Thread: Mueller's Russian Interference investigation

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

stone's not going to be busted for anything, IMO.

Nothing to base that on without knowing the details of the investigation or what stone and trump have been up to. Judging from what's happened so far I'd say it's a definite possibility.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Nothing to base that on without knowing the details of the investigation or what stone and trump have been up to. Judging from what's happened so far I'd say it's a definite possibility.

you mean simply because mueller has gone after other trump associates, even though the charges have nothing to do with trump conspiring with the russians to defeat hillary: manafort and trump's lawyer for example.?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

you mean simply because mueller has gone after other trump associates, even though the charges have nothing to do with trump conspiring with the russians to defeat hillary:

yep. cuz that's not the parameters of the investigation and it'd be his duty to follow up any illegal act he finds during the course of the infestation as per his orders....but you already knew that

Originally Posted by uncle junior

yep. cuz that's not the parameters of the investigation and it'd be his duty to follow up any illegal act he finds during the course of the infestation as per his orders....but you already knew that

so, what do you think he would get stone on?

or just wishing?

;-)

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

even though the charges have nothing to do with trump conspiring with the russians to defeat hillary

This is you and the right wing echo chambers constant parrot/talking point. That is not how the rule of law works, when criminal wrong doing is found it will be pursued.

I am sure that you were happy about the fact that Bill Clinton was impeached for something completely unrelated to what the special council back then was tasked to investigate.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

so, what do you think he would get stone on?

obstruction, knowledge of pay offs, illegal deals, money laundering.....anything trump is involved in. These guys are starting to get tripped up by their arrogance and thinking they're above the law.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

These guys are starting to get tripped up by their arrogance and thinking they're above the law.

Exactly. This is a snowball down hill at this point and anyone that is outside of the right wing echo chamber can see it clear as day. The raiding of Cohens home and offices is a clear sign that there is a lot more coming and all of these bozos are sacred shitless of what is coming next.

Originally Posted by bsnub

there is a lot more coming and all of these bozos are sacred shitless of what is coming next.

1. some of trump's associates (manafort, etc.) go to court later this year for charges not related to "trump conspired with the russians to defeat hillary".

2. at some point, mueller will present his findings to the house who will decide whether to impeach trump. if impeached, it will take 2/3 of senators to convict him.

what is number 3, bsnub?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

2. at some point, mueller will present his findings to the house who will decide whether to impeach trump.

That will happen after November when the dems will take the house.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

if impeached, it will take 2/3 of senators to convict him.

If it gets to that point then the senate will have no choice but you keep swallowing those fox news talking points. Lemming.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

what is number 3, bsnub?

That you are an utter buffoon.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

1. some of trump's associates (manafort, etc.) go to court later this year for charges not related to "trump conspired with the russians to defeat hillary".

What's with the made up quote. You've been doing your level best since all this kicked off to artificially limit the scope of both the investigation and discussion to 'Trump conspiring with the Russians to defeat Hillary' but that's just specious. Mueller's investigation isn't proscribed or limited that way.

Here are some actual quotes: Rosenstein gave Mueller broad authority not only to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with Trump's campaign, but also to examine "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation", and the power to investigate "any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)" - including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.

You can read it all yourself here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...sel-Russia.pdf

what's incorrect about my comment?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

1. some of trump's associates (manafort, etc.) go to court later this year for charges not related to "trump conspired with the russians to defeat hillary".

It contains a manufactured, made-up, specious and ultimately incorrect 'quote'.

That's what.

not it doesn't. it just my simple, clear summary of the situation from my opinion.

ok, ant: let's hear your simple, clear summary of the situation from your opinion of what is coming next.

1, 2 and 3 (if you want).

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

Originally Posted by bsnub

what is coming next.

1. some of trump's associates (manafort, etc.) go to court later this year for charges not related to "trump conspired with the russians to defeat hillary".

2. at some point, mueller will present his findings to the house who will decide whether to impeach trump. if impeached, it will take 2/3 of senators to convict him.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

not it doesn't. it just my simple, clear summary of the situation from my opinion.

That sentence, like your "simple, clear summary" is neither actually clear nor correct. You can have all the opinions you like, as many as you want, but you can't have your own facts and it's pointless discussing an opinion that's not based on correct facts.

So presuming that you actually do know what quote marks are used for who, exactly, is it that you're quoting every time you post "Trump conspiring with the Russians to defeat Hillary"?

ok, you don't like my summary, i get it ant.

now let's see yours.



-------------

ok, ant: let's hear your simple, clear summary of the situation from your opinion of what is coming next.

1, 2 and 3 (if you want).

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

i get it ant

Well quite clearly you don't. That's why you're trying to shift the posts and obfuscate. It's not about what I do or don't like it's about facts.

So I'll ask again: who, exactly, is it that you're quoting every time you post "Trump conspiring with the Russians to defeat Hillary"?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

"Trump conspiring with the Russians to defeat Hillary"

was just saying that manafort and boys will be going to trial for crimes not related to trump allegedly conspiring with the russians to defeat hillary.

now, as i said, ant: it's fine that you don't like my summary.

so, let's see yours

---------------

ok, ant: let's hear your simple, clear summary of the situation from your opinion of what is coming next.

1, 2 and 3 (if you want).

_______

and, i'll teach you this one for free, ant:

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/quote+unquote

quote unquote

1. Used to report something said verbatim by someone else. (Used almost exclusively in speech, as the phrase represents a set of quotation marks.) The president said that he, quote unquote, didn't like the way the reporter looked in that dress.


2. Used to indicate that something one just said is untruthful, ironic, or disingenuous. We were, quote unquote, taught by the teaching assistant, but we did most of our learning independently.The, quote unquote, healthy option in this restaurant is a salad filled with bacon and smothered in creamy salad dressing.

some of trump's associates (manafort, etc.) go to court later this year for charges not related to "trump conspired with the russians to defeat hillary".

if i didn't have the quotes, then it would appear that i was agreeing with the statement.

anyways, ant:

let's hear your simple, clear summary of the situation from your opinion of what is coming next.

1, 2 and 3 (if you want).

did you think i was quoting mueller or something?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

was just saying that manafort and boys will be going to trial for crimes not related to trump allegedly conspiring with the russians to defeat hillary

So what?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

now, as i said, ant: it's fine that you don't like my summary.

As I said it's not about what I do or don't like it's about what's factually correct and what isn't.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

so, let's see yours

Right. So you're just going to blank what I post and then repeatedly insist that I discuss something else on your terms again, eh.

Well good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

did you think i was quoting mueller or something?

I don't know who you're quoting which is precisely why I asked. And it's not just that post: you've done it repeatedly and incessantly throughout this thread.

So it's fair to infer that you are in fact not quoting anyone, you just made it up, and/or don't know what quote marks are.

edited just for you, ant:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

Originally Posted by bsnub

what is coming next.

1. some of trump's associates (manafort, etc.) go to court later this year for charges not related to trump allegedly conspiring with the russians to defeat hillary.

2. at some point, mueller will present his findings to the house who will decide whether to impeach trump. if impeached, it will take 2/3 of senators to convict him.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

it's clear that you don't like my summary/opinion of what happens next and don't like my use of quotes.

It's clear you struggle with reading comprehension (writing too, for that matter), are disingenuous, don't know how to use quotes correctly, and base your opinions on factually incorrect information.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

now, use those critical thinking skills to think about and analyze all the info you've heard about this story over the past year and give us your summary of what happens next.

like i did.

You're simply not intelligent enough FaRT, you fat little bish.

poor effort, ant.

And here we go, Captain Asperger's is off on one again...