Planet Rugby Forum

Flockwitt wrote:Donger must be pissing himself laughing.

Maybe. He did seem to have a bit of a mental breakdown before he left.

Bowens wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:Donger must be pissing himself laughing.

Maybe. He did seem to have a bit of a mental breakdown before he left.

Curious choice of words. You have a link to something that might have led you to that conclusion?

Flockwitt wrote:

Bowens wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:Donger must be pissing himself laughing.

Maybe. He did seem to have a bit of a mental breakdown before he left.

Curious choice of words. You have a link to something that might have led you to that conclusion?

When he posted his Trump costume expecting victory then tried to pretend he was something he wasn't with the West Virginia bar pictures. Saddest thing I have ever seen here honestly. He didn't know how to handle the embarrassment.

Uh-huh. Curious. When did this episode occur?

Dongers is fine, just quietly enjoying his tax breaks and economic gains.

Flockwitt wrote:Uh-huh. Curious. When did this episode occur?

How bout you use the search function.

Bowens wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:Uh-huh. Curious. When did this episode occur?

How bout you use the search function.

I have. And the facts according to you don't match up. Got anything more to say for yourself?

Get lost clown.

Mr Mike wrote:Dongers is fine, just quietly enjoying his tax breaks and economic gains.

I'd be interested on his take on things now. Pretty much everything he predicted about this administration has come true. From that cesspit of an inauguration to the nepotism to whatever the heck is still festering under it all.

Seneca of the Night wrote: By Christ you're a moron.

by Christ?

Santa wrote:

Waratah wrote:

The question is this: did the FBI, in contravention of its own rules, run one or more confidential human source against the Trump campaign before a formally predicated investigative file was opened. Whatever 4071 was on about it wasn't that central point. Hopefully the IG and some congressional oversight can get some answers.

To speak of the investigation being 'against' the Trump campaign is like accusing firemen of being 'against' fires. It's a fundamental misrepresentation which feeds the deep state bullshit. It would be an incompetent FBI which failed to investigate evidence of possible infiltration of a Presidential campaign by agents of a hostile foreign state, and possible knowledge by that campaign of foreign interference to their advantage. Given the compelling evidence of precisely that which has since emerged, it seems picky to quibble over whether they properly stamped the file.

From Comey himself:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.

So that's 3 things:
1. Russian interference
2. Links between individuals
3. Coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts

It's on page 1 of the transcript.

How does that alter or contradict the point I was making about presenting it as a partisan or illegitimate attack on the campaign? It's a no-brainer that the FBI would investigate these things. It's their job.

Waratah wrote:

Santa wrote:

Waratah wrote:

The question is this: did the FBI, in contravention of its own rules, run one or more confidential human source against the Trump campaign before a formally predicated investigative file was opened. Whatever 4071 was on about it wasn't that central point. Hopefully the IG and some congressional oversight can get some answers.

To speak of the investigation being 'against' the Trump campaign is like accusing firemen of being 'against' fires. It's a fundamental misrepresentation which feeds the deep state bullshit. It would be an incompetent FBI which failed to investigate evidence of possible infiltration of a Presidential campaign by agents of a hostile foreign state, and possible knowledge by that campaign of foreign interference to their advantage. Given the compelling evidence of precisely that which has since emerged, it seems picky to quibble over whether they properly stamped the file.

From Comey himself:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.

So that's 3 things:
1. Russian interference
2. Links between individuals
3. Coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts

It's on page 1 of the transcript.

How does that alter or contradict the point I was making about presenting it as a partisan or illegitimate attack on the campaign? It's a no-brainer that the FBI would investigate these things. It's their job.

At least we know that Santa is not Trey Gowdy.

If nearly everyone agrees that it’s the FBI’s job to investigate possible Russian intervention in the election, why has it taken 12 months for someone to actually say it????

It was an illegitimate investigation, or at least aspects of it were, if it wasn't formulated properly; if it was deployed against the rules or for political purposes. The origins of it are murky enough that that requires investigation. I know you guys don't believe that. You dont see anything wrong with what happened. We'll see what the IG and other investigations have to say.

I'm mystified that you don't think, at least in principal, that in a democracy is a very serious matter for a government to deploy its intelligence services to investigate a political opponent - I'll leave the semantic quibbling over whether the word should be 'against' or 'of' to you guys. That may be one of the most serious things it could do. And that if it does then it should absolutely play it by the book. There are plenty of good questions about the latter.

Santa wrote:As for this "compelling evidence" how many indictments has it produced against members of the campaign for activities conducted in their role as members of that campaign?

