Pro-Russian Twitter account used non-public material from Mueller's team in effort to discredit Russ

[lwf]

You also posted this:

Which is it? Get your lies straight.

Lying about foreign contacts constitutes probable cause for an investigation because it points to collusion. It is not proof of it, but it is suspicious behavior. So the probable cause for the investigation was collusion. The crime was lying to the FBI during said investigation. Make sense?

 

[danarhea]

Lying about foreign contacts constitutes probable cause for an investigation because it points to collusion. It is not proof of it, but it is suspicious behavior. So the probable cause for the investigation was collusion. The crime was lying to the FBI during said investigation. Make sense?

I don't think it makes any sense at all to dear Comrade.

Fact is that Russia hacked itself, altered the documents, then disseminated them to...

1) Make themselves look like the victim.

2) Discredit Mueller.

Mueller caught them red handed, right in the act.

But I do understand that there are a few on this board who have love for Russia and none for America. Screw Mueller, a decorated war hero and patriot, and here's a toast to Marx, Lennin, and the gang.*

*No, not Groucho or John.

 

[noonereal]

I don't think it makes any sense at all to dear Comrade.

Fact is that Russia hacked itself, altered the documents, then disseminated them to...

1) Make themselves look like the victim.

2) Discredit Mueller.

Mueller caught them red handed, right in the act.

But I do understand that there are a few on this board who have love for Russia and none for America.

Now I understand why their hats are "red."

 

[danarhea]

Now I understand why their hats are "red."

 

[marke]

Interesting. I'm sure you trumpers are still okay with this because, you know... youd rather be a lying russian than an honest American.

Pro-Russian Twitter account used non-public material from Mueller's team in effort to discredit Russia probe

A pro-Russian Twitter account used information from a criminal case that Robert Mueller's team brought against a Russian social media company as part of a disinformation campaign, according to a new filing from the Justice Department.

"Certain non-sensitive discovery materials in the defense's possession appear to have been altered and disseminated as part of a disinformation campaign aimed (apparently) at discrediting ongoing investigations into Russian interference in the U.S. political system," prosecutors wrote.​

View attachment 67249280

Will the democrats ever tire of fabricating evidence to support their lies about Russia? Guccifer 2.0 was a democrat invention. Guccifer 1.0 is in prison because he was real. Nobody has ever proven Guccifer 2.0 was real.

 

[apdst]

Lying about foreign contacts constitutes probable cause for an investigation because it points to collusion. It is not proof of it, but it is suspicious behavior. So the probable cause for the investigation was collusion. The crime was lying to the FBI during said investigation. Make sense?

No it doesn't. Especially since there's no such law as "collusion".

That's mighty idiotic, my friend.

 

[lwf]

No it doesn't. Especially since there's no such law as "collusion".

So you tell me: what motives other than collusion would a person have to have to go to great effort to hide contact with a foreign government while running a presidential campaign? A foreign government that is accused of running a disinformation campaign on social media to get that person elected, no less. Why else do you think someone would lie about such contact?

Do you honestly think this isn't probable cause, or do you just need it to not be probable cause and so have convinced yourself of that?

 

[apdst]

So you tell me: what motives other than collusion would a person have to have to go to great effort to hide contact with a foreign government while running a presidential campaign? A foreign government that is accused of running a disinformation campaign on social media to get that person elected, no less. Why else do you think someone would lie about such contact?

Do you honestly think this isn't probable cause, or do you just need it to not be probable cause and so have convinced yourself of that?

It's irrelevant because lying, by itself, isn't a crime, nor is it probable cause.

 

[lwf]

It's irrelevant because lying, by itself, isn't a crime, nor is it probable cause.

So if a police officer pulls me over and finds out I lied to him about my identity, you think it is illegal for him to further investigate?

 

[apdst]

So if a police officer pulls me over and finds out I lied to him about my identity, you think it is illegal for him to further investigate?

Apples and oranges.

 

[lwf]

Apples and oranges.

Fair enough. But lying about something CAN be probable cause to investigate for wrong doing, don't you agree?

 

[apdst]

Fair enough. But lying about something CAN be probable cause to investigate for wrong doing, don't you agree?

By itself, no. Do you want to launch a criminal investigation every time a president gets caught lying?

 

[lwf]

By itself, no. Do you want to launch a criminal investigation every time a president gets caught lying?

Only if he gets caught lying about his relationship with a hostile foreign power that attempted to interfere in his favor in a U.S. election.

 

[apdst]

Only if he gets caught lying about his relationship with a hostile foreign power that attempted to interfere in his favor in a U.S. election.

Not even then.

 

[lwf]

Not even then.

