Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

[Julio3000]

When have I ever said that anyone who has been indicted or confessed to a crime is innocent? I don't believe Trump colluded and have been adamant about that until I see real evidence.

Uh, George Papadopoulos just misremembered some dates.

[thethe]

Uh, George Papadopoulos just misremembered some dates.

Did I say he was innocent of a crime? His statement was factually inaccurate and thus a crime.

[Julio3000]

Did I say he was innocent of a crime? His statement was factually inaccurate and thus a crime.

Ok. FWIW, your take was also factually inaccurate, but I guess that's beside the point.

But that's also not how the statute works.

[thethe]

Ok. FWIW, your take was also factually inaccurate, but I guess that's beside the point.

But that's also not how the statute works.

He lied to the fbi. That was the crime. How is that a misunderstanding?

[Hawk]

Wolff's book says that Trump didn't even know what a golden shower was until he read the dossier.

[Hawk]

Wolff is certainly having an Andrew Morton moment right now. The real question is whether or not Bannon will continue to stand as "the source" designed to act as a token of veracity for the entire book or if additional names/recordings/figures will unveil themselves to shore things up.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ibility-325399

If Bannon is it - and these magical recordings don't somehow manage to surface (or somehow be corroborated) - then I can actually see this eventually working in Trump's favor in a major way.

[nsacpi]

Wolff's book says that Trump didn't even know what a golden shower was until he read the dossier.

exoneration!

[Julio3000]

He lied to the fbi. That was the crime. How is that a misunderstanding?

Clarifying the difference between "he made a factually inaccurate statement," which is kinda sticking with the "misremembered dates" line, and "he lied." They're different, and often the difference between being charged with a crime or not.

[Julio3000]

Wolff is certainly having an Andrew Morton moment right now. The real question is whether or not Bannon will continue to stand as "the source" designed to act as a token of veracity for the entire book or if additional names/recordings/figures will unveil themselves to shore things up.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ibility-325399

If Bannon is it - and these magical recordings don't somehow manage to surface (or somehow be corroborated) - then I can actually see this eventually working in Trump's favor in a major way.

Mainstream journalists seem to haaaaaate this dude and have been piling on him since the original excerpts ran, so the shine may be off.

I doubt that's going to help Trump in any meaningful way, though. Even if you write off the most grotesque of the caricatures, time is going to tend to confirm the portrait of him rather than undermine it.

[thethe]

Mainstream journalists seem to haaaaaate this dude and have been piling on him since the original excerpts ran, so the shine may be off.

I doubt that's going to help Trump in any meaningful way, though. Even if you write off the most grotesque of the caricatures, time is going to tend to confirm the portrait of him rather than undermine it.

You certainly hope so. But these continual overreactions to nothing while the economy is roaring will absolutely help trump. I just don't get how intelligent people like you and nsacpi keep falling for these things. I get it with others.

[57Brave]

"he needed his attorney general to protect him"

[thethe]

"he needed his attorney general to protect him"

Post some original thought at some point in the next year. Your echo chamber is manipulating you.

[thethe]

Clarifying the difference between "he made a factually inaccurate statement," which is kinda sticking with the "misremembered dates" line, and "he lied." They're different, and often the difference between being charged with a crime or not.

That distinction is not made by the FBI. Factually inaccuracy I believe is the extent to which the FBI can charge you. Intent is impossible to prove without an admission.

[Julio3000]

That distinction is not made by the FBI. Factually inaccuracy I believe is the extent to which the FBI can charge you. Intent is impossible to prove without an admission.

I'm not sure why you want to continue to argue about this. The statute says "knowingly and willingly." That's the difference between intent and simple "factual inaccuracy."

It's odd that you have such strong opinions about who should and shouldn't be prosecuted (Abedin, Mills, Papa, etc) under this law, yet you seem to fundamentally misunderstand it.

[thethe]

Boomerang effect.

[thethe]

I'm not sure why you want to continue to argue about this. The statute says "knowingly and willingly." That's the difference between intent and simple "factual inaccuracy."

It's odd that you have such strong opinions about who should and shouldn't be prosecuted (Abedin, Mills, Papa, etc) under this law, yet you seem to fundamentally misunderstand it.

Sorry I confused it with the statute for federal employees that deal with classified information. My bad

[nsacpi]

Stable Genius vs Deep State...tough one to handicap

the incapacity exit is still available...take it donaldo

[thethe]

Stable Genius vs Deep State...tough one to handicap

the incapacity exit is still available...take it donaldo

I hope you're ready for another 7 years of the great dJT.

[57Brave]

Tom Bonier
‏Verified account @tbonier
3m3 minutes ago

Tom Bonier Retweeted Nicholas Thompson

Russia worked to influence our '16 elections.

We know that.

Yet the sanctions passed 5 months ago in response

are yet to be implemented by the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, Russian trolls and much of the GOP share the

objective of undermining Mueller and his investigation.

[thethe]

I hope you're talking about Facebook ads because that's all we know.