Senate Democrats just released full testimony on the Trump-Russia dossier. Here's what's in it

Since you are making the baseless ASSUMPTION that Mueller used Flynn's son you have no actual evidence to prove that to be the case.

 

The desperation of the alt right is demonstrated by reaches of this nature.

 

Onus is entirely on you to prove that the dossier is not what was told to the FBI.

 

Where is your credible nonpartisan substantiation for that allegation about 'judges across the country"?

 

Link?

 

It's a thing called perspective. From my vantage point, I simply cannot believe they asked questions without knowing the intent of the letters.
It seems rather obvious to me that they would've studied the letters before conducting the meetings. I cannot definitively say they did and I can't definitively say their questions didn't past the letter's muster. I after all, don't have access to those letters.

But I heavily doubt the lawmakers asked their questions blindly

 

I.e. you have no clue.

Sad.

 

Right. In the opinion of people with an agenda and an extreme bias, Grassley, the CHAIRMAN of the committee, was doing terrible things. Feinstein, acting alone, and without authorization, leaks a redacted transcript from a closed door session of the Senate Judiciary Committee, redacted at the demand of the person who is the subject of the transcript, and that is no big deal.

The fact this release will allow anyone who might be uncovered in the investigation an opportunity to know how to answer any future questions that might be asked, means nothing. Derailing the Committee's investigation seems to have been the motivation, and that is outrageous, no matter which party did it.

Imagine if this type of outrageous behavior was exhibited during the Watergate investigation. There are reasons meetings are conducted behind closed doors, I've posted those reasons from the Senate rules on this thread. Feinstein apparently thinks she can dictate what those rules are.

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen is the pivot to evade. Partisan, preferential in all its glory. I would remind that the standard isn't preponderance of the evidence isn't a criminal standard. Doubt is the burden of prosecution to overcome, not induce. These are the fundamentals man...

 

It means something when those handful of people occupy the positions they do, but more important is the fact that those people lied repeatedly about the contact at all levels. Those people lied; information was revealed that forced them to lie again, and again, and again. If you are honestly trying to assess these people, look at the evolution of their answers as more information gets chronologically released. Regardless of what your definition of "normal" is, maybe you need to ask what is acceptable?

Prior to the election, I said on this board that Hillary should have been indicted, so let's leave that one to rest. Judge Trump and his team in the vacuum of what you think this country deserves, not by the marks in the gutter with the person you despise most.

 

A day later, this has not changed.

Fact: the alt right was asking for the transcripts

Fact: they got the transcripts

Fact: they are crying up a storm.

Except that we now have a s**thole of a WH as well.

 

Psshh. I haven't evaded a thing.

You brought up Martha Stewart, not me. Her case went from civil to criminal when she lied. She went to prison because she lied. The civil case was settled after she got out.

How do you prove guilt? With evidence. There is no civil or criminal case if there is no evidence. Doing things legally doesn't provide evidence of a crime.

Flynn lied. Papadopoulous lied. Martha Stewart lied. Why do people lie about crimes? Because they are trying to mislead law enforcement. Why mislead if you did nothing illegal?

My original point was law enforcement doesn't get leverage when people do legal things. There's nothing partisan about that.

 

I know your biggest "colluder" Carter Page was the Russia expert. I guess we should get Russia experts who know nothing about Russia.

 

So, again with the dissembling here. Martha was being investigated for insider trading which is a criminal, not civil charge, hence the use of the federal prosecutor, Mueller. These are fundamentals man. Not knowing the different standards of guilt is seriously destroying your credibility here. Martha Stewart is the example. She wasn't guilty of a criminal conspiracy for insider trading, and yet, because Mueller committed prosecutorial overreach, he trapped Martha in an inconsistency and charged her for obstruction when he couldn't prove insider trading. She was frikkin innocent of the witch hunt Mueller led. Her innocence was compromised by the leverage Mueller used to create the inconsistency which he then convicted her for.

So, by your standard, if someone purposefully tries to mislead law enforcement, they what? Deserve to be prosecuted? Does that apply to everyone, or just those you want to see prosecuted. I ask, since you so obviously sidestepped the issue when I introduced Hillary. The observation seems pretty obvious here.

 

You're all over the place. All you have to do is look at the evolution of denials.

////////////////////

Trump has spent his charmed life insulated by a blanket of cash, awash in riches. He's used to using money to bully people into submission and whitewash his shittiness. I think he believed that the presidency would be more of the same. Turns out people want some accountability to what propels his deals. If that's the deep state, then I'm a backer of it. I will ALWAYS argue for more transparency. People who act like they have something to hide usually do.