You are quite the patriot, I see.

 

[apdst]

You are quite the patriot, I see.

I am and I only believe in criminal investigations over actual commission of actual crimes.

What you described isn't a crime, nor can you prove that the scenario you described even existed.

The reality is, you're butt hurt because President Trump won the election. This is the point where you whine about the irrelevant popular vote.

 

[lwf]

I am and I only believe in criminal investigations over actual commission of actual crimes.

What you described isn't a crime, nor can you prove that the scenario you described even existed.

The reality is, you're butt hurt because President Trump won the election. This is the point where you whine about the irrelevant popular vote.

The FBI doesn't need to prove the scenario I described in order to investigate whether or not the scenario I described occurred. They only need probable cause to suspect that the scenario I described took place, which Trump gave them by publicly denying any connections with Russia when in fact he had several.

 

[apdst]

The FBI doesn't need to prove the scenario I described in order to investigate whether or not the scenario I described occurred. They only need probable cause to suspect that the scenario I described took place, which Trump gave them by publicly denying any connections with Russia when in fact he had several.

Actually, it does have to prove an actual crime was actually committed.

The scenario you described isn't illegal.

 

[lwf]

Actually, it does have to prove an actual crime was actually committed.

No it doesn't. That isn't how investigations work. The FBI starts an investigation when it suspects that a crime has been committed. It ends an investigation when it determines whether or not a crime has been committed. If a crime was committed, it charges the person being investigated and anyone else in the scope of the investigation suspected of any other crime with said crimes. It doesn't have to prove the crime was committed until the trial phase. When Trump is on trial for conspiracy against the United States, then Mueller will have to prove that Trump committed that crime. Not before.

 

[apdst]

No it doesn't. That isn't how investigations work. The FBI starts an investigation when it suspects that a crime has been committed. It ends an investigation when it determines whether or not a crime has been committed. If a crime was committed, it charges the person being investigated and anyone else in the scope of the investigation suspected of any other crime with said crimes. It doesn't have to prove the crime was committed until the trial phase. When Trump is on trial for conspiracy against the United States, then Mueller will have to prove that Trump committed that crime. Not before.

They have to have reasonable grounds to open an investigation. A LEO can't open an investigation bevause he thinks a crime has been committed.

An investigation ends when it finds enough evidence for a conviction, exculpatory evidence, or no longer has evidence to justify an investigation.

LE doesn't have to prove a crime, but it does have to present facts that justify the investigation.

Opening an investigation to find of crime is how they did things in the Soviet Union.

 

[lwf]

They have to have reasonable grounds to open an investigation. A LEO can't open an investigation bevause he thinks a crime has been committed.

An investigation ends when it finds enough evidence for a conviction, exculpatory evidence, or no longer has evidence to justify an investigation.

LE doesn't have to prove a crime, but it does have to present facts that justify the investigation.

Opening an investigation to find of crime is how they did things in the Soviet Union.

I think we've officially come full circle in this argument. My position is that reasonable grounds to open an investigation on whether or not our current president colluded with Russia to win the election are as apparent as the nose on their face to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of American laws. And, it would seem, the FBI, (professional investigators run by a republican government, headed by a republican AG, and with a republican special investigator,) agree with that assessment. At this point, challenging the merits of the investigation has become nothing more than a ludicrous exercise in semantics fit only for conspiracy theorists.

 

[iguanaman]

Y'all wanted an imvestigation and some people indicted. You're going to have take the discovery, too.

So you support Russia's abuse of our Constitutional freedoms to further infiltrate our social media with propaganda and lies? You can't call yourself an American is you do.

 

[iguanaman]

They have to have reasonable grounds to open an investigation. A LEO can't open an investigation bevause he thinks a crime has been committed.

An investigation ends when it finds enough evidence for a conviction, exculpatory evidence, or no longer has evidence to justify an investigation.

LE doesn't have to prove a crime, but it does have to present facts that justify the investigation.

Opening an investigation to find of crime is how they did things in the Soviet Union.

LOL The Trump campaigns numerous contacts with Russian spies while the same Russians were illegally meddling in the election is more than enough reason for an investigation. Your denial of that fact is traitorous.

 

[apdst]

LOL The Trump campaigns numerous contacts with Russian spies while the same Russians were illegally meddling in the election is more than enough reason for an investigation. Your denial of that fact is traitorous.

No one on the Trump team knowingly made contact with any Russian spies. Your claim is a lie.

 

[apdst]

So you support Russia's abuse of our Constitutional freedoms to further infiltrate our social media with propaganda and lies? You can't call yourself an American is you do.

It's nice to see you finally admit that this is probably protected speech.