• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Urine Trouble (Mueller Thread v. 16)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob I’m sorry but I’m going to call BS on the last few pages you’ve been harping the Halper angle. Halper was looked into already and 0 charges were filled. I haven’t looked into his CIA links as you say there are but Trump and the right wing media has not once accused the CIA as being a co-conspirator against his Campaign. How many different angles is Trump going to attack this? Soon we will hear the NSA was involved and I am sorry but I just don’t believe in some mythical deep state.

The best part in all of this is how easily your able to connect unverified and sometimes unconnected dots to accuse every major law enforcement agency of treason yet you won’t take facts of Russian connections with multiple guilty pleas and indictments and come to the conclusion that there is some next level shady shit going on with Trump.



You do realize the IG was just appointed to look into this, right?


You also realize this was made public by the media right? Trump had nothing to do with it being made public.


Furthermore, the nyt yesterday reported him as a long time cia asset. 20+ years ago they reported him as a spy.
 
Bob G is crushing some of the lefty cans on here lol

Another big concern is all the leaks from the beginning
 
Bob I’m sorry but I’m going to call BS on the last few pages you’ve been harping the Halper angle. Halper was looked into already and 0 charges were filled. I haven’t looked into his CIA links as you say there are but Trump and the right wing media has not once accused the CIA as being a co-conspirator against his Campaign. How many different angles is Trump going to attack this? Soon we will hear the NSA was involved and I am sorry but I just don’t believe in some mythical deep state.

The best part in all of this is how easily your able to connect unverified and sometimes unconnected dots to accuse every major law enforcement agency of treason yet you won’t take facts of Russian connections with multiple guilty pleas and indictments and come to the conclusion that there is some next level shady shit going on with Trump.

Next level shady shit with the Russians?

Count me as one, who also doesn't buy this.

Average shady shit, now that would be a different accusation, and would bring about a yawn in response.
 
Page did in fact cooperate with the fbi in 15.

There is nothing wrong with using an informant that had worked with law enforcement previously. It happens all the fucking time.


And now it comes out, before what the fbi claims as the start of the investigation....,

The official start date of an investigation has no legal value. The only thing that matters for a prosecutor, is whether or not the information was collected lawfully. If law enforcement starts investigating a guy today, for the first time for some crime they just learned of, it doesn't matter if they use evidence they had in storage that was obtained before "the official start date" of that investigation.


we find out a spy with a history of spying was baiting Page.




How do you find this argument sound? There is nothing wrong with using an informant that had previously worked with law enforcement. How would your argument even play out in a criminal proceeding?

Prosecution: "These are statements collected by an informant that show the defendant committed the crimes."

Defense: "What the prosecution failed to tell you, is that before the informant collected these incriminating statements from the defendant, that same informant had collected other incriminating evidence by a different defendant on a different matter two years ago!"

Judge: "I hereby instruct the bailiff to punch the defense attorney in the dick for wasting this court's time."


How, exactly, does this informant having worked with law enforcement back in '15, mean anything? Don't keep insisting that it happened bob, explain the legal relevance.
 
Bob G is crushing some of the lefty cans on here lol

Another big concern is all the leaks from the beginning



The difference is their posts are filled with name calling.


My posts are filled with news reports, dates, and facts.
 
There is nothing wrong with using an informant that had worked with law enforcement previously. It happens all the fucking time.




The official start date of an investigation has no legal value. The only thing that matters for a prosecutor, is whether or not the information was collected lawfully. If law enforcement starts investigating a guy today, for the first time for some crime they just learned of, it doesn't matter if they use evidence they had in storage that was obtained before "the official start date" of that investigation.







How do you find this argument sound? There is nothing wrong with using an informant that had previously worked with law enforcement. How would your argument even play out in a criminal proceeding?

Prosecution: "These are statements collected by an informant that show the defendant committed the crimes."

Defense: "What the prosecution failed to tell you, is that before the informant collected these incriminating statements from the defendant, that same informant had collected other incriminating evidence by a different defendant on a different matter two years ago!"

Judge: "I hereby instruct the bailiff to punch the defense attorney in the dick for wasting this court's time."


How, exactly, does this informant having worked with law enforcement back in '15, mean anything? Don't keep insisting that it happened bob, explain the legal relevance.



The fbi lying about the pretense for the investigation is a very big deal.
 
Fucking Bob is on Fire! Like watching a Bruce Lee flick where he beats the shit out of multiple opponents simultaneously
 
The fbi lying about the pretense for the investigation is a very big deal.

No it's not. And you can't even articulate it's supposed legal significance.

If law enforcement investigated a person for one reason, and found evidence of different crimes, would that pretense change whether or not that person was guilty of a crime?
 
Fucking Bob is on Fire! Like watching a Bruce Lee flick where he beats the shit out of multiple opponents simultaneously

More like a broken record everyone has tried to fix but it keeps skipping at the same part.
 
No it's not. And you can't even articulate it's supposed legal significance.

If law enforcement investigated a person for one reason, and found evidence of different crimes, would that pretense change whether or not that person was guilty of a crime?
Evidence gathered illegally is inadmissible in court.
 
No it's not. And you can't even articulate it's supposed legal significance.

If law enforcement investigated a person for one reason, and found evidence of different crimes, would that pretense change whether or not that person was guilty of a crime?


Please enlighten us to the crimes they have charged trump with.


Oh that’s right, none.


Furthermore, according to Meuller, Trump isn’t the target of the investigation, and he won’t indict him.
 
Take with a very large grain of salt



I wouldn't be surprised at all with Stone .They've interviewed some of those around him but not him .Tells me they're likely gunning for him
 
Evidence gathered illegally is inadmissible in court.

No shit. And this was addressed several times just above your post.

Explain to me how either: using an informant you had already used before; not liking the guy you're investigating; or collecting that information before the "official start date", equates to illegally gathered evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top