BIDEN To APPOINT A GESTAPO To Investigate Trump If He Runs In 2024

Author: Public-Choice

Posts

Total: 115
Topic's author
#91
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
My claim is that you have blatantly misrepresented what the FBI found and said
Show me a single instance where the FBI said Trump is behind January 6th. You won't find one because it is a conspiracy theory being peddled by the Democrat Party based on disinformation.

The FBI did not even investigate whether Trump colluded with Russia because collusion isn’t a legal term. The legal term relevant here is conspiracy, which would require Trump and the Russians to explicitly coordinate with each other. No one is even accusing him of that.
Conspiracy is to collude with someone. It is the same thing. Look up the definitions of the two. It's easy to do:

Conspiracy: In criminal law. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.

Now for collusion:
secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

They literally both mean to make an agreement to cooperate for something. Therefore, investigating conspiracy is investigating collusion. They are the same thing.

Moreover, Mueller blatantly stated there was no evidence of conspiracy:

So stop spreading disinformation about a former duly-elected public official. There was no collusion. Muller found nothing. If the FBI found nothing, then it absolved him of the crime.

They had nothing to prosecute because nothing was there.

The investigation is still ongoing.
And 800 arrests later with 40 charged for conspiracy, they have not been able to establish a link to President Trump:

After all this indictment and interviewing and more there is still no evidence it was Trump behind it. This isn't even me or the DOJ saying this, it is also the mainstream media:



Stop spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories. Not even the DOJ agrees with you.
#92
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Show me a single instance where the FBI said Trump is behind January 6th. You won't find one because it is a conspiracy theory being peddled by the Democrat Party based on disinformation.
“The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” Ms. Cheney said in a statement. “There has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.”

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday there is "no question" that former US President Donald Trump was "practically and morally responsible for provoking" last month's deadly attack on the US Capitol.

Republican Bill Cassidy, who tweeted a video saying: "Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty."

After careful consideration of the respective counsels' arguments, I have concluded that President Trump is guilty." “President Trump incited the insurrection by using the power of his office to summon his supporters, urging them to march on the Capitol during the counting of electoral votes," Romney said. "He did this despite the obvious and well known threats of violence that day."

Republican Pat Toomey also voted to convict. He posted a series of tweets, saying: "President Trump’s conduct in response to losing the 2020 election began with dishonest, systematic attempts to convince supporters that he had won." “He applied intense pressure on state and local officials to reverse the election outcomes." "When these efforts failed, President Trump summoned thousands to Washington, and inflamed their passions."
"He urged the mob to march on the Capitol for the explicit purpose of preventing Congress and the Vice President from formally certifying the results of the presidential election. All of this to hold on to power despite having legitimately lost."

“Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election,” Trump, a Republican, tweeted on Dec. 20. “Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

“Today’s violent assault on our Capitol, an effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump,” Jim Mattis, a former defense secretary under Trump, said in a statement.
Topic's author
#93
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Are any of those people the FBI?

Because Politicians will say anything, but they are not the branch of government that is trained, vetted, and trusted with investigating all threats foreign and domestic. The FBI, which is, has not found any evidence that the horrific attack on our nation's capitol was caused by, or even linked to, former President Donald J. Trump. More than 800 arrests, 40 counts of seditious conspiracy, and not a single person has said they were connected to Trump. Not a single electronic communication has given any sort of indication that former President Trump was involved with January 6th.

The Justice Department and the FBI both disagree with the January 6th commission's baseless accusations. Now, the question for you is, are you going to declare the FBI and Department of Justice are illegitimate institutions and continue to spread disinformation about a former duly-elected official and promote baseless conspiracy theories?

Because, as it stands right now, you are spreading disinformation and promoting baseless conspiracy theories about a horrific attack on our nation's capitol, making a mockery out of the democratic process by asserting the FBI and DOJ are not doing their jobs, and asserting, without evidence, that a former duly-elected official of the United States committed treason, when not even the FBI or DOJ are claiming he was involved.


#94
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
Show me a single instance where the FBI said Trump is behind January 6th. You won't find one because it is a conspiracy theory being peddled by the Democrat Party based on disinformation.
No, we won’t Because that’s not how the FBI works. They don’t make proclamations of what someone was responsible for. They’re a law enforcement agency, they either bring charges or they don’t, and given that this is an ongoing investigation, they’re not going to comment on it. This is really basic stuff.

Conspiracy is to collude with someone. It is the same thing. Look up the definitions of the two. It's easy to do:
You’ve ignored every single thing I have said so that you can defeat an argument no one has made.

Conspiracy in this context is a legal term, which means it is adjudicated via the justice system. The justice system doesn’t determine whether it is reasonable to believe any given conclusion, it determines whether there is evidence obtained and validated in accordance with the law to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. That is a massive bar to clear by design, failure to clear that bar does not constitute exoneration as you have claimed. This is common sense.

Collusion is a colloquial term. That’s the conversation that reasonable citizens engage in to determine what is reasonable and how that impacts our public trust.

These two things are not the same.

Telling me to stop spreading disinformation while literally spreading disinformation. The irony of this statement is breathtaking.

The link you provided and the narrative within it was entirely a concoction of William Barr, the man Trump hand picked for the role specifically to fend off the report, that did not come from Robert Mueller.

Here is what Robert Mueller actually said out of his actual mouth;

“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed, We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

This is the very thing I have been explaining to you.

And again, I already listed the facts that indisputably show some level of collusion on the part of the Trump campaign. Not surprisingly, you ignored that whole part so that you can quote right wing propaganda. You have been manipulated, the sooner you admit that the sooner you can wake up to reality.

And 800 arrests later with 40 charged for conspiracy, they have not been able to establish a link to President Trump
The link was made by his public actions genius. Again, I already explained all of this. 
#95
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
when not even the FBI or DOJ are claiming he was involved.
The Justice Department and the FBI both disagree with the January 6th commission's baseless accusations.
Not true. And all the witnesses who testified for the 1/6 Committee were Republicans., Republican leaders and Trump appointees.

You claimed the 1/6 Trump “conspiracy theory”was a result of Democrat dis/misinformation. All those people I quoted saying Trump was guilty were Republicans - Top Republicans. So you are a liar.

The FBI and DOJ never said Trump wasn’t involved. But they are investigating Trump and are very interested in the 1/6 Select Committee’s report. 

The DOJ is afraid to investigate Trump because of idiots like you. They know if they file charges against Trump, idiots like you will cry foul. Look at that idiot who was killed by the FBI after the raid at Mar-a-Lago. The FBI is fully aware that the country is full of Christian wack jobs like yourself.

There’s no question Trump summoned the mob, incited the mob, and failed his oath of office by watching it all happen without making any attempt to stop it for hours. The FBI is trying to determine if Trump or his people controlled the mob, had planned an insurrection ahead of time and who they coordinated with. We all know from the 1/6 hearings that Trump tried to go with the mob but the Secret Service refused to take him.

#96
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
Loser! No kids for you. Cause you’re a loser.
#97
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Hahaha. Lol.Lol

The timing couldn’t be better. This just came out on the news! You were saying how the DOJ has no interest in Trump with regard to 1/6? Lol!

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed a special counsel on Friday to take over two major criminal investigations involving former President Donald J. Trump, including his role in events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and his handling of sensitive government documents.

Man, you better stay away from Las Vegas. You are one unlucky guy. Some might say a born loser.


#98
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
Iwantbrainsagain,
Cry some more why don’t ya!!! 
#99
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
I read it and you’re still wrong. Period. my reply stands factually accurate. Yours does not. NoW go play in the sandbox with Iwamtbrainsagain and Snowflakewalker. 
#100
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405
my reply stands factually accurate. Yours does not.
My criticism of your post wasn’t about its factual inaccuracy, you would know this if you ever bothered to read it. Clearly you didn’t.

Until you read it and address what was actually said, your posts are meaningless.
Topic's author
#101
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The FBI and DOJ never said Trump wasn’t involved. But they are investigating Trump and are very interested in the 1/6 Select Committee’s report. 
Fact check: false

#102
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
“The officials also said that the FBI has "so far found no evidence" that former President Donald Trump or "people directly around him were involved in organizing the violence," Reuters reported”

That’s not the same as saying Trump wasn’t involved. Trump does not have an alibi.

And now a Special Counsel has been appointed to continue the investigation because they must have decided that Trump may have committed a crime.
Topic's author
#103
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi
@Double_R
@IwantRooseveltagain
Fyi, Biden literally just appointed the person they said he was going to appoint in the CNN article:


So it wasn't fake news. It just happened. Not only were they debating it, they just did it. Republicans just did this too to Biden.

