New York Attorney General Sues Trump Foundation After 2-Year Investigation

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Kode, Jun 16, 2018.

  1. Phantomknight09

    Phantomknight09 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    It's obvious you think that you're having a discussion with an illeterate. I didn't ask you to cite that papa made a plea agreement. I asked you to cite that papa made a plea agreement on charges related to collusion. In that document it shows the charges he plead for are lying to investigators. We all knew that. Where is the documentation that shows he plead to something related to collusion? You didn't think I would read it?

    It's a sad day when you cite things that dismantle your own argument because the you have some inkling that the special counsel is a farce lol. You can't even make the argument that the lying to investigators is nefarious, so you cite something that you say indicates collusion but is obvious is that it indicates nothing but a lie.

    Yes we get it. Several individuals working for campaigns through out 2016 lied to investigators. Only people working for a certain candidate were actually held accountable, in a very egregious way, for it. Yes you are enthusiastically supporting unequal application of law , simply alter your belief. Don't posit thing that aren't true.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
  2. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why? He committed a crime, he pled to that, but why should he plead to a crime NOW?

    A conspiracy and other cooperative crimes require the that the prospective criminals be ready to be charged!

    Your "illeteracy" about criminal behavior is what is deficient here!

    But, of course, what the Trumpies want is to keep demanding tgat Mueller has to get the full details so the Trumpies can try to a way to deflecting lies and BS to protect Trump and his conspirators.

    FAIL!





    In that document it shows the charges he plead for are lying to investigators. We all knew that. Where is the documentation that shows he plead to something related to collusion? You didn't think I would read it?

    No one dismantled their argument! :lol:

    We can be sure in the face of the comments Papa has stated plenty to indicate numerous nefarious collusions and conspiracies against America!

    There was already way than enough to have President Trump and his conspirators terrified, and listening their hackneyed excuses and pathetically ever-changing justifications of their lies is all anyone needs to see them tremble.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. Phantomknight09

    Phantomknight09 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    What ? First who was talking about getting mueller to reveal things? I'm talking about the actual documentation of the charges.

    Lol muellers case is so pathetic that it requires conjecture on your part to support. The actual document is only about lying/misleading investigators. That's it. All this other assumptions/guessing games is unnecessary.

    "We can be sure" No we can't , not without the requisite paperwork supporting the claim.

    Muellers first conviction was the lawyer that got a 30 day sentence. I highly doubt trump is worried lol.
     
  4. AKS

    AKS Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    10,471
    Likes Received:
    4,755
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After the IG report it's pretty clear you are right about Comey being inept but that's not why trump fired him. And you know better.
     
    Bowerbird and The Bear like this.
  5. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're the only one talking about "charges". I'm talking about collusion. You wanted a sworn confession of collusion? There you have it! I have said at least three times that for "charges" we will have to wait until Mueller files them. We can only discuss what they did, as revealed by the information we have on hand.

    I took it as an absolute given that you would read it. It's only 11 pages long. And you were obviously discussing about something you had no idea about. But I also assumed you understood what this discussion is and is not about. Now I see that you don't.

    Do I actually need to make that argument? Really? Well...here you go:

    It's illegal!

    There you have it. I don't think this discussion has gained much by me making that argument. But since it seemed important to you....

    I see. So you double down on this fantasy of yours about Papadopoulos lying under oath to confess to a crime he didn't commit, because he would much rather go to jail than pay for attorneys (which he will have to pay for anyway), or accept a court-appointed attorney (if the above were due to not being able to afford one). Yours is one of the best examples I have seen to illustrate the point I have been making that the Republican Party is no longer the Conservative Party, and is now just a Cult to Trump. At least I got that out of this discussion. As far as you contributing anything serious to this debate... no such luck.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2018
  6. Phantomknight09

    Phantomknight09 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Where is the sworn confession of collusion ?? Nothing in the document is a sworn confession of collusion. It's clear to anyone that reads the document. The initial indictments(not charges that was a slip up on my part) and plea statement state nothing about collusion. You keep saying something that materialy is false. That's a sworn statement saying he lied to investigators, not a sworn statement on collusion,or anything related.

    To clear this up why don't you quote exactly the part of the document you think says or proves papa confessed to collusion, or something related to collusion?

    Not everything that is illegal is nefarious. Again, if I got caught with an ounce of cannabis for personal use that would be illegal in most states, but it wouldn't be nefarious.

    You're absolutely correct about we can only talk about what he did. Meaning this conversation shouldn't move pass papa lying to investigators, as this is what he plead to and this is the indictment . The document doesn't say papa was indicted or plead to collusion or anything related. Why do I have to keep reiterating this simple fact?
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2018
  7. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,284
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump fired Comey because he was an inept incompetent boob and you know that's why he fired him.
     
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sent it. And you read it... well... you said you read it!

    Ok. You didn't read it, or you didn't understand it? Which one is it?

    I'm guessing the latter, since you then go on a rant about "indictments" or "charges" or... I don't know what you're ranting about...

