Octopus Overlords

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:39 am We are inching away from any kind of accountability so slowly that we won't notice the moment it disappears altogether.



"The hacking is the crime. The President didn't hack." So in this world, murder for hire isn't a crime?

He also says "he didn't pay for the hacking", so that analogy doesn't work.

But even me having to note this kind of proves your original point.

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:41 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:39 am We are inching away from any kind of accountability so slowly that we won't notice the moment it disappears altogether.



"The hacking is the crime. The President didn't hack." So in this world, murder for hire isn't a crime?

He also says "he didn't pay for the hacking", so that analogy doesn't work.

But even me having to note this kind of proves your original point.

At the very least it's comparable to accepting stolen goods that you know at the time are stolen. Which is, you know, a crime.

Promise of future benefit is a form of payment. And we know promise of lifting sanctions was out there. But yeah, that it's even necessary to discuss is an equally bad sign.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:43 am

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:41 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:39 am We are inching away from any kind of accountability so slowly that we won't notice the moment it disappears altogether.



"The hacking is the crime. The President didn't hack." So in this world, murder for hire isn't a crime?

He also says "he didn't pay for the hacking", so that analogy doesn't work.

But even me having to note this kind of proves your original point.

At the very least it's comparable to accepting stolen goods that you know at the time are stolen. Which is, you know, a crime.

Plus, none of this discussion even touches on the quo part of the quid pro quo (e.g., NATO stance, sanctions relief, GOP platform change, etc).

Also notable in Rudy's comments this morning is that in both interviews he made sure to point out that Trump didn't attend the infamous meeting with the Russians. This likely is another goalpost move to prepare for when it is firmly established that Trump knew and approved of the meeting, and maybe even listened in via speakerphone or some other means.

Good Lord, at this point Giuliani is Trump's worst enemy.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:51 am Good Lord, at this point Giuliani is Trump's worst enemy.

But wait, there's more!

Wait, is this the first mention of a preparatory meeting two days in advance of the meeting with the Russians? He just brings this up out of the blue?

And it's supposedly on the same day that Trump later in the evening goes out and promises he'll be giving a speech soon that divulges dirt on Hillary?

What is Rudy doing?

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:30 am Wait, is this the first mention of a preparatory meeting two days in advance of the meeting with the Russians? He just brings this up out of the blue?

And it's supposedly on the same day that Trump later in the evening goes out and promises he'll be giving a speech soon that divulges dirt on Hillary?

What is Rudy doing?

It sounds like it's the first mention of the meeting. Of course, on the matter of whether Rudy is just an idiot or whether he has at least some sort of plan, per Rudy's admission Gates was at the meeting, and Gates is cooperating with Mueller. So it stands to reason that Mueller already knows about the meeting (assuming that it happened). *Maybe* Rudy's thinking is that it's better for him to break the news of that meeting than for it to come out in an indictment or otherwise. Though Occam's Razor is just that Rudy is an idiot.

And of course, this whole speech thing is reminiscent of Trump saying "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you find Hillary's missing e-mails" the same day that Russia did a new hacking attack. Which is establishing a pattern of Trump being kept informed about what Russia is doing and being so excited that he can't help but blab about it all publicly.

"Rudes"!!!! LMAO. Almost spew worthy. I will refer to him as the same from now on. That is awesome.

It's at the point that every time I see the Rudes appear on a news show, I wait for the admission of guilt followed by a "but that's not illegal!".

It's a little hard to keep track, but apparently Rudy is now walking it back and claiming there WASN'T a July 7 planning meeting prior to the July 9 meeting.

It's a little hard for him to sell it as a misstatement since he already claimed it happened in two separate interviews.

It's a mess. Trump is clearly scraping the bottom with Giuliani.

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:00 pm It's a little hard to keep track, but apparently Rudy is now walking it back and claiming there WASN'T a July 7 planning meeting prior to the July 9 meeting.

It's a little hard for him to sell it as a misstatement since he already claimed it happened in two separate interviews.