We live in a banana republic. 
#104
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
Fyi, Biden literally just appointed the person they said he was going to appoint in the CNN article:
No he didn't, Biden literally had nothing to do with it, Merrick Garland appointed him...and unlike with Trump, the DOJ is hands off for Biden.
Topic's author
#105
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker
Biden literally had nothing to do with it,
As per the article:

Given former President Trump's announcement he would run for president in 2024 and President Biden's stated intent, Garland said he was obligated to appoint a special counsel to avoid allegations of political bias.
So Garland blatantly stated he did it because Biden said he intended to.
#106
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Public-Choice

So Garland blatantly stated he did it because Biden said he intended to.
Biden's stated intent to run- therefore a conflict of interest NOT BIden's stated intent to appoint a special council.  Unlike the Trump adminstration, Biden believes that the AG works for the people not the President.

None of this refutes or even addresses what I've argued above.  I wonder if you understand that.

#107
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
So Garland blatantly stated he did it because Biden said he intended to.
Intended to what? Run for re-election? What the hell are you talking about.

#108
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
If your retort wasn’t about any alleged inaccuracies of my comment, then it stands to reason any rebuttal of yours wouldn’t even be on point. 

So fuck off, ignoramus. You’re not worth my time. Childish turd that you are. 
#109
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
So Garland blatantly stated he did it because Biden said he intended to.
Just in case it hasn’t been answered clear enough…

What Biden stated is that he intends to run for president. This puts Merrick Garland in a position where he technically reports to Biden, who is running for president, while investigating Trump, who is running against him. This can give the appearance that Garland is using the justice department to go after Biden’s political rivals, so Garland decided to take the investigations that are already ongoing and essentially remove himself from them by delegating all of the decision making to a third party.

That’s not a banana republic, that’s the exact opposite.
#110
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
This is what we be talking about when we say MAGA is a cult. Even in a situation where the AG does the exact thing he’s supposed to do to minimize political influence over investigations, all Trump has to do is lie and say this is the politicization of the DOJ and MAGA follows him right off the reality cliff.
#111
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405
If your retort wasn’t about any alleged inaccuracies of my comment, then it stands to reason any rebuttal of yours wouldn’t even be on point. 

So fuck off, ignoramus. You’re not worth my time. Childish turd that you are. 
Hey, wait right there racist, I thought I was the childish turd ignoramous that wasn't worth your time.

Are you cheating on me?
#112
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405
If your retort wasn’t about any alleged inaccuracies of my comment, then it stands to reason any rebuttal of yours wouldn’t even be on point. 

 Your post does not need to contain factual inaccuracies to be wrong.

Every argument has two parts; facts (aka premises) and logic. I’m explaining to you that the logic of your argument is fallacious. That part clearly went over your head.

So fuck off, ignoramus. You’re not worth my time. Childish turd that you are. 
Someone is a little sensitive about being proven wrong.


#113
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
First and foremost, you did not prove me wrong. Delusions of grandeur on your part. 

Secondly, facts support a premise, they are not the premises. 

Lastly, you lack logic. That much is certainly crystal clear. 

And nope, not sensitive about anything. Just losing patience for your continued intellectual cowardice. 
#114
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Someone is a little sensitive about being proven wrong.
TWS is a racist wack job. Don’t waste your time with him. There’s a a reason he was booted from the army as a corporal 

#115
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405
Secondly, facts support a premise, they are not the premises. 
Again, and this is elementary level epistemology; an argument is made up of two ingredients, premises and logic. The result of those two things is the conclusion.

Facts themselves are categorically different from logic, so they are not logic. That only leaves premises for them to fall under.

A premise is a thing you accept as true which forms the basis of the argument. That is where facts come in.

In order for facts to support a premise you need to use logic to connect the dots to your premise. In other words, it’s an argument onto itself, the conclusion of which you are accepting as the premise of your next argument.

So going back to our disagreement, you argued; “Uh, last I checked everyone IS presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers”. You completely failed to recognize that your statement, which is factually accurate, does not address (aka failure in logic) the point I was making. Not only does my argument take this into account, but I went into detail to explain *why* you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and how that does not relate to the topic at hand.

So are you going to actually read what I wrote, or do you just want to continue throwing childish insults?