Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, Jun 9, 2017.
Explain please. I do not get all the nuances.
Please point out what has been proven to have been actually not true. Uncorroborated does not mean untrue. It could be untrue there's just no proof either way.
You still aren't getting it. The people making the claims or charges (Democrats) have the burden of proving these charges to be true. That is what burden of proof means.
Does Donald Trump have to prove he didn't ask fro prostitutes to do golden showers and all the other things in that fake "Dossier"? You could know the answer. No, he doesn't.
Now, if the Democrats want to charge Trump with crimes, they must prove he did them. It is not his burden to unproven them, although that may be part of the defense if he wishes.
@Joe Fan and @Mr. Deez, is that all correct?
The dossier is a whole different enchilada than the impeachment investigation. So you can't show me what has been proven to be untrue?
You must be joking, so I'll play along. If the Dems vote to impeach, you really don't think they would use that Dossier? The burden would be on them to prove those things. Get it?
Again, why do I have to show you or anybody else what has been proven to be untrue? The "Dossier" was bought and paid for by Hillary and the DNC. Has that been proven to be untrue?
Oh, and if the President went to trial in the senate, you don't think the circumstances of that dossier and how it came about wouldn't come up to discredit the democrats? Ha! I suspect they would then have to prove those things to be true, and they wouldn't be able to.
I think the dossier is old and a compilation of theories and things that someone learned through investigation. Some verifiable and some not so much. A GOP candidate initiated it (probably Marco Rubio) and HRC's campaign took it over after Rubio backed out. I've not argued about the dodgy dossier in a long time. Barr's investigation of the Russian investigation has the origin of the dossier as a cornerstone. All I'm asking is what has been disproven. Much of the Mueller documentation syncs up with it. Some of it does not. The dossier was not intended to be a legal document.
On impeachment, the burden of proof is 100% on the plaintiff. That's why the plaintiff is doing witness depositions now and they'll effectively do a grand jury level hearing in the future.
If they cited in their articles of impeachment that Mr. Trump witnessed hookers peeing on a bed Obama slept in, then yes, I'd expect them to have to prove it. I don't expect we'll see them relying on that document. They'll rely on text messages and people like John Bolton and William Taylor.
Of course, they will rely on people who, when working for Trump, had no credibility. Got it.
No one has ever said anything poor about William Taylor. Trump hires the best people, right?
So, Taylor expressed concern about "The Phone Call" and that means Trump is guilty. Zelensky says that no pressure or quid pro quo happened. Taylor must be correct here, not Zelensky. Okay, case closed.
Trump: No quid pro quo
Mulvaney: Of course there was quid pro quo
You'd have to be dense to listen to that phone call, read the transcript, read the text messages, and then read Taylor's 15 page opening statement and come away with anything more than the President and his minions subverted American foreign policy for partisan politics. Makes you really wonder what Erdogon has on Trump or has promised him. He served up the kurds to Turkey on a stick like it a corny dog and all it did was help Russia, Assad, Iran and ISIS. Unmatched wisdom there.
Haha, show us Mulvaney saying there was a quid pro quo. And, again, show me any Dem who finds Mulvaney to be credit;e until he supposedly did say that.
I guess you just called me dense. Should I report that as a posting guideline violation or will you then call me a snowflake?
"That's why we held up the money."
"We do that all the time with foreign policy."
"Get over it."
Remember. This Taylor character is one that is VERY new on the job.
I do enjoy a friendly back/forth. So, I'd be polite and just call you a snowflake.
Anyway, the media and dems continue to make up things like Trump saying "dig up dirt" on Biden, etc. Mulvaney did not use the term quid pro quo, but media and Dems continue to put those words in his mouth. He clarified to say that is not what he meant, but that is not believable, only that he seemed to imply evil doing by Trump. I mean, seriously, Mulvaney is going to get up in front of the world and say his boss, the President, committed a crime? Okay.
What Mulvaney said wasn't what went down.
I do have to admit tho, it's funny watching some liberals jump up and down over it. Like 3rd graders yelling "mommmmy! look at what he said"
When he said that what he said isn't what they think he meant, then they don't believe him. They only believe it if it has the slightest appearance to go against Trump.
It is somewhat disheartening to learn Durham's lead prosecutor is a Democrat who attended the same school as Hillary. Sigh
For the point of clarification, Sidney Powell is pursuing private legal action on behalf of General Flynn, on appeal. What she is doing is wholly independent from what Durham and Barr are doing.
As to the 302s and Page specifically, Powell has already determined that the FBI Forms 302, which were a or the key evidence used to extract a plea from Michael Flynn contradicted the original notes of the interviewing agents. In addition, the 302s were edited (by Lisa Page). In addition, the edited 302s were backdated. And lastly the editing and backdating was concealed from Flynn’s legal team for years now.
And just as a reminder, this was a process crime. Flynn was never going to suffer significant prison time (in fact, Flynn's "extensive cooperation" with the original investigators resulted in a recommendation of NO JAIL TIME, to the judge). What they could do and did do was bankrupt Flynn and then threaten to charge his son (these are common tactics use by these type of attorneys). Why did they do this when probably 100 different people in DC could be charged with this stuff on any given day? (1) They wanted Flynn out of the Admin (he had enemies inside the IC) and (2) They saw him as the small fish who would flip on the big fish they were really after, which was Trump.
Shirley, you can't be serious. Tell me you're joking.
A Boston liberal, who went to Hillary's alma mater.
Just can't escape them.
Ex-FBI Andrew McCabe has agreed to the joint dismissal of his lawsuit against the Govt (DOJ/Barr)
edited - see below
The IG for all of this, Horowitz, is also a Democrat
yes, will be interesting to see his report.
What they are saying is that McCabe was offered a pre-indictment plea agreement. But he turned it down. So Durham has impaneled a grand jury
Hopefully this also means John Brennan and James Clapper will be put under oath and questioned. The country needs at least this much
It is correction time for this. I think.
As best I can tell, McCabe had two suits pending. One was his "wrongful termination" action while the second was a FOIA request for employment manuals and related material. It looks like the FOIA action is the one that was dismissed, not the wrongful termination complaint. Sorry about that. I'm not sure why he did it this way, instead of simply using the normal discovery process. Probably just as a delay tactic since there would be no objection to turning over the requested material - at least some of which was already publicly available.
Case 1: FOIA (18-cv-01389) - filed May 2018
Case 2: Wrongful dismissal: (19-cv-02399) - filed Aug 2019
The FOIA lawsuit was dismissed "with" prejudice against the DOJ & the IG meaning it cant be filed again. But it was dismissed against the FBI "without" prejudice, meaning it could be re-filed against them (but very unlikely). And, he did avoid having to pay atty fees.
There is not much out there with regard to the wrongful termination case as what motions have be filed were made under seal.
Dropping his FOIA case could be a precursor to dropping the wrongful dismissal case. And the timing with regard to Durham's recent action at least suggests McCabe may be cooperating with that. We will find out soon enough.
Something else about the edited Flynn 302s, which Powell has honed in on.
It seems highly unlikely Weissmann and Mueller were unaware of the Lisa Page edits, which were improper. They signed off on the pleadings and this failure to disclose may have put them in legal jeopardy too. That would be something.