Urine Trouble (Mueller Thread v. 16)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SBJJ said:
Only the informant started before all of that. And even after surveillance on what, 7 members of the campaign, at least 1 or more spies. What do we have?
Click to expand...

A total of 16 people and 3 corporations have been indicted on over 100 different criminal charges. Additionally you have the guilty pleas for the National Security Advisor (Flynn), the Deputy Campaign Chairman (Gates), and the Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor (Papadopoulos). And that's just after one year in an investigation that's still ongoing, with likely indictments coming soon for Kushner and Don Jr. And of course this isn't including the President himself having his personal lawyer use laundered russian money to pay off a porn star, a story so absurd, yet still tied to the rest of the investigation.

Or in trump speak a nothingburger.
 
bobgeese said:
entrapment. n. in criminal law, the act of law enforcement officers or government agents inducing or encouraging a person to commit a crime when the potential criminal expresses a desire not to go ahead.


Mr Balls, above is the legal definition of entrapment.


The person (it’s claimed) made multiple attempts to get him to take the emails. That is literally the definition of entrapment.
Click to expand...

You're talking to a former prosecutor dipshit. Possession of the emails isn't whats being investigated. It's using the contents of the emails in league with foreign nationals. And setting up meetings in violation of the Logan Act. And lying to Congress, and a host of other shit. For you to make a case for entrapment, you have to show that this informant encouraged them to commit the underlying crimes. Not just taking the emails, which (probably) wouldn't be a crime.

This is like you trying to raise an entrapment claim where I encouraged you to take my baseball bat (legal) and then you used that bat to bash someone's head in. Me encouraging you to take the bat would be irrelevant, you could only claim entrapment if I encouraged you (and really, encouraged to the degree of almost forced) to bash the guy.

Swing and a miss bob.
 
SBJJ said:
Has nothing to do with it.

Would u want the FBI sending a spy into your life without ANY evidence of wrongdoing?
Click to expand...

The FBI did have evidence, that which was provided by various intelligence agencies, and likely stuff that won't come out until court. So you would have us believe that the FBI, without anything to go on but pure partisan vengefulness, decided to look into the trump campaign, and surprise, in a complete coincidence found roughly two dozen people engaged in numerous criminal activities over the span of more than a year? Boy the FBI got lucky there.

SBJJ said:
Or without an actual investigation being started?
Click to expand...

The investigation starts whenever someone starts investigating. It has no formal start date in which evidence gathered previously is somehow barred.
 
A reporter at some journalism event appearance recounted prior to a Chump interview off camera, Chump told her he constantly attacks the media and calls them fake so when the media reports bad shit about him people won't believe the media.
 
Darkballs said:
A total of 16 people and 3 corporations have been indicted on over 100 different criminal charges. Additionally you have the guilty pleas for the National Security Advisor (Flynn), the Deputy Campaign Chairman (Gates), and the Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor (Papadopoulos). And that's just after one year in an investigation that's still ongoing, with likely indictments coming soon for Kushner and Don Jr. And of course this isn't including the President himself having his personal lawyer use laundered russian money to pay off a porn star, a story so absurd, yet still tied to the rest of the investigation.

Or in trump speak a nothingburger.
Click to expand...
Trump was not going to raw dog Stormy, but the spy made him do it.
 
GSP_37 said:
A reporter at some journalism event appearance recounted prior to a Chump interview off camera, Chump told her he constantly attacks the media and calls them fake so when the media reports bad shit about him people won't believe the media.
Click to expand...


I wonder how long people are going to keep falling for that weapons-grade Bolognaium...
 
MASShole said:
Only federal charges can be pardoned, I think. Big reason why the district of NY is scaring the administration.
Click to expand...

You do realize that "districts" are federal, right?

Also, while the President's pardon power extends to "offenses against the United States," it's actually not clear what the effect would be on state prosecutions because the Court hasn't fleshed out the nuances yet. Commentators on the Left often state, in conclusory fashion, that "presidential pardon power does not extend to state crimes." However, the Supreme Court has held that the President's pardon power is "unlimited," and "extends to every offence known to the law." Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866). This "power of the President is not subject to legislative control," and a "pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender . . . so that, in the eye of the law, the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." Id. at 380-381. Because state and federal criminal law now overlap significantly, the Court would probably have to consider whether the elements of a pardoned federal crime are coextensive with a state crime. IMO, a Presidential pardon would have to reach all offenses except those which are distinctly state law offense (e.g. burglary, assault, etc.). Whatever approach the Court uses, it is doubtful that it would allow states to do an end-run around the President's pardon power by allowing them to prosecute the same exact conduct under state law.
 
Darkballs said:
A total of 16 people and 3 corporations have been indicted on over 100 different criminal charges. Additionally you have the guilty pleas for the National Security Advisor (Flynn), the Deputy Campaign Chairman (Gates), and the Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor (Papadopoulos). And that's just after one year in an investigation that's still ongoing, with likely indictments coming soon for Kushner and Don Jr. And of course this isn't including the President himself having his personal lawyer use laundered russian money to pay off a porn star, a story so absurd, yet still tied to the rest of the investigation.

Or in trump speak a nothingburger.
Click to expand...

I'd wait to see how those individuals and corporations trial goes Mueller & Co look to have had their bluff called on that one

Both Flynn and PM trials don't seem to be going well

So yea. You had people lie to the Feds.

