Corrupt Amerikan criminals will pay for their crimes! You think you so beautiful with your golden palace bridge and statue of freedom and big motor highway. Soon Russia will have hypersonic highway with nuclear powered cars which we will use to take Nazi France Poland Ukraine!
The Mueller investigation.
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Imagine just how powerful Russia would be if it wasn't constantly dealing with the self defeat of corruption which it considers normal business as ususual...So ignoring the pretense for the moment he has a point but perhaps not the one intended.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
are you
very drunk
or
very very drunk
or
medicated
or
not medicated
or
all of the above
ever wondered why that conference was held in Russia? ( If it was held at all?) lol
A bit like having an Olympic gold medal on display in the Kremlin...some thing to be really proud of .....yes?
but then a corrupt IOC is exactly what you would like... lol
Last edited:
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Yep, as you JUST quoted me as saying, I cannot explain YOUR non sequitur.
You repeatedly linking to your own posts, where you never directly refute anything at all, is old and sad. I'm beginning to think you are incapable of simple quoting something specific and then refuting it, without tons of commentary obviously designed to poison the well (which only telegraphs the inferiority of any attempted refute). Or you already tried that, and having solidly failed, are resorting to this nonsense.
Clearly projection.
No, I literally trust the intelligence of the reader, without your need to obscure with tons of commentary to links that seem designed to avoid specifics.
If you can ever manage to quote one specific thing and try to concisely (which really shouldn't take paragraphs) refute it, I'm sure we'll be right back to you failing and resorting to this nonsense again. The circle running to your doing alone.
Your MO seems to be argumentum verbosium. I would have said it was kettle logic, but you don't ever seem to make enough a point to tell if they are mutually consistent.
No, just you making straw man arguments because you obviously don't understand the very US code you tried to cited:
No, as I just repeated for billvon, the president is explicitly exempt from that law and has broad authority over foreign policy (where the US usually has strings attached to any aid). Personal gain would require evidence, which you don't have, of both the gain itself and the intent.
Who said he did, and where's evidence he did, with intent?
Really? Shiff said he wanted to consult his constituents before deciding on impeachment.
Those in the positions and with the power to take action are the actions of the party, whether you like it or not. None of that implies the whole party is in lock step. There wasn't an impeachment inquiry vote until Pelosi deemed it so.
No, that's just your partisan bias. Since studies have shown that conservatives understand leftists better than vice versa, your ignorance is understandable.
1) No one pinned interference of one on the other. Russia tried to help Trump and Ukraine tried to help Hillary.
2) So no one outside of the trump administration has any knowledge of wrongdoing? Okay.
4?) And for good reason. To avoid a meaningless perjury trap.
Hillary was deemed innocent due to incompetence, and that law had no criteria of intent. A little consistency would be nice.
I think you will find that Hillary was found innocent mainly because the USA intelligence services couldn't guarantee server security and she was only doing what she did in the interests of national security.
To convict her they would have to admit that they could not protect against more wiki leak type attacks and their need to maintain confidence as they rebuilt IT security, was essential to USA national security.
One of the reasons speculated upon for Russian hatred towards Hillary is that she managed to thwart their cyber attacks by using a private server with her own specialist security that was well above that being used by the government at the time. The Russians failed and it pissed them off some what...
With assisting Trump being their response perhaps...and we all know how successful that has been...
Trump the first Russian elected POTUS
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
if they are making all their money from their crimes, why would they want to pay it back ?
that doesn't make sense
They pay themselves by doing crime.
your logic seems illogical
Revenge for criminal acts is called corporal punishment.
ironically many 1st world citizens think this should be law.
do you propose corporal punishment for politicians ? most dont. most say the rich elite should not be held to the same accountability of morality as the working class poor.
morally it is very corrupt ideology, however a vast majority of peoples entire moral set is corrupt on many points.
i dont think it is advantageous to the american law, culture or the tenets of democracy to have the president being able to hire and fire whom ever she wants as the head of FBI, Courts, CIA, Military, Etc etc...
i think there should be systems in place to allow group democracy to elect people on their own merits outside fascist political power systems.
speaking in shouty slow slogans ...
its a thing ?
Now you are characterizing true statements as "lies".
In order to ask a sensible question about the contents of the Mueller report, you have to have some idea what they are. You don't.
You have not read the Mueller report, and you know almost nothing about domestic US politics. So you have no way of evaluating its influence - you are an easy mark for the Republican media feed, which is generated by skilled professional propagandists.
You were unable to "check" even the headline of the one day you selected - you got the bias backwards even for your one chosen single data point (it was anti-Clinton). You couldn't have botched things any worse.
Meanwhile: You claimed to have chosen one day of content, at random - which was remarkably silly in the first place (why would anyone damage their own credibility like that?). Now you claim to have evaluated an entire week of "headlines", and chosen the day of content from within it - destroying your last possible foothold in some kind of competence.
We await the next illustration, in your Republican parrot comedy tour of the forums, of the fact that you and your fellow Rep media parrots cannot filter even basic statistical screwup from the propaganda feed that is your sole source of "information" - that your ignorance of basic statistics is on a level with your ignorance of US domestic politics, despite having claimed a background in a hard science (!).
You have no idea what the facts on the ground are. You haven't even read the Mueller report (and it's too late, btw - you would be unable to read it with comprehension at this point).
You have repeatedly refused to look at US law.
There is no such thing as a "political indictment" in US law.
You have once again included the entire FBI in your notion of the "deep state" - likewise the Department of Justice of New York State, and more than a dozen other Federal and State agencies of government.
The source of your silly "Three felonies a day" repetition is of course the same old Republican media feed that has been your sole source of information on this forum.
You have made such a complete mess of your "deep state" notion that the term no longer means anything in your posts - you have, at one time or another, assigned everybody and everything in the US Federal and State governments "deep state" status except the Republican bureaucratic minions doing Trump's and corporate lobbyists's bidding in defiance of law and their oaths of office.
And in this you once again display your loyalty and allegiance to the rightwing US corporate authoritarian (Republican) media feed. You're a parrot.
Which makes interesting the various displays of support and agreement you have received from the bandarlog crowd in various threads here -
a cadre of posters who universally, to a one, deny in themselves the level of gullibility (or, as noted, dishonesty) necessary for posting as you do. Secondhand, Tribe supported, mutual, gullibility and denial are ok - even if (to pick an example) none of them, none at all, have actually read the Mueller report.
Kipling nailed it, from his vantage point in the previous global corporate capitalist empire: "We all say so, so it must be true".
He wasn't talking about a jury. He was talking about how a Tribe of the damned comes to discard juries and every other agency of law.
Last edited:
Hillary was deemed innocent because there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict her of any wrongdoing. In fact, there wasn't even enough evidence to indict her, which is a low bar indeed.
Lesson many right wingers never seem to learn - the best defense against being indicted and convicted is to not commit the crime. And if one DOES commit the crime, prosecuting it is not "a witch hunt."
Last edited:
The President is bound by that law in his oath of office and the explicit language of the US Constitution.
We have hundreds of pages of documentation, sworn testimony of eyewitnesses, public admission of guilt by the perp, public admission of guilt by the perp's closest associates, and audio tapes of incriminating conversation.
We have a three year public record of violations of the emoluments clause involving literally dozens of hotels, resorts, golf courses, and other properties.
And that's before we get hold of the tax records.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Russia (as well as the former Soviet Union) has a lot of good physicists. Without this, they would have been unable to reach what they have reached in the military. Ever heard names like Fock, Landau, Gelfand, Friedman, Kapitsa, Sacharov, Faddeev and many others?
It is not a complaint, simply a reference to a simple fact. Why is this fact relevant? Because if there is no such evidence, fantasies about them starting something new (whatever the justification) are nothing but defamations. These defamations are, moreover, completely implausible, given that it would be in conflict with the (established by indiction/report) commercial interest of the operation.
The answer to this very different question is indeed very simple: Else, it would be completely off to name it "influence operation". It is a commercial click-byte operation to gain income by selling its popularity to advertizers which would not start something new because something new will be accepted by the majority only in rare accidental cases. But if one invents, for propaganda purposes, an evil influence campaign, it is essentially necessary to claim such things, else, what would be the evil element of the operation, if the bots repeat only what is popular anyway?
LOL, you have not even understood that the advertisers were the customers? Of course, the advertisers want to influence the auditory, they want them to buy whatever they sell. But the click-byte operation itself only wants to create such a possibility, to sell it to advertisers.
As usual, personal attacks used against the opponents give only information about the personal problems of the attackers.
German proverb: "Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht" (A liar is not believed even when he speaks the truth.) You have lied far too often, so that everything you claim about me without explicit evidence in form of quotes with links is considered, by default, a lie.
Ok, let's search for the evidence. Ok, found here. So, let's take a look at the "single data point":
I see, my memory was incorrect about one week. I was correct remembering that there was a whole list of titles I have analyzed. My memory was obviously confused by expecting only one headline per day (as you, btw, in "the headline of the one day you selected") so that it presupposed that around 8 titles should have been from some period of a week or so.
But which error is more serious - 8 data points coming from one day instead of one week, or reducing 8 data points to a single one?
Today you present this as "you got the bias backwards even for your one chosen single data point (it was anti-Clinton)." But you have, at that time, not even argued about the content of even a single of the 8 data points, showing by considering, say, the content of the article that it was anti-Clinton, or even if I have misinterpreted the particular title as being anti-Trump if it was, in fact, anti-Clinton. Your only reply was the usual "you know nothing":
So, we count two serious distortions against me, on the other hand a quite irrelevant confusion about the period considered.
There is no such thing as a "political indictment" in US law.
You have once again included the entire FBI in your notion of the "deep state" - likewise the Department of Justice of New York State, and more than a dozen other Federal and State agencies of government.
The source is the book itself, which I have read. And which considers particular cases of US law and how it is applied.
Of course, then the author has to be an evil Rep propagandist. As one can easily check if one looks at the Wiki entry:
LOL.
Last edited:
Yankee scum, don't you know? I work for Kremlin, therefore I am always drunk, is part of job requirement.
Yeah when one has no morals and the world is still willing to buy the oil one stole from hundreds of other ethnic groups, and almost no one else thinks they should utilize their own economic and academic power to match one's military capabilities, there's really no excuse for not grabbing the whole planet by the balls, which remarkably Russia has repeatedly failed to do despite sparing no effort.
Last edited:
I only propose corporal punishment for politicians who fail to say that Russia is the greatest, mightiest, most beautiful and developed country in the world or fail to give it whatever the hell it demands, and also those who fail to say how awesome, cool and awe inspiring geniuses like Schmelzer are for being Russian and stuff. Only Ukrainian Nazis would think people like him are lowlife lying fascist incel wannabes.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The one I can easily make is comparing the corrupt 90's in Russia with the actual situation. A quite large difference. The reduction of corruption is one of the keys to explaining the difference. That a propaganda victim like you still believes anti-Russian fairy tales that Russia is yet as corrupt as at that time is your problem.
That the corruption in the military-industrial sector of the US is already much greater than in Russia can be easily seen by comparing the military budgets (10:1 in favor of the US) with the results (they are essentially on equal foot).
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
your reference to
consider yourself observed
is flagrant violation of intergalactic non stuff talking and shall be reported immediately to ceiling cat
consider yourself observed
And yet glowing green you are not....corruption of the USA Government and military would surely lead to singed hair and melted skin....and this is what you seek...!
You realy have no idea what you are praying for... do you?
You seek to corrupt the rule of law rather than reform it via proper, democratic and sustainable means.
Simply put, you do not deserve a vote or voice as your corruption has stolen it from you.
Last edited:
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Wow, that's quite the tiny bubble you live in. Not only were her actions that violate explicit State Department policy okay, but somehow heroically justified too? And that bubble apparently doesn't even include the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html
And a conspiracy theory about why Russia tried to help Trump too. Wow.
Most of those require confirmation from Congress, so you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
No, Comey explicitly cleared her because he said he could not establish intent, even though the law addresses negligence and has no criteria of intent. Comey reinterpreted the law, which is the job of the courts, not the executive branch. But by all means, do show us where she was cleared of any wrongdoing.
Straight from Comey's statement:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
That, and the fact that he found reason to reopen that investigation, after more of the deleted emails, again in violation of federal policy, resurfaced. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
So the real lesson for the right was to play as dirty as the left does, hence Trump. Thanks for the lesson.
What part of the law I quoted are you refuting? It explicitly exempts the president. If you're not refuting that, what other law should you be citing to support this claim? If none, you have no argument. Just bluster and bare assertions, as usual from you.
No, you only have partisan wet dreams.
Again, Comey could not have convicted her. At most he could have indicted her, which has a far lower standard of evidence than a conviction. He could not find enough evidence to do even that - even if you wish he had.
Excellent quote. They could not find clear evidence of a crime. Case closed.
No, the real lesson is avoid crime if you don't want to be indicted. Something that the right has not learned yet.
If I remember correctly one of the key stand outs of Mueller's last speach on the report was that the report did not include allegations, including evidence that would unfairly predjudice the defendant (Trump) because the defendent would not be given a trial due to the DOJ policy regarding sitting POTUS.
That to publish information that would go no where while the defendant was in office would bring on a trial by media rather than otherwise proper means.
IMO this is itself a serious issue that could be considered as corruption of the DOJ. Understandable to a point but terrible for reasons of lacking transparency and atruistic principle.
Maybe other members have something to offer on the subject...