Pure political corruption or attempted coup?

[Machismo]

I'm pretty sure if someone is not guilty then they can claim innocence. It's innocent until proven guilty.

So, you agree that Hillary is also completely innocent, as she has yet to be convicted.

The same can be said for Obama, and all the DoJ from the investigation.

Therefore, that makes this thread a giant conspiracy theory trying to attack people you feel are innocent.

[Lenonis]

I'm pretty sure if someone is not guilty then they can claim innocence.

That's not how that woooooooooooooooooooooooooooorks. Not in the legal sense anyway.

It's innocent until proven guilty.

It's presumed innocent actually. Not proven innocent until proven guilty.

[Thepersona]

3rd time. Mods, close this fucking thread.

[Stormspellz]

Gonna close this here, as pointed out the same topic was closed already for the topic, and past that, it's obvious this is getting derailed either way.

After discussion, this thread is going to be unlocked for now but as a warning, please keep the personal insults out of the discussion. It's one thing to disagree with a source, or debate the quality/sincerity of a source, but another to attack the user instead.

So conspiracy theories are ok now? The entire world salad has no facts of any kind past random dates, this obviously an attempt to give a conspiracy theory credence under the illusion of debate

[Felya]

This is such a spin, that if you manage to not puke from motion sickness (or a different kind of sickness), then congratulations, you got a strong stomach for bullshit.

It’s mind boggling, because the scam is in the first sentence. That’s the thesis to the entire thing, which you can’t get passed, unless there is an assumption of a conspiracy. Obama had no authority to gather or dictate government or democrat roles. It requires the presumption of god king Obama, which simply the fact that Obama didn’t use available tools like executive orders and defense authorization as much as Trump, make it absurd... Obama could have implemented more liberal policy through executive orders and shit, but he didn’t... to think he would go after Trump, especially noting the speech he gave on Bush, when every liberal demanded his head in a pike... is absurd.

[Levelfive]

Oh god no, I'm saying conspiracy theories need to be investigated. So what I want is to investigate the Obama coup attempt and if the investigation report found no evidence of a coup, I will come here and say "the report said there was no evidence but that doesn't mean it said no coup attempt!!!". Then I will troll you all by saying the report that investigated the Obama coup does not exonerate Obama!! I will assert that his coup is not a conspiracy theory even if the investigation didn't find evidence because "not finding evidence is not proof that the coup was not attempted!!" That is your logic here in this thread! And you will be forced swallow your own words because this is exactly you're doing now when it comes to the Russian collusion conspiracy theory.

Which part of the Mueller Report was a conspiracy? The part where the Russians actively and concertedly interfered in our election? Should they not have investigated that? The part where members of the Trump campaign had numerous contacts with Russians offering them help with the campaign? Should they not have investigated that? Is it the part of the Mueller report you agree with, where they didn't find evidence of a conspiracy? Or just the parts you don't, like where they laid out Trump's instances of obstruction of justice along with the specific statutes he violated?

[Felya]

Of course they are okay, we've been running the Russian collusion conspiracy theory for years now.

Can you discuss an actual investigation, without it being a conspiracy theory?

[Stormspellz]

Okay, I stand corrected, the report presumed there is no collusion rather than said. Terribly sorry for my choice of words.

- - - Updated - - -



Of course they are okay, we've been running the Russian collusion conspiracy theory for years now.

thats not a conspiracy theory, as we have numerous people in jail in relation to it, numerous investigations verifying it, ect.

[Stormspellz]

Why do we close this while we allowed the Russian conspiracy theory to go on? They're both speculative with no evidence, but at least this might lead to something ... the collusion conspiracy lead to nothing. If you don't wanna believe it then don't ... I didn't believe the Russian collusion conspiracy .. not for a minute but I didn't go crying in the threads to ban people and close the threads.

again, as usual, you are simply wrong.

[Felya]

Why do we close this while we allowed the Russian conspiracy theory to go on? They're both speculative with no evidence, but at least this might lead to something ... the collusion conspiracy lead to nothing. If you don't wanna believe it then don't ... I didn't believe the Russian collusion conspiracy .. not for a minute but I didn't go crying in the threads to ban people and close the threads.

Did Russians steal 500000 voter registration records?

[Levelfive]

Why do we close this while we allowed the Russian conspiracy theory to go on? They're both speculative with no evidence, but at least this might lead to something ... the collusion conspiracy lead to nothing. If you don't wanna believe it then don't ... I didn't believe the Russian collusion conspiracy .. not for a minute but I didn't go crying in the threads to ban people and close the threads.

The "evidence" here seems to be coincidentally timed news reports, while there was actually ample evidence for the Mueller investigation--which part do you think was a conspiracy?

[Adam Jensen]

Just in case anyone was curious about the source:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

And Trump has been retweeting their garbage left and right all day.

It's great how he rants about fake news and yet is the source of (and/or the one who false for) most of it.

[Felya]

The "evidence" here seems to be coincidentally timed news reports, while there was actually ample evidence for the Mueller investigation--which part do you think was a conspiracy?

As I pointed out earlier, Trump team meetings justified an investigation into Trump’s collusion, for the same reason the OP is inventing Obama meeting to justify an investigation into collusion. The problem being, we know what happened during Trump jr meeting, due to the direct tie of Russian ban on adoption being an excuse, with its enactment serving as revenge for Magynsky act.

Why would that be important, well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program

That’s what initiated the prisoner swap, leading Russian poisonings in London.

People that were sent to US, by the same ones Trump met in 2013:

Trump in Moscow: what happened at Miss Universe in 2013
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...iverse-in-2013

Some of the conspiracy theorist need to explain why these two events on their own, do not necessitate an investigation, without intervention by a nobody like Obama?

- - - Updated - - -

............

Am I wrong? Did Russians steal 500000 US registration records? Why are you covering it up?

[Howel]

It’s mind boggling, because the scam is in the first sentence. That’s the thesis to the entire thing, which you can’t get passed, unless there is an assumption of a conspiracy. Obama had no authority to gather or dictate government or democrat roles. It requires the presumption of god king Obama, which simply the fact that Obama didn’t use available tools like executive orders and defense authorization as much as Trump, make it absurd... Obama could have implemented more liberal policy through executive orders and shit, but he didn’t... to think he would go after Trump, especially noting the speech he gave on Bush, when every liberal demanded his head in a pike... is absurd.

Yeah... It is crazy...

[Levelfive]

I thought this was pretty great timing considering the existence of this thread: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...new-york-times

"We are well past “fears of politicization”. When the President’s loyalist Attorney General intervenes on the President’s behalf in a case in which a defendant/loyalist has already pled guilty in order to short-circuit a prosecution about which no disinterested party has raised