It's a mess. Trump is clearly scraping the bottom with Giuliani.

Also, like - he was very specific about it. He named specific people in attendance.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:39 am We are inching away from any kind of accountability so slowly that we won't notice the moment it disappears altogether.



"The hacking is the crime. The President didn't hack." So in this world, murder for hire isn't a crime?

So, uh Rudes. The crime is the only one enumerated in the Constitution Trump Swore to Uphold and Defend - Treason and conspiracy to commit.

At some point, Giuliani is going to rip off his mask and reveal that he's been Mueller all along...

Rudy is the weather balloon. Float the lie, measure the feedback, tweak the lie or adopt it as the new firm ground.

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:00 pm It's a mess. Trump is clearly scraping the bottom with Giuliani.

I just watched the Seinfeld episode starring Giuliani after he won the election. He's come a long way (down) since then.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:32 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:00 pm It's a mess. Trump is clearly scraping the bottom with Giuliani.

I just watched the Seinfeld episode starring Giuliani after he won the election. He's come a long way (down) since then.

The question that comes to mind with Rudes is - did he get corrupted over time, or is this who he always was (and he just benefited from better circumstances before)?

Giuliani was a successful mayor, but he was an asshole's asshole even then.

He went from being America's Mayor to "hey, didn't he play Gollum in those hobbit movies?" I suspect he's always been a dirt bag. But he wasn't a desperate dirtbag until a few years ago.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:40 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:32 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:00 pm It's a mess. Trump is clearly scraping the bottom with Giuliani.

I just watched the Seinfeld episode starring Giuliani after he won the election. He's come a long way (down) since then.

The question that comes to mind with Rudes is - did he get corrupted over time, or is this who he always was (and he just benefited from better circumstances before)?

Always was. He just happened to the the right man in the right job on 9/11. Nothing takes that away.


But don't forget, he was separated from his second wife l while having an affair with his soon-to-be 3rd wife. He had just been trounced by Clinton in the Senate race. There was a lot of forgive and forget due to 9/11. Due in no small part to the mayor himself stating how important he was to the recovery.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:43 am

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:41 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:39 am We are inching away from any kind of accountability so slowly that we won't notice the moment it disappears altogether.



"The hacking is the crime. The President didn't hack." So in this world, murder for hire isn't a crime?

He also says "he didn't pay for the hacking", so that analogy doesn't work.

But even me having to note this kind of proves your original point.

At the very least it's comparable to accepting stolen goods that you know at the time are stolen. Which is, you know, a crime.

Until you get to the point that he never received the goods, also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:40 pm Until you get to the point that he never received the goods, also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

I'm sure it's pure coincidence that Trump's first and main foreign policy goal at the RNC convention and in January 2017 was eliminating sanctions.

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:40 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:43 am

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:41 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:39 am We are inching away from any kind of accountability so slowly that we won't notice the moment it disappears altogether.



"The hacking is the crime. The President didn't hack." So in this world, murder for hire isn't a crime?

He also says "he didn't pay for the hacking", so that analogy doesn't work.

But even me having to note this kind of proves your original point.

At the very least it's comparable to accepting stolen goods that you know at the time are stolen. Which is, you know, a crime.

Until you get to the point that he never received the goods, also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

If my neighbor Tom steals a Ferrari, tells me it is stolen and gives it to me for free, are you saying I couldn't be prosecuted?

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:54 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:40 pm Until you get to the point that he never received the goods, also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

I'm sure it's pure coincidence that Trump's first and main foreign policy goal at the RNC convention and in January 2017 was eliminating sanctions.

Wanting something and delivering something are miles apart. Transaction isn't complete until payment is made. There is a reason the cops always wait for the actual exchange of the money. Hell Menendez actually delivered on what he was paid for and still didn't get shit for it.

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:59 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:54 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:40 pm Until you get to the point that he never received the goods, also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

I'm sure it's pure coincidence that Trump's first and main foreign policy goal at the RNC convention and in January 2017 was eliminating sanctions.