 

And that is the anatomy of a watch hunt. Get people afraid then grill them.

How many people have been murdered by this evil logic you and the rest of the left are using. This logic is evil and murderous as proven by the deaths of millions.

1488 a young girl in Spain is arrested on suspicion of being a Jew because she doesn't like pork. She us Catholic she has been raised Catholic her whole life. But she is scared and terrified. The is interrogated and she says she is a Catholic her entire family is Catholic. The inquisitor has her. Her maternal grandmother was Jewish. It's not illegal to have a Jewish ancestor even during the Spanish Inquisition. So why would she lie about it unless she was practicing Judaism herself.

I don't really care as much about Russian collusion as much as I do this murderous parinioa I have seen conning from the left. The logic and words you are using has killed millions. This path you are walking down is evil. I suggest you turn around.

 

wtf, The dossier is online, you could have read it yourself months ago.

 

Not all insider trading cases are criminal. These are fundamentals man.

 

You wish the parallel was there, but it's just a phrase that's been drummed into you. This is not McCarthyism.

Trump wishes it was a witch hunt, but his behavior and the behavior of his top level staff say otherwise. If you've looked at the evolution of their denials, what do you have to say about them? What justification satisfies you? Why is it okay with you?

 

Bullshit it ismy. I was at a conference were the speaker said that he had 'Talked to ambassador Kessleak about X so he guessed that made him traitor.' Everyone laughed but a bit if a nervous laugh because everyone who does this kind if international work is afraid the the nutjobs right now.

Hell I personally did exactly what Carter Page did. I talked to some Russian energy people at a PMI meeting because I wanted to pick their brain about natural gas shipping through the arctic.

Was I betraying my country? No but that doesn't matter in a witch hunt. If I went to work for the Trump administration as an energy expert that talk I had would be front page news. And I would be interrogated by Grand Inquisitor Mueller and expected to remember every detail of a drunken casual talk I had with two guys a half a year ago.

This is an evil paranoid witch hunt. <<MOD EDIT - Removed Group Insult>> Lee S People who work in the international markets like I do and like Carter Page did are legitimately afraid of this insanity.

 

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Slow your roll.

My logic and words have not killed anyone, and the path of being critical of those that would obstruct justice is not evil. The United States is a country of laws where innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven. Suggesting that that criminals shouldn't be questioned by law enforcement or punished if they obstruct justice leads the country to anarchy. Here's a life tip- if you are being questioned by law enforcement, tell the truth. If you did something illegal, then prepare for the consequences, but don't make it worse by lying about it.

It is not a witch hunt to prosecute people for lying to law enforcement. I used three people in my post- Flynn, Papadopoulous and Martha Stewart. Let's not pretend those three people were otherwise legally minding their own business and had done nothing illegal, when they were questioned by law enforcement. At no time was the discussion ever about little Spanish girls not eating pork in 1488.

 

You have responded to truly confused conflation, good luck .

 

Your logic is not unique. It's been used before to justify horrific evils in the history of the world.

It's the psychology of the witch hunt. The fear if the witch hunt causes people to lie the lies are used as proof of guilt.

 

Everyone agrees that there was nothing illegal in Flynns talk with the Russian Ambassador it was part of the perfectly normal function if an incoming NSA. If he lied the only reason he lied was fear of the witch hunt. That is how witch hunts work.

Have you now or have you ever spoken with the Russians?

I've spoken with the Russians I did almost exactly what Carter Page did at an energy conference.

Am I a traitor to my country for talking to some Russians?

Oh now you are backtracking you were just using the lying as proof of the larger Russian conspiracy.

The accused Jew, lied about having a Jewish grandmother and therefor must be a jew. No she lied because she didnt want to be burned at the stake.

See right there in your own hand. The lie is proof if your accusation. But in all three cases no one was actually charged with the crime the FBI was supposedly investigating.

Was Martha Stewart charged with insider trading?

Was Flynn charged with violating the Logan Act?

I don't even know what Papadopoulos was supposed to have done. I didn't know that hearing rumors 3rd hand was a crime.

He told a friend he had heard from a friend in Israel who had heard from a friend in Russia, who had heard from a friend in the Russian government that ....

Do you not see how dangerous your kind of thinking is right now? It's the kind of mass paranoia that literally kills millions of people.

The democrats don't want to admit they lost the election. The Germans didn't want to admit they list world war 1 either. Some greater conspiracy must be to blame. Replace Russians with Jews and ask yourself who you sound like right now. Your kind of thinking mestatices over time into genocide.