Biden. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
There's not much doubt that Trump is guilty of committing a wide array of crimes
Why do liberals even waste time giving lip service to due process and fairness?
It's a Democracy thing.  You should look into it some day.
For you, democracy is giving lip service to due process and fairness while violating them?

There's four separate criminal investigations underway now
Only four? How many have there been now?
In Trump's lifetime?  Hundreds.
And he's still unindicted and never been imprisoned. Perhaps one day democratic historians will get a clue.

No Bill & Hillery, not now!

No discernable argument.
Which was the whole point.
nice argument.
I thought it was.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
And the correct legal response was to break the law? The "information" they were looking at was all a fabrication.
I never said nor suggested that the proper legal response was to break the law. I know your attention span is short so let me remind you that we’re talking about the credibility of the institution itself and I was pointing out how silly it is to pretend that these few individuals, whatever you think of them, is a valid reason to wholesale reject everything the FBI finds even after they are no longer a part of it.

Your claim of fabrication is pure fabrication. Half of what they were looking at is now public knowledge and isn’t even contested. You are hopelessly biased.

Today Trump is free and unindicted, both FBI lovebirds are shamed and fired
Unindicted is not the same thing as innocent. But you already know that.

They may be fired but are anything but ashamed, at least not when it comes to their actions as FBI agents. The political right’s obsession with them is absurd, and the hypocrisy of slandering them for having and expressing their own opinions to themselves *privately* couldn’t be any more blatant given the right’s obsession with cancel culture and swearing it’s really the left who is trying to silence people’s political opinions. As always with the right, everything is projection.

It was presented to a judge to persuade him to grant warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Yes, which does not refute anything I just said. This wasn’t a prosecution. It wasn’t a declaration of guilt. The Dossier was again, one document in a collection of documents used to make the case to a judge that they had a valid *predicate* to conduct a wire tap. The purpose of the wire tap is to gather evidence, so again, there was absolutely nothing wrong with presenting it and you haven’t even bothered to try and come up with a reason to say it was. Everything you’ve given are hindsight pronouncements straight out of Fox News. Can you please provide some kind of argument to support your BS?

Can you point to just one thing in that document that has been proven false?
Can I not?
That’s not how the burden of proof works. You called it a “fake Dossier”. Do you have any evidence for this claim at all? Can you show that anything in it is actually fake?


would ask you to prove your implied claim here that I have ever ran away from your questions but we both know it’s completely made up bullshit.
The claim that you don't answer questions is clearly in your posts, as such, no further response is needed here.
Exactly, you have nothing because it’s bullshit.