Wanting something and delivering something are miles apart. Transaction isn't complete until payment is made. There is a reason the cops always wait for the actual exchange of the money. Hell Menendez actually delivered on what he was paid for and still didn't get shit for it.

It's a shame, Rip. I used to value your opinion on foreign policy matters. Now I have no way of telling if you're being honest or just trying to piss people off.

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:40 pm also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

The crime of receiving stolen goods does not require paying for them. You can find the definition yourself with a 10 second Google search.

link

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:05 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:59 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:54 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:40 pm Until you get to the point that he never received the goods, also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

I'm sure it's pure coincidence that Trump's first and main foreign policy goal at the RNC convention and in January 2017 was eliminating sanctions.

Wanting something and delivering something are miles apart. Transaction isn't complete until payment is made. There is a reason the cops always wait for the actual exchange of the money. Hell Menendez actually delivered on what he was paid for and still didn't get shit for it.

It's a shame, Rip. I used to value your opinion on foreign policy matters. Now I have no way of telling if you're being honest or just trying to piss people off.

I'm not even taking a position so I have no idea what you are all up about. I'm just noting the difficulty in actually pursuing a case. The truth isn't even a factor in this discussion.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:06 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:40 pm also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

The crime of receiving stolen goods does not require paying for them. You can find the definition yourself with a 10 second Google search.

But of course in those cases the goods are physical property. When the "goods" are information it becomes much more cloudy. A lot of people were in "possession" of the stolen property. Are we charging them all? Did Trump ever actually "possess" it himself? Minefield of technicalities.

Wow. This sh*t is over. It’s all downhill for donny senior from here.

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:16 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:06 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:40 pm also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

The crime of receiving stolen goods does not require paying for them. You can find the definition yourself with a 10 second Google search.

But of course in those cases the goods are physical property. When the "goods" are information it becomes much more cloudy. A lot of people were in "possession" of the stolen property. Are we charging them all? Did Trump ever actually "possess" it himself? Minefield of technicalities.

You didn't even take the 10 seconds, did you?

Let's see how far those goalposts can go.

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:12 pm I'm not even taking a position so I have no idea what you are all up about. I'm just noting the difficulty in actually pursuing a case. The truth isn't even a factor in this discussion.

The goalposts... they've... DISAPPEARED!!!

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:54 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:40 pm Until you get to the point that he never received the goods, also note that the receiving of them isn't so much a crime as paying to receive them. I don't know of anyone ever prosecuted for being on the receiving end of stolen goods, only when they actually pay for them.

Going to be a really tough sell.

I'm sure it's pure coincidence that Trump's first and main foreign policy goal at the RNC convention and in January 2017 was eliminating sanctions.

Wanting something and delivering something are miles apart. Transaction isn't complete until payment is made. There is a reason the cops always wait for the actual exchange of the money. Hell Menendez actually delivered on what he was paid for and still didn't get shit for it.

Conspiracy to commit treason is still a conspiracy.

Just a reminder that someone stole George W. Bush's debate prep book (and videotapes!) and sent it to the Gore campaign and they immediately turned all the materials over to the FBI

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:25 pm

Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:12 pm I'm not even taking a position so I have no idea what you are all up about. I'm just noting the difficulty in actually pursuing a case. The truth isn't even a factor in this discussion.

The goalposts... they've... DISAPPEARED!!!

Welcome to Riptown. Population: us.

lol. So this is where we are now.

It's where we've always been. The reruns are getting tired.

But as the noose gets tighter, Trump will increase his attempts to redefine what's right and what's wrong.

So what if I paid Russian prostitutes to pee on a bed? It's not like we all don't do that!

So collusion is not a crime, but Hillary did it. Why are we locking her up again?

Even if I did agree with this moron's political views, I'd be embarrassed to be associated with someone who writes such juvenile garbage. He makes George W. Bush look like Neil DeGrasse Tyson.