Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And why would the liberals still be trying to prosecute the guy who is responsible for more diplomatic progress on the Korean peninsula than the world has seen in 50 years?
So, with that logic, if a bank robber also volunteers with Meals on Wheels, his good deeds means he shouldn't be prosecuted? It doesn't matter if Korea is reunited or Trump has a good economy on his watch: if he broke the law then justice must be pursued -- period.
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,798,262 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
Mueller: "When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?"
It's not "did you know of the Trump Tower meeting with Russians?", but WHEN. My guess is Mueller probably knows Trump was in attendance and is testing him to see if he'll admit he was an active participant. If he admits he was there that's a major step towards collusion/conspiracy.
Hmm. Interesting point.
"When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?"
I want to first break this down into two parts.
"to become aware" and "the Trump Tower meeting"
The verb to become aware is used most often in the present tense.
When did you become aware of the kitchen fire?
Notice the person himself is becoming aware of the fire. The only way to become aware of something is in the present. You don't become aware of a kitchen fire that happened in the past. Instead you learn about it.
When did you learn about the fire in the kitchen?
Learning about something is learning of an incident after the fact.
Now focus on the phrase "the Trump Tower meeting".
This wasn't written "meeting at Trump Tower".
Why is this word order so important?
Well listen how the question sounds if spoken out loud.
"When did you become aware of the meeting at Trump Tower?"
If the question was asked in this way, it would imply Trump was not present in Trump Tower when he learned of the meeting.
However, we do know Trump was present. Therefore, he became aware of the meeting while the meeting was going on.
The assumption by most has been that the Russians did their hacking thing on their own and Trump sort of enjoyed the benefits of it, and only circumstantial evidence that there was any active cooperation or collusion. This turns it on its ear: there was active campaign outreach to Russia? Wow. That suggests Mueller has evidence of active collusion.
Mueller's team DOES NOT LEAK. Leaks hurt his investigation. It is against his best interests.
TRUMP and HIS ATTORNEYS DID LEAK - hoping you will BELIEVE that it was Mueller who leaked.
Clearly, it worked. "outside Trump's legal team" does NOT mean the original source was not someone who knows someone on the legal team.
The legal team used a buffer, plain and simple. Happens every day of the week.
I tend to agree with this. There have been piles of leaks from Trumps own circle jerk of advisers.
Quote:
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, recently provided President Trump’s lawyers a list of questions he wants answered in an interview. The New York Times obtained the list; here are the questions, along with the context and significance of each. The questions fall into categories based on four broad subjects. They are not quoted verbatim, and some were condensed.
So, with that logic, if a bank robber also volunteers with Meals on Wheels, his good deeds means he shouldn't be prosecuted? It doesn't matter if Korea is reunited or Trump has a good economy on his watch: if he broke the law then justice must be pursued -- period.
So, Trump is a bank robber to be prosecuted? On what evidence (adjusting for the metaphor)?
Korean nuclearization is Meals on Wheels?
How does a hungry elderly person threaten your life and those of everyone you know, and split a nation into a repressive communist regime and their hopeful family on the other side of an uncrossable border?
How is your metaphor not totally lacking in common sense, as well as lacking in what seems to be any sense of simple morality?
The facts are that you have no proof of any law being broken and, after two years, this is a partisan witch hunt that is coasting on ever-inflammatory Stephen Colbert monologues and WaPo hit pieces. Its also hindering the guy who, in spite of all of it, is getting the credit (by the Koreans) for what is going on in Korea.
You people are officially the (now obviously underhanded and excessively petty) bad guys. The sooner you wake up to your failures, of metaphor and all else, the better for you and the world. Period.
You sound like a true believer. How do the caps forward your assertion masquerading as an argument?
Quote:
Leaks hurt his investigation. It is against his best interests.
How so? These questions were never going to get answered, but now they have press and a very slight pressure to answer them is being floated. The only benefit points to Mueller.
Quote:
TRUMP and HIS ATTORNEYS DID LEAK[/u] - hoping you will BELIEVE that it was Mueller who leaked.
That's an incredibly convoluted conspiracy theory in regard to something that didn't require a conspiracy to address by Trump. There was no pressure to answer the questions, and so why would Trump's team need to leak them? Moreover, if this was a conspiracy, then why would the NYT know that it was the Trump team who leaked the questions? Wouldn't the Trump team have attempted to conceal their part in the leak? Absolutely. Your conspiracy theory doesn't work if the NYT knows it was the Trump team, which they claim to. Which is why your theory isn't plausible (in regard to a situation that the Trump team didn't need to be worried about, but which was frustrating Mueller).
Quote:
Clearly, it worked. "outside Trump's legal team" does NOT mean the original source was not someone who knows someone on the legal team.
Nothing from the NYT in regard to this, which they don't have to disclose in full and be held accountable for, "means" anything. They're as trustworthy as a broke crack addict when it comes to Trump.
Quote:
The legal team used a buffer, plain and simple. Happens every day of the week.
"Plan and simple", you have a convoluted conspiracy theory in regard to a simple leak.
Quote:
I could ask you the same thing. There is as much proof this leak came from Mueller as there is the leak came from Trump's people.
In an investigation, generally motive has to be established. The only plausible motive points to Mueller.
Quote:
You can read the language from the NY times either way. It is NOT in Mueller's best interests to leak. It is in Trump's. 'nuf said.
Look at the questions.
Since when do questions asking for opinion get ask in determining facts. Only allowable opinion is from qualified experts, not other wittiness.
Wittiness testify about facts. Any defense attorney would object to the foolish questions asking for opinion. Courts are after facts not opinions.
The are open ended questions. The questions are about what did Trump know and what did he do, etc. At any rate, Trump is THE expert on HIS actions and opinions.
This is getting so ridiculous: Mueller making things up as he goes along. What, Trump ate at a Russian restaurant in London in 1971? Better question him about his "Russian connections" in relation to that.
What, Trump walked by some Russian tourists at JFK airport in 1984? What about those "Russian connections"?
Hillary and Obama sell Russia 20% of our uranium supply and ... SHAZZAM ... Russia donates $millions to the Clinton Foundation. Where's the investigation into that?
Attorney General Lynch meets with Bill Clinton, in private, while her department is investigating Bill's wife. Nope, nothing to see here; just discussing the grandkids and yoga. Actually, the fix was already in even before Hillary was questioned by Comey. We know that now.
A Ukrainian businessman donates $130,000 to Trump. Investigate. Same businessman gave $millions to Clinton Foundation while Hillary still in the running for POTUS. Ooops, look the other way.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb ....
When the playing field is fair again, if ever; then come talk to us about this cr@p. But hey, keep listening to the Lame Stream Media. They might get one of their outlandish predictions correct before their viewership is in the single digits.
Yeah so why not just answer them if two scoops is completely innocent?
Rachel Maddow has never been anything but a storyteller for DNC and liberal narrative. I remember her disgusting acting performances at the time of the Ferguson controversy. She fully deserves any hate that she attracts. As the kids say, she's "in the game". Which merely means she's not innocent of corruption (by a long shot), and thus fair game to be attacked.
You mean like a pathological liar like Sean Hannity deserves any hate he attracts? I watched Trumps phone interview on Fox & Friends, it was a train wreck. Trump obviously needs psychiatric help, and quickly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