Waratah you're on a lynching mission. You evidently don't care about process or evidence in your mission to destroy the Don. You're one to talk about corruption.

You'd have to have read very little about Trump, his campaign, his campaign officials and their deep and dubious connections to a state which tried to help him win the election in order to ask what might justify an investigation. And even if you were somehow able to ignore all of what we already know, or consider only the indictments to date, as if there can be no more, and as if four or five current indictments against his campaign staff for germane offences isn't enough to be going on with, it's even sillier to imagine that's all there is, not least because the investigation is ongoing and appears to be expanding.

As for my 'mission to destroy the Don'... FFS. Even if that were true, or merely could be true, it would still be more credible than your efforts to absolve this lying crook at the FBI's expense.

Santa wrote:It was an illegitimate investigation, or at least aspects of it were, if it wasn't formulated properly; if it was deployed against the rules or for political purposes. The origins of it are murky enough that that requires investigation. I know you guys don't believe that. You dont see anything wrong with what happened. We'll see what the IG and other investigations have to say.

I'm mystified that you don't think, at least in principal, that in a democracy is a very serious matter for a government to deploy its intelligence services to investigate a political opponent - I'll leave the semantic quibbling over whether the word should be 'against' or 'of' to you guys. That may be one of the most serious things it could do. And that if it does then it should absolutely play it by the book. There are plenty of good questions about the latter.

Government departments investigate government all the time. Why is Trump and the Republican Party exempt from this?

Santa wrote:It was an illegitimate investigation, or at least aspects of it were, if it wasn't formulated properly; if it was deployed against the rules or for political purposes. The origins of it are murky enough that that requires investigation. I know you guys don't believe that.

Because there's no evidence that it was deployed against the rules or for political purposes, and ample evidence it was warranted.

Yeah, you need some evidence there Tah.

Sandstorm wrote:If nearly everyone agrees that it’s the FBI’s job to investigate possible Russian intervention in the election, why has it taken 12 months for someone to actually say it????

Because it should be axiomatic. The only people suggesting otherwise are team Trump, because they're defending a liar. It's been pointed out many times that Trump will trash any foundational institution to save himself from accountability.

Waratah wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:If nearly everyone agrees that it’s the FBI’s job to investigate possible Russian intervention in the election, why has it taken 12 months for someone to actually say it????

Because it should be axiomatic. The only people suggesting otherwise are team Trump, because they're defending a liar. It's been pointed out many times that Trump will trash any foundational institution to save himself from accountability.

The question is then to be asked just how accountable is the President going to be. Clinton sort of got away with perjury. I think for any sort of impeachment Trump will need to caught red-handed with more than just his contradicting lies. The lack of veracity will likely bite in the mid-terms, but I wonder just what if anything will bring him down. I doubt even a perjury from a Mueller interview would do it, there'd have to be an outright illegal activity associated with it I'd guess.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Waratah wrote:

Santa wrote:As for this "compelling evidence" how many indictments has it produced against members of the campaign for activities conducted in their role as members of that campaign?

Waratah you're on a lynching mission. You evidently don't care about process or evidence in your mission to destroy the Don. You're one to talk about corruption.

You'd have to have read very little about Trump, his campaign, his campaign officials and their deep and dubious connections to a state which tried to help him win the election in order to ask what might justify an investigation. And even if you were somehow able to ignore all of what we already know, or consider only the indictments to date, as if there can be no more, and as if four or five current indictments against his campaign staff for germane offences isn't enough to be going on with, it's even sillier to imagine that's all there is, not least because the investigation is ongoing and appears to be expanding.

As for my 'mission to destroy the Don'... FFS. Even if that were true, or merely could be true, it would still be more credible than your efforts to absolve this lying crook at the FBI's expense.

What are your sources Tah. You seem to read some interesting stuff.

Most of the big stories of Trump's campaign and Presidency have been broken by the NYT & WaPo, for which they've won Pulitzers, not least as they have the best sources inside the leakiest administration of all time. Plenty of other reputable sources of course, usually quite widely reported and easy to find.

Seneca of the Night wrote:
Yeah, um, I wouldn't mind seeing some links.

Flockwitt wrote:

Waratah wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:If nearly everyone agrees that it’s the FBI’s job to investigate possible Russian intervention in the election, why has it taken 12 months for someone to actually say it????

Because it should be axiomatic. The only people suggesting otherwise are team Trump, because they're defending a liar. It's been pointed out many times that Trump will trash any foundational institution to save himself from accountability.

