So those things are plausible and to some degree supported by (publicly available, who knows otherwise) evidence, but they're not worth investigating?
So those things are plausible and to some degree supported by (publicly available, who knows otherwise) evidence, but they're not worth investigating?
Conspiracy needs a criminal act.Originally Posted by Julio3000
Forgive me, I AM projecting the obvious quo after the quid has become publicly available.
Though I'm glad to know that you've moved from the "this is a sham equivalent to birtherism" camp to "the well, what crime was committed?"
Say hi to thethe.
Is it so unreasonable to say that I see the logic in where you are coming from? I don't agree with it, but I'm interested in it ... and also in poking holes in it.
But yeah, I ultimately don't think it'll end up being worth the time or the money or the spilt milk.
No, you aren't. You are dodging and taking cheap shots.
One thing at a time.
Now, what crime do you think was committed by or through the hypothetical Manafort to Putin back-channel?
Post #447
It depends really. What's with these super broad gotcha questions?
I think broadly speaking the most likely crime would involve a violation of laws against campaigns receiving anything of value from foreigners. That would be the most likely. But there are other possibilities as well. Some of it involves the shell accounts controlled by Manafort. It seems obvious to note that shell accounts exist to conceal something. That something could well involve his Russian connections and could possibly involve activity related to the Trump campaign. Peter W Smith, who told the Wall Street Journal he was seeking information from Russian hackers, set up a shell account, quite possibly to finance transactions with the hackers. I admit this is all speculative on my part. But that is the answer I would give to your question. And I think those possibilities do merit a very thorough investigation.
Last edited by nsacpi; 09-21-2017 at 06:19 PM.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
So an adversarial foreign power makes a multi-faceted incursion into a presidential election, including a several-pronged approach to one campaign. Several principals of this campaign are in touch with, and subsequently lie about, their contact with said adversarial foreign power. Why, again, is this not worthy of thorough investigation?
But but the dossier...the dossier has been discredited
and whataboutsusanrice...why isn't she being investigated
Last edited by nsacpi; 09-21-2017 at 06:37 PM.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Uh, I mean what fruits of the birther "investigation" do you equate to what is already in the public domain about Trump/Russia?
I mean, you've made the comparison multiple times. On what grounds, specifically?
Sure, but you haven't poked holes in anything. You've just set up some--understandable--strawmen around the tinfoil crowd and made light of the rest of the issue, even as it has begun to bracket the exact thing that you have maintained was the ultimate fiction.
meanwhile back at the ranch there is the obstruction angle...apparently several of the white house staffers Mueller will be interviewing were known for their note taking habits...this includes Sean Spicer who to compensate for a poor memory is a very thorough note taker
i note once again the potential irony that Trumpolini might go down for obstructing an investigation into a big nothing burger
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
...which is a great illustration of why all the boring ethics wonks have been clamoring about why it's a horrible idea to have a presidential administration staffed by family.
I'd guess that Trump would be willing enough to let, say, Flynn and Manafort dangle for their wrongdoing. Not so much with Jared or Donald Jr.
Looks like the real scandal was the corrupt Obama administration.
Can you please take a step back from the hysterical overreach for just one thread?
I took the time to respond to your initial query, even though it was a dishonest characterization of what I originally said, because I saw your misconception and felt like it was important to correct. So I did. And you ignored what I said, tripled down on the most simplistic derivation of my comments that you possibly could, and are now conjuring up instances of where I supposedly directly equated birtherism to this 'scandal' before, although a) I don't remember saying it b) I couldn't find it despite running a search of my comments here related to "birther(s)" and "birtherism" and c) I just don't think I would have said something like that outside of some very specific context (as I was in this instance).
Last edited by Hawk; 09-21-2017 at 11:01 PM.
Ok. Consider me gaslit.
Now - tell me what conspiracy you think Manafort engaged by offering to brief Deripaska and drop the twaddle.
Or am I continuing to step on a nerve when I suggest that it's just another example of circumstantial evidence?
Broadly? That's one of the more narrow interpretations of those FECA statutes I've read. But ok, as a speculatory exercise, it's certainly within the realm of possibility.
Your other theories confuse me a bit ... they revolve around the mystery of the shell accounts controlled by Manafort ... to pay Russian hackers? To hide ill-gotten gains? Or both? And how would Deripaska factor in here? Putin?
Don't forget about Samantha Power.
Standard operating procedure for sure.
Natural Immunity Croc
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote