Trump Jr.'s 2017 Testimony Conflicts With Cohen's Account Of Russian Talks

[marke]

Actually, I don't see any instances of falsey accusing Republicans. I only see instances of Republicans telling us they have been falsely accused. That is not the same thing.

Do you have examples???

Democrats are the masters of deception, but do not tell a deluded democrat that because democrats also do not believe they are deceived.

 

[Winchester]

Number 5 what, someone indicted for tax evasion, lying, someone stealing, or committing a murder etc. Hell there are thousands of crimes a day. So I ask again where is the collusion, where is the obstruction of justice? Showing me a picture means absolutely nothing. I'm surprised you didn't send me a dozen pictures of indicted murders, bank robbers, bank fraud, etc.

Where is the crime of collusion and obstruction? Not one of you liberals can answer that simple question.

Patience grasshopper, it's coming.

 

[upsideguy]

Democrats are the masters of deception, but do not tell a deluded democrat that because democrats also do not believe they are deceived.

That was non-responisve. Please back up your point in Post #267 or we get to assume its not true.

 

[Parrish]

Its absurd and outdated (the emolument claims have been thrown out by the courts for example). Impeded the investigation??? Who? When? It continues.

Yes, the investigation continues. Tick-tock.

 

[Athanasius68]

Sorry pal, you are ill-informed on the status of the emolument claims. They have been green-lit (the opposite of being thrown out).

https://www.economist.com/democracy...s-suit-against-donald-trump-gets-the-go-ahead
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/25/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-740423
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/an-update-on-the-emoluments-cases
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ects-trump-push-to-dismiss-emoluments-lawsuit

The judge has also allowed the separate Congressional Democrats case to move forward...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/trump-emoluments-democrats-lawsuit.html
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/15/648160089/emoluments-lawsuit-moves-a-step-closer-to-trump

There are now three (3) separate emoluments actions proceeding against Trump. We all appreciate the fact that Trump is defending himself on so many fronts its hard to keep up. Since you were so off base on this, perhaps we should take this opportunity to update ourselves on the numerous lawsuits and legal actions currently pending against Trump.

http://fortune.com/2018/09/21/donald-trump-lawsuit-investigation-charges-news-update/

I was probably thinking of the below. Not quite on point.
However, the Justice Dept. view is the correct one with regards to emoluments.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/n...--trump-lawsuit-dismissal-20181127-story.html

 

[upsideguy]

I was probably thinking of the below. Not quite on point.
However, the Justice Dept. view is the correct one with regards to emoluments.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/n...--trump-lawsuit-dismissal-20181127-story.html

No, the DoJ is a biased legal opinion. It may be correct, it may not be. It certainly was not a compelling enough legal argument that the case was dismissed.

You may have fallen victim to a trap that many people do when they don't have a lot of experience with attorneys. A good attorney can craft a legal argument that will convince you of whatever legal position you need to take. You commit a murder, a decent attorney will put together a case that convinces you that you did not do it. The argument does not change the reality, it only changes the perception of that reality. Don't lose your objectivity here as you simply do not know.

So, unless you are a constitutional lawyer with some specific experience in emolument (there is no such person), then you really have no basis to know which is "correct". This particular clause has not been litigated. We do know that it is in the courts, where it belongs.

The particular cite you offered was not about emoluments.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, the DoJ is a biased legal opinion. It may be correct, it may not be. It certainly was not a compelling enough legal argument that the case was dismissed.

You may have fallen victim to a trap that many people do when they don't have a lot of experience with attorneys. A good attorney can craft a legal argument that will convince you of whatever legal position you need to take. You commit a murder, a decent attorney will put together a case that convinces you that you did not do it. The argument does not change the reality, it only changes the perception of that reality. Don't lose your objectivity here as you simply do not know.

So, unless you are a constitutional lawyer with some specific experience in emolument (there is no such person), then you really have no basis to know which is "correct". This particular clause has not been litigated. We do know that it is in the courts, where it belongs.

The particular cite you offered was not about emoluments.

It was litigated here:
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-...r-emoluments-clause-just-got-booted-out-court

 

[Aberration]

That was non-responisve. Please back up your point in Post #267 or we get to assume its not true.

Seriously? We’ve had decades of you all making **** up and you’re just going to pretend nothing happened. You all learned nothing from the 2016 election.

 

[Aberration]

The facts RESULTED FROM the inevstigation. Why would facts from the investigation, necessitate another investigation to discover those facts? You aren’t making any sense.

Second a trial is primarily determining if the evidence presented is sufficient for that jury to convict them. Once again...you need facts/evidence to get a case BROUGHT to a grand jury, to court, and possibly to trial in the first place. So once again you are not making any sense.

There can be all sorts of facts but still not meet what a jury feels rises to the level of guilt on a particular crime. You’d still want trials, obviousl, if you contested it.

But Cohen agreed the stated facts are correct. There is no trial needed, it’s over. Unless partisan republicans investigate the investigators because they hate America, of course.

Dude. You don’t know what facts are. End of story.

 

[upsideguy]

It was litigated here:
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-...r-emoluments-clause-just-got-booted-out-court

It was dismissed for lack of standing, the plaintiffs had no right so sue. So no, the matter has NOT been litigated.

The other 3 active suits on this matter survived summary judgement where standing is typically challenged.

 

[Mach]

Dude. You don’t know what facts are. End of story.

It's also a fact that your weak-ass reply is just a slightly altered form of "Nuh uh!!!"

 

[Born Free]

Patience grasshopper, it's coming.

Now I have to wait, wait for what? What crime of collusion and obstruction is coming? I know you have been hoping for a crime, but you have nothing.