The question is then to be asked just how accountable is the President going to be. Clinton sort of got away with perjury. I think for any sort of impeachment Trump will need to caught red-handed with more than just his contradicting lies. The lack of veracity will likely bite in the mid-terms, but I wonder just what if anything will bring him down. I doubt even a perjury from a Mueller interview would do it, there'd have to be an outright illegal activity associated with it I'd guess.

It remains to be seen what price Trump pays, it's uncharted territory, beyond the Clinton impeachment by an order of magnitude. Generally it's thought a President can't be indicted, but that's not been tested. Impeachment is just about the numbers. He seems all in at the moment, as if he can bullshit and/or buy his way out of trouble, unaccountability being his hallmark, and it's not clear he knows what he's up against this time, or where it ends. Perjury is a hanging certainty if he has to testify under oath, but that's the least of his problems.

I have a bottle of red with Seneca on him seeing jail time.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Waratah wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Waratah wrote:

Santa wrote:As for this "compelling evidence" how many indictments has it produced against members of the campaign for activities conducted in their role as members of that campaign?

Waratah you're on a lynching mission. You evidently don't care about process or evidence in your mission to destroy the Don. You're one to talk about corruption.

You'd have to have read very little about Trump, his campaign, his campaign officials and their deep and dubious connections to a state which tried to help him win the election in order to ask what might justify an investigation. And even if you were somehow able to ignore all of what we already know, or consider only the indictments to date, as if there can be no more, and as if four or five current indictments against his campaign staff for germane offences isn't enough to be going on with, it's even sillier to imagine that's all there is, not least because the investigation is ongoing and appears to be expanding.

As for my 'mission to destroy the Don'... FFS. Even if that were true, or merely could be true, it would still be more credible than your efforts to absolve this lying crook at the FBI's expense.

What are your sources Tah. You seem to read some interesting stuff.

Most of the big stories of Trump's campaign and Presidency have been broken by the NYT & WaPo, for which they've won Pulitzers, not least as they have the best sources inside the leakiest administration of all time. Plenty of other reputable sources of course, usually quite widely reported and easy to find.

Yeah, um, I wouldn't mind seeing some links.

www.washingtontimes.com
www.nytimes.com

Waratah wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:

Waratah wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:If nearly everyone agrees that it’s the FBI’s job to investigate possible Russian intervention in the election, why has it taken 12 months for someone to actually say it????

Because it should be axiomatic. The only people suggesting otherwise are team Trump, because they're defending a liar. It's been pointed out many times that Trump will trash any foundational institution to save himself from accountability.

The question is then to be asked just how accountable is the President going to be. Clinton sort of got away with perjury. I think for any sort of impeachment Trump will need to caught red-handed with more than just his contradicting lies. The lack of veracity will likely bite in the mid-terms, but I wonder just what if anything will bring him down. I doubt even a perjury from a Mueller interview would do it, there'd have to be an outright illegal activity associated with it I'd guess.

It remains to be seen what price Trump pays, it's uncharted territory, beyond the Clinton impeachment by an order of magnitude. Generally it's thought a President can't be indicted, but that's not been tested. Impeachment is just about the numbers. He seems all in at the moment, as if he can bullshit and/or buy his way out of trouble, unaccountability being his hallmark, and it's not clear he knows what he's up against this time, or where it ends. Perjury is a hanging certainty if he has to testify under oath, but that's the least of his problems.

I have a bottle of red with Seneca on him seeing jail time.

I really can't see him going to jail, even in the allegorical event of a shooting on Fifth Avenue.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Waratah wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com

I like the WaTime.

One of my best.

Speaking of the NYT, they've obtained an illuminating letter from Trump's former lawyers to Mueller back in January, trying to argue that if the President does it, it's not illegal, an argument which failed Nixon. It shows their desperation, their willingness to test the limits of executive power to avoid him having to testify under oath. That wouldn't end well, either.

Waratah wrote:Speaking of the NYT, they've obtained an illuminating letter from Trump's former lawyers to Mueller back in January, trying to argue that if the President does it, it's not illegal, an argument which failed Nixon. It shows their desperation, their willingness to test the limits of executive power to avoid him having to testify under oath. That wouldn't end well, either.

I'd already commented I thought it utter bumbling incompetence. Did they really think they can either intimidate Mueller, or give him lessons in his jurisprudence?

Perhaps the directive came from on high, as we've now discovered from the letter that Trump dictated Trump Jr's reply about the Russia lawyer meeting. Yep. The one Jr. fudged while under oath.

