First they can't accept the results of an election...

This_person

Well-Known Member
Last time I looked, defamation was against the law. When a fake news org intentionally defames ANYONE - even a sitting President - they should be held accountable for that. For some reason we've been giving them a pass on this and I don't know why the press is above the law.

We cannot keep ourselves informed if a large portion of our accredited information sources are lying to us for political purposes. Most people don't want to have to run down every little thing that happens; that is what our news media is for. If we wanted to do it all ourselves, we don't need them.

I don't think it's too much to ask that we DEMAND our news sources either report factual news OR be labeled as entertainment. Our First Amendment does not cover intentionally lying from their position of power in order to overthrow our government and replace our duly elected President with one of their choosing. In fact, that is the epitome of UNconstitutional.
NOW you’re talking. I would be fully behind Trump suing. He’ll never win, but I would still be all for it.

That is ENTIRELY different from the government deciding what’s ok to print in a general way.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I'm reminded of Harry Reid and his famous "he didn't win, did he?" remark - after being asked about what was clearly a bare-faced, blatant lie about Romney not paying taxes for ten years. He smirked because, doesn't matter, because we won and he lost.

So now we have hosts of pundits, Congressman and others who posited most assuredly that THEY HAD BONA FIDE EVIDENCE of collusion.
Incontrovertible. That man is leaving the White House in cuffs. Just wait and see.

They were lying. And they knew they were lying. They - had - nothing. They were betting like they had a straight flush with a pair of deuces.
Frankly, I'd be happy if they simply got called on the "evidence" and information they claimed to have - because they didn't have it.
I don't care if they get prosecuted for it - just called out, publicly.

The way that Harry Reid did NOT have to.
The reason Harry didn’t get it legally is the same reason Trump would never win a defamation lawsuit - weasel words.

Reid said, “someone told him.” He NEVER said it was true. The media does the exact same thing.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I'm not gonna give you names...but I can provide you with the neighborhoods around here in which they live
It's many more than you would think...
Or is it, not as many as you would hope for? hmmm...
so thats a 'nobody'....... gotcha
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That $25 million made $48 million.
Except, no it didn't. That was already being looked into and would have happened without Mueller. It made -$25M (or $40M, or whatever anyone decides it actually cost). All while using up a great deal of time of prosecutors and investigators and witnesses and elected officials that would have been doing work towards a crime that actually was committed.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
All while using up a great deal of time of prosecutors and investigators and witnesses and elected officials that would have been doing work towards a crime that actually was committed.
The investigation resulted in someting 34 indictments and, what, 8 guilty pleas/charges? Sounds like they did work on crimes committed.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The investigation resulted in someting 34 indictments and, what, 8 guilty pleas/charges? Sounds like they did work on crimes committed.
The vast majority of the guilty pleas were related to the conduct of the investigation. Without the investigation, the conduct (and thus the crimes, and thus the charges) would never have existed.

26 of those indictments were for Russians that will never, ever be tried.

Zero of those indictments and guilty pleas were related to the key task of the investigation which was to determine if the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to interfere with our election.

The 26 will keep doing it, like they have done for decades.

So, no, it doesn't.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
The vast majority of the guilty pleas were related to the conduct of the investigation. Without the investigation, the conduct (and thus the crimes, and thus the charges) would never have existed.

26 of those indictments were for Russians that will never, ever be tried.

Zero of those indictments and guilty pleas were related to the key task of the investigation which was to determine if the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to interfere with our election.

The 26 will keep doing it, like they have done for decades.

So, no, it doesn't.
I think you should review the scope of work for the investigation. It clearly spells out that anything found dring the investigation is part of it.

Yes, it did. :lol:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I think you should review the scope of work for the investigation. It clearly spells out that anything found dring the investigation is part of it.

Yes, it did. :lol:
"found" - yes. "Created as a result of" is what most of those things were about.

Manafort was already under investigation for the crimes, so I remove those.

26 indictments to Russians for no other purpose than to inflate the numbers, because EVERYONE knows they will never be served, let alone be tried.

How many does that leave? And, of those, how many were crimes committed in the act of working with the investigation (as opposed to a crime committed that the investigation learned of - you know, the crime happened prior to the investigation).

That leaves zero crimes the investigation can be credited with resolving. Zero. If it hadn't happened completely outside of the Russia investigation, or would never have happened if there were no Russia investigation, there would be Russian bots who will never be served and who (as a concept) have been doing the same thing for at least 5 decades and left alone because they meant nothing to our elections.

The money recouped would have been recouped anyway, because that investigation was already on-going.

This was tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of lives disrupted and dozens of investigators and prosecutors distracted from doing real work and real investigations left undone and unable to be done because of budget being used for this.

If I'm wrong, tell me the crime associated with the main purpose of the investigation (collusion) that did not happened as a result of the investigation and was not a Russian bot we would have never even looked at twice (as evidenced by the fact we never did ever in the last 5 decades).

I'll wait.
 
Top