One resulted in multiple convictions.
The other one might. We shall see.
If you are "for" one of the investigations being done, but "against" the other being done....your political bias leads you to unprincipled inconsistencies.
Tucker Carlson was certainly interesting tonight.
- Thread starter PDT816
- Start date
The other one might. We shall see.
If you are "for" one of the investigations being done, but "against" the other being done....your political bias leads you to unprincipled inconsistencies.
just stop the antagonizing already
you’re ivory tower baby lawyer call for
truth thru investigation
has done nothing but prove how powerful weaponized investagions can be to those using the power of their office as a bully pulpit
The convictions resulting from the Mueller investigation are public record....sport.
miraculously convenient
you skipped the “russia collusion” convictions piece of the russian collusion investigation
that would a great point if you literally ignored what I said about the origins and reactions of the deep state of each.
You match the skills of 2012Bearcat and CoastGuardCowboy with making the simple less complex.
I read the Mueller report. Part 1 is as you described it. Part II is a guide for former Democrats to impeach. Although the dominant West Germanic language is not a long suit for me, I have an English dictionary.
Thank you for your conformation. We can always count on you.
Wanna take identical IQ tests and see where you stack up??? Harry has always been too big a chickensh!t to prove it, maybe you aren’t???
Which is your political bias leading you to unprincipled inconsistency.
So it's still a great point.
K9
From the start I thought the accusation against Trump were nothing mor than dirty politics but I was at first supportive of an investigation to insure the accusation were not true. I learned a long time ago it s best to trust but verify. When it became obvious Democrats had nothing and were merely playing politics I turned against the investigation.
From the start I thought the accusation against Trump were nothing mor than dirty politics but I was at first supportive of an investigation to insure the accusation were not true. I learned a long time ago it s best to trust but verify. When it became obvious Democrats had nothing and were merely playing politics I turned against the investigation.
'"what I said about the origins and reactions of the deep state of each" is a biased argument based upon your political leanings.
what part do you have a problem with? The term deep state? I laid out the obvious differences in the origins, how the media who is 90% liberal reacted, but you continue to treat them as the same thing because of your npc bsg coding.
In m y 60 question M test session I answered these question correctly.
launch and driad were born April 26, 1982 at 5:10 AM and 46 seconds. Which is older? If you didn't get the DCandtheUTBand memo, you can't answer.
Are there any among us who has a fear of heights? If you didn't get the iasooner2000 memo, you can't answer. You have a 50/50 chance of guessing the right answer. Should you guess right, without the iasooner memo, you can't explain your answer.
Ramon's electricity went of in a thunderstorm. In Ramon's sock drawer are 5 black socks and 5 orange socks. How many socks must Ramon remove from his sock drawer and feel his way out to his lightening-lit driveway to insure he has a matched pair? If you didn't get the soonerinlOUisiana memo, you can't answer.
Harry is smarter than you. How do we know? You shout it to us with virtually every post you author.
The part that where you dismiss one of them as not needed because of your biased perceptions of its origins and are for the other one based upon your biased perceptions of its origins.
Reasonable suspicion....investigation.
Probable cause....charges.
Convictions....beyond a reasonable doubt.
Both had reasonable suspicion justifying an investigation.
If there is reasonable suspicion, an investigation is warranted.
If that investigation establishes probable cause to file charges, then charges are warranted.
If those charges are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then convictions are warranted.
That is the law, and It's that very simple.
reasonable suspicion was paid for by the dnc and hillary Clinton with help from John McCain’s henchmen. Convictions were policy crimes not associated with trump colluding with Russia to change the election.
hunter Biden, has been accused of traveling to a country who is our enemy with his father on Air Force 2 and coming home with millions of dollars. His texts and emails directly link Joe Biden to his business dealings and the deep state media is a year and half behind the daily mail in letting you know it’s ok to believe it now.
Lawyer me to death now.
Mueller investigation:
So you admit there was reasonable suspicion. That reasonable suspicion existed. You don't like where it came from, but it existed.
Good start.
You admit there were convictions resulting from the investigation. Maybe not the convictions those on the left predicted or wanted or that you think were "big" convictions or whatever, but there were convictions.
Reasonable suspicion to start the investigation led to convictions. Valid, legal, and proper investigation from beginning to end.
Biden investigation:
IMO, there is reasonable suspicion to do the investigation. LOTS of reasonable suspicion. I want it done thoroughly and fully, if it leads to investigating JoePa....excellent. I'm think you agree with that.
Here's where we probably part ways.
I'm waiting for the results of the investigation....the charges....and subsequent convictions.
You're not. You've already decided what has been "proven" or what it's okay to "believe".
I haven't ever stated I "don't believe it" or that I now "believe it" because the Daily Mail or any other media outlet tells me it's ok to do so now. That's you.
My three stated principles in this matter are:
Reasonable suspicion authorizes and validates an investigation.
Probable cause authorizes and validates charges being filed.
No reasonable doubt authorizes and validates convictions for crime.
You call that "npc bsg coding" while basing your decisions on what the media, Deep State or otherwise, supposedly tells us what is or isn't okay to "believe".
I think that is an unprincipled, biased manner of determining what investigations should or shouldn't be done.
Last edited:
I have an issue with the reasonable suspicion standard you have. The suspicions where made up disinformation and a cursory investigation by an non-corrupt or impartial investigator could of easily shown them to be false.
If you can demonstrate to me the suspicions around Hunter Biden are false or manufactured then I see no need for another witch hunt investigation and a waste of millions of taxpayer dollars.
If you can demonstrate to me the suspicions around Hunter Biden are false or manufactured then I see no need for another witch hunt investigation and a waste of millions of taxpayer dollars.
the same ginned up reasonable suspicion responsible for 40M political witch-hunt of the sitting president of the united states
is now under federal indictment
what a fantastically stalinist state we live in
It's pretty sad that the star players on Team Mueller couldn't figure out that muh Russia was a Clinton campaign hoax. Or they knew and weren't honest enough to share it.
I appreciate and agree with your legal takes on these investigations.
Apparently, you don’t understand the reasonable suspicion standard I have. It’s not just my standard though. It’s the legal constitutional standard for initiation of investigations.
Either you believe there was reasonable suspicion for Trump appointee Rod Rosenstein to initiate the Mueller investigation or you don’t. The term reasonable suspicion has legal meaning and definition, and it is a fairly low burden of proof. I happen to believe that reasonable suspicion existed to initiate the investigation at that time. Once there is reasonable suspicion to investigate, then there is an investigation into the matter and allegations. You seem to be arguing either the suspicions weren’t reasonable enough to authorize an investigation or that they were reasonable enough to initiate the investigation, but only a cursory one. Either way, I disagree.
I have no interest into demonstrating to you that the suspicions around Hunter or false. In fact, I think the suspicions are reasonable. I’m in favor of the investigation. I am in favor of charges against all person for which the investigation establishes probable cause against. I am in favor of convictions and punishment based upon the reaonsable doubt standard for whomever they may be regardless of their political affiliations.
Can you provide those words along with all the words that prefaced and followed?
***voted for the guy who, until the summer of 2016 (what convenient timing) was planning a new hotel tower in Moscow with a gentleman’s agreement on a $50 million penthouse for Putin***
Who’s laughing at who? Lolololololol
i’ll answer that one
hillary clinton’s campaign attorney
michael sussman brought the allegations