Flockwitt wrote:

Waratah wrote:Speaking of the NYT, they've obtained an illuminating letter from Trump's former lawyers to Mueller back in January, trying to argue that if the President does it, it's not illegal, an argument which failed Nixon. It shows their desperation, their willingness to test the limits of executive power to avoid him having to testify under oath. That wouldn't end well, either.

I'd already commented I thought it utter bumbling incompetence. Did they really think they can either intimidate Mueller, or give him lessons in his jurisprudence?

Perhaps the directive came from on high, as we've now discovered from the letter that Trump dictated Trump Jr's reply about the Russia lawyer meeting. Yep. The one Jr. fudged while under oath.

Alan Dershowitz made the point some time back that you can’t charge a President with obstruction for exercising his constitutional powers.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... pr-consent

Of course the president can obstruct justice. Nixon obstructed justice. President Clinton was charged with obstructing justice. A president can’t obstruct justice by simply exercising his constitutional authority. That is: A president can’t obstruct justice by pardoning. A president can’t obstruct justice by firing somebody he’s authorized to fire. If a president bribes or takes a bribe, or if a president, as Nixon did, pays hush money, or tells his subordinates to lie to the FBI, or destroys evidence, of course he can be charged with obstruction of justice, but he can’t be charged with obstruction of justice simply by exercising his constitutional authority. That would be a clear violation of the separation of powers, to punish a president for exercising Article II authority.

zt1903 wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:

Waratah wrote:Speaking of the NYT, they've obtained an illuminating letter from Trump's former lawyers to Mueller back in January, trying to argue that if the President does it, it's not illegal, an argument which failed Nixon. It shows their desperation, their willingness to test the limits of executive power to avoid him having to testify under oath. That wouldn't end well, either.

I'd already commented I thought it utter bumbling incompetence. Did they really think they can either intimidate Mueller, or give him lessons in his jurisprudence?

Perhaps the directive came from on high, as we've now discovered from the letter that Trump dictated Trump Jr's reply about the Russia lawyer meeting. Yep. The one Jr. fudged while under oath.

Alan Dershowitz made the point some time back that you can’t charge a President with obstruction for exercising his constitutional powers.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... pr-consent

Of course the president can obstruct justice. Nixon obstructed justice. President Clinton was charged with obstructing justice. A president can’t obstruct justice by simply exercising his constitutional authority. That is: A president can’t obstruct justice by pardoning. A president can’t obstruct justice by firing somebody he’s authorized to fire. If a president bribes or takes a bribe, or if a president, as Nixon did, pays hush money, or tells his subordinates to lie to the FBI, or destroys evidence, of course he can be charged with obstruction of justice, but he can’t be charged with obstruction of justice simply by exercising his constitutional authority. That would be a clear violation of the separation of powers, to punish a president for exercising Article II authority.

Dershowitz is one lawyer, expressing an opinion.

Let’s not forget - there have been people indicted and convicted on guilty pleas, of involvement with Russia who were close to, connected, in bed with, associated with the Orange shitgibbon.

Hong Kong wrote:Let’s not forget - there have been people indicted and convicted on guilty pleas, of involvement with Russia who were close to, connected, in bed with, associated with the Orange shitgibbon.

Is that a factual statement?

fishfoodie wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:

Waratah wrote:Speaking of the NYT, they've obtained an illuminating letter from Trump's former lawyers to Mueller back in January, trying to argue that if the President does it, it's not illegal, an argument which failed Nixon. It shows their desperation, their willingness to test the limits of executive power to avoid him having to testify under oath. That wouldn't end well, either.

I'd already commented I thought it utter bumbling incompetence. Did they really think they can either intimidate Mueller, or give him lessons in his jurisprudence?

Perhaps the directive came from on high, as we've now discovered from the letter that Trump dictated Trump Jr's reply about the Russia lawyer meeting. Yep. The one Jr. fudged while under oath.

Alan Dershowitz made the point some time back that you can’t charge a President with obstruction for exercising his constitutional powers.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... pr-consent

Of course the president can obstruct justice. Nixon obstructed justice. President Clinton was charged with obstructing justice. A president can’t obstruct justice by simply exercising his constitutional authority. That is: A president can’t obstruct justice by pardoning. A president can’t obstruct justice by firing somebody he’s authorized to fire. If a president bribes or takes a bribe, or if a president, as Nixon did, pays hush money, or tells his subordinates to lie to the FBI, or destroys evidence, of course he can be charged with obstruction of justice, but he can’t be charged with obstruction of justice simply by exercising his constitutional authority. That would be a clear violation of the separation of powers, to punish a president for exercising Article II authority.

Dershowitz is one lawyer, expressing an opinion.

Is that some sort of argument against what he’s saying

Yes he is one lawyer expressing an opinion. But he’s a very prominent highly rated expert one. And he’s a staunch Democrat.

It’s worth reading the interview rather than dismissing him because he doesn’t fit what you hope to be true.

I happen to agree with Dershowitz (Fox shill though he is). The President’s judges are the Congress and the People

Oddly enough though, that didn’t stop them going after Clinton. So, he who screws the pooch, thereafter lives with said pooch.

All the handwringing ‘poisoned tree’ types can keep squealing in the bed that they made.

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:Let’s not forget - there have been people indicted and convicted on guilty pleas, of involvement with Russia who were close to, connected, in bed with, associated with the Orange shitgibbon.

Is that a factual statement?

Yes

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:Let’s not forget - there have been people indicted and convicted on guilty pleas, of involvement with Russia who were close to, connected, in bed with, associated with the Orange shitgibbon.

Is that a factual statement?

At best it’s significantly misleading.

The facts are.

4 Trump associates have been charged so far.
- George Papadopoulos was indicted for and plead guilty to lying to the FBI (about something that in itself wasn’t a crime)
- Mike Flynn was indicted for and plead guilty to lying to the FBI (about something that in itself wasn’t a crime)
- Paul Manafort has been indicted (and has pleaded not guilty) on various financial charges related to his business dealings in Ukraine and predating his involvement with the campaign
- Rick Gates (Manafort's partner) was originally indicted on similar charges to Manafort but entered a plea deal and plead guilty to making false statements.

Two other associates of Gates and Manafort (unrelated to Trump) have pleaded on false statements charges.

None of this relates to Russia's interference with the 2016 election, in fact Flynn's contact with the Russians happened after the election.

In addition, 13 Russian Nationals and 3 companies were indicted in relation to “troll farms” and face charges of identify theft.

Hong Kong wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:Let’s not forget - there have been people indicted and convicted on guilty pleas, of involvement with Russia who were close to, connected, in bed with, associated with the Orange shitgibbon.

Is that a factual statement?

Yes

which individuals connected with the Trump campaign have been convicted of “involvement with Russia”?

As far as I knew the only person convicted of an offense which is directly connected to Russian contacts was the chap from LA.

The rest are tax and conspiracy to defraud charges or lying to the FBI.

zt1903 wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:Let’s not forget - there have been people indicted and convicted on guilty pleas, of involvement with Russia who were close to, connected, in bed with, associated with the Orange shitgibbon.

Is that a factual statement?

At best it’s significantly misleading.

The facts are.

4 Trump associates have been charged so far.
- George Papadopoulos was indicted for and plead guilty to lying to the FBI (about something that in itself wasn’t a crime)
- Mike Flynn was indicted for and plead guilty to lying to the FBI (about something that in itself wasn’t a crime)
- Paul Manafort has been indicted (and has pleaded not guilty) on various financial charges related to his business dealings in Ukraine and predating his involvement with the campaign
- Rick Gates (Manafort's partner) was originally indicted on similar charges to Manafort but entered a plea deal and plead guilty to making false statements.

Two other associates of Gates and Manafort (unrelated to Trump) have pleaded on false statements charges.

None of this relates to Russia's interference with the 2016 election, in fact Flynn's contact with the Russians happened after the election.

In addition, 13 Russian Nationals and 3 companies were indicted in relation to “troll farms” and face charges of identify theft.

oh dear. For someone who claims he is not a orange shitgibbon apologist, you sure go the extra mile to claim 1) it’s misleading (at best) and the 2) presents “facts” which are, at best, misleading

shanky wrote:I happen to agree with Dershowitz (Fox shill though he is). The President’s judges are the Congress and the People

Oddly enough though, that didn’t stop them going after Clinton. So, he who screws the pooch, thereafter lives with said pooch.

All the handwringing ‘poisoned tree’ types can keep squealing in the bed that they made.

Dershowitz makes clear that a President can obstruct justice. Nixon destroyed evidence, paid hush money and ordered subordinates to lie, none of those things are his constitutional right. Likewise with Clinton who was accused of perjuring himself in the Paula Jones trial and obstructing justice by asking Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp to lie in the same trial.

Trump is being accused of obstructing justice for firing someone he is allowed to fire.