Massive surveillance and spying. And u have charges of lying to agents
 
JamesRussler said:
You do realize that "districts" are federal, right?

Also, while the President's pardon power extends to "offenses against the United States," it's actually not clear what the effect would be on state prosecutions because the Court hasn't fleshed out the nuances yet. Commentators on the Left often state, in conclusory fashion, that "presidential pardon power does not extend to state crimes." However, the Supreme Court has held that the President's pardon power is "unlimited," and "extends to every offence known to the law." Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866). This "power of the President is not subject to legislative control," and a "pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender . . . so that, in the eye of the law, the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." Id. at 380-381. Because state and federal criminal law now overlap significantly, the Court would probably have to consider whether the elements of a pardoned federal crime are coextensive with a state crime. IMO, a Presidential pardon would have to reach all offenses except those which are distinctly state law offense (e.g. burglary, assault, etc.). Whatever approach the Court uses, it is doubtful that it would allow states to do an end-run around the President's pardon power by allowing them to prosecute the same exact conduct under state law.
Click to expand...

Did that work for Nixon?
 
JamesRussler said:
You do realize that "districts" are federal, right?

Also, while the President's pardon power extends to "offenses against the United States," it's actually not clear what the effect would be on state prosecutions because the Court hasn't fleshed out the nuances yet. Commentators on the Left often state, in conclusory fashion, that "presidential pardon power does not extend to state crimes." However, the Supreme Court has held that the President's pardon power is "unlimited," and "extends to every offence known to the law." Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866). This "power of the President is not subject to legislative control," and a "pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender . . . so that, in the eye of the law, the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." Id. at 380-381. Because state and federal criminal law now overlap significantly, the Court would probably have to consider whether the elements of a pardoned federal crime are coextensive with a state crime. IMO, a Presidential pardon would have to reach all offenses except those which are distinctly state law offense (e.g. burglary, assault, etc.). Whatever approach the Court uses, it is doubtful that it would allow states to do an end-run around the President's pardon power by allowing them to prosecute the same exact conduct under state law.
Click to expand...
State tax fraud though. These dirty bastards made so much money and didn't pay anywhere close to the state tax they should have.
 
Darkballs said:
The FBI did have evidence, that which was provided by various intelligence agencies, and likely stuff that won't come out until court. So you would have us believe that the FBI, without anything to go on but pure partisan vengefulness, decided to look into the trump campaign, and surprise, in a complete coincidence found roughly two dozen people engaged in numerous criminal activities over the span of more than a year? Boy the FBI got lucky there.



The investigation starts whenever someone starts investigating. It has no formal start date in which evidence gathered previously is somehow barred.
Click to expand...
Completely wrong

The FBI will either open a counter intelligence investigation or a criminal one. According to what the FBI had said the counter intelligence investigation started after the supposed spying started

In your world the FBI could do whatever it wanted and answer to no one or anything.

Imagine the head of the FBI testifying to congress.

Senator: Mr Director, when did the FBI initiate it's counter intelligence investigation on a political campaign that included Surveillance and spying

FBI Director: Whenever we decided to
 
Darkballs said:
You're talking to a former prosecutor dipshit. Possession of the emails isn't whats being investigated. It's using the contents of the emails in league with foreign nationals. And setting up meetings in violation of the Logan Act. And lying to Congress, and a host of other shit. For you to make a case for entrapment, you have to show that this informant encouraged them to commit the underlying crimes. Not just taking the emails, which (probably) wouldn't be a crime.

This is like you trying to raise an entrapment claim where I encouraged you to take my baseball bat (legal) and then you used that bat to bash someone's head in. Me encouraging you to take the bat would be irrelevant, you could only claim entrapment if I encouraged you (and really, encouraged to the degree of almost forced) to bash the guy.

Swing and a miss bob.
Click to expand...



No, it’s like you (a police officer) attempting to give me cocaine, multiple times, despite my repeated refusals, so that your partner can kick down my door and arrest me for possession of cocaine.


I look forward to you trying to refute that. Also, it’s clear why you’re a former prosecutor, you’re terrible at making a case.
 
bobgeese said:
No, it’s like you (a police officer) attempting to give me cocaine, multiple times, despite my repeated refusals, so that your partner can kick down my door and arrest me for possession of cocaine.


I look forward to you trying to refute that. Also, it’s clear why you’re a former prosecutor, you’re terrible at making a case.
Click to expand...

LOL. There is no way he was a prosecutor.

Did he really bring up the Logan Act?
 
bobgeese said:
<Dany07>



Now you’re just embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

You do know that Don Jr. straight up lied to Congress, right?

It's a crime to do that. Now we have to wait and see if Congress would bring charges against him.
 
Strychnine said:
You do know that Don Jr. straight up lied to Congress, right?

It's a crime to do that. Now we have to wait and see if Congress would bring charges against him.
Click to expand...


So did Comey, Clapper, Brennan, etc.



But by all means, keep waiting.
 
GSP_37 said:
State tax fraud though. These dirty bastards made so much money and didn't pay anywhere close to the state tax they should have.
Click to expand...

Does it involve all of the same acts and omissions as the federal charges?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,009
Messages
58,335,224
Members
176,003
Latest member
HeneryH

Share this page

Back
Top