    Are you serious? So now you didn't read it? There are several place where Papadopoulos describes collusion. Specifically as it relates to the violation of campaign finance laws. I'll give you one, and you look for the others. I don't have the time or interest in holding your hand. But, before you respond, make sure you understand campaign finance laws. Because I perceive that the problem is that you haven't even checked what it is that we're talking about when people say "collusion". Warning: You may not find the word "collusion" in the law (I can't remember if it's there). Which means that you're going to have to understand what you read

    [​IMG]


    I'll even give you a hint: why do you think Papadopoulos lied to investigators in the first place?

    There! I have done 80% of the work for you. Now you do the rest.
     
  9. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,284
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Admitting to meeting someone is not proof of collusion.
     
  10. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    10,856
    Likes Received:
    16,450
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    NY AG office need to do something to take the heat off the wife beater 2 months ago they were adoring and proclaiming the best guy ever.

    A joke of an office, no wonder NY is so badly mismanaged.
     
  11. Chuck711

    Chuck711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2017
    Messages:
    3,756
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    2 years sounds about right to do a thorough investigation when you dealing with a crook like Trump.
     
  12. Phantomknight09

    Phantomknight09 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh so that's the misunderstanding. You are using your own conjecture to support you're argument. You presented a document , then you say I have to extrapolate a fact based on what you think it says and not what it actually says.

    "Why do you think"
    It doesn't matter what you nor I thinks in this instance . It only matters what the actual plea agreement and indictment says. So you can spout whatever drivel you happen to be thinking about the document, but that just means it's opiniated nonsense.

    The document states nothing about papa colluding with Russia, pleading to to collusion with Russia, under oath or otherwise.

    That's a fact. "Why do you think" that you needed to come out with your own interpretation of the document and can't quote exactly where it says papa colluded or plead to collusion, or anything related, with Russia. I

    That's because it doesn't exist. To anyone reading this that didn't read the plea or indictment , this document definetly doesn't say ANYTHING about papa colluding with Russians.

    You're clearly making stuff up. We aren't talking about what you think the document points or is referencing. We're talking about what the document actual says, and it says nothing about papa and collusion or anything related.
     
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uhmmm.... Meeting somebody because they promise to provide dirt on your political opponent is the very definition of "collusion"
     
  14. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113

    THIS PSYCHO'S "investigation" :

    Eric Schneiderman, powerful NY Democrat accused of violence against women and drug abuse, resigns as state attorney general

    Another powerful politician hits the dust.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-abuse-resigns-as-state-attorney-general.html
     
  15. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No! What I gave you is very clear as it is. No "extrapolation" whatsoever is necessary. Your job was to find the other references to collusion in the rest of the document.

    Try again! Remember to make sure you understand what "collusion" is, as I told you before.

    It shouldn't be this hard. I already did 80% of the heavy lifting for you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2018
  16. Phantomknight09

    Phantomknight09 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    "Understand what "collusion" is, as I told you"

    That's the problem. You want me to understand things the way you tell me, like you're some sort of priest.

    The document doesn't reference papa colluding or pleading to collusion or something related. You can spout your ignorant interpretation of that fact, that's your right, but it's disingenuous to say that the document has proof or supports your claim when it does the opposite.

    I repeat the actual government legal paperwork doesn't say anything to support your assertion. The fact that you don't openly say you're drawing your own conclusions ,separate from that of which the documentation actually states , is dishonest of you. Stop conflating what you think and what is actually documented.
     
    MolonLabe2009 likes this.
  17. Phantomknight09

    Phantomknight09 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    It's sad when you have to explain something to some one that is either a legitimate simpleton or troll. He doesn't even say it's evidence of collusion to cover his ass. He says it's proof , then goes onto to say that it's actually in the document.
     
    MolonLabe2009 likes this.
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No! I want you to understand "collusion" as it relates to the discussion we are having. Otherwise we keep wasting our time. And I prefer that you look it up on your own because if I tell it to you, you're just going to deny it without even looking. If you look it up on your own, you will have no other choice but to understand it.

    It does. And it does so explicitly. Again you waste your time and mine because you refuse to

    Remember the hint I have you: "why do you think Papadopoulos lied to investigators in the first place?" What do you think he was trying to hide? He was obviously trying to hide this episode with "the Professor" (for example). Or, at least, the most relevant details (since we don't have the original interview) But why do you think he did that? There are other instances of collusion in the same document. Maybe looking for those could help.

    Forget about the "charges" or what he pleads guilty to. That's irrelevant to our discussion because it's precisely the nature of "plea deals". The defendant reveals all his criminal activity, but is only required to plead guilty to part of it. If he omits anything, or is at any point is found to have lied about any of it, the deal is off and he is charged for the whole shebang. So lying in a plea deal would be beyond idiotic. Because you would confess to everything and get nothing in return.

    Now I have done almost 90% of your legwork. You jumped into this discussion with zero knowledge of the issue. It's time you do your own research.
     

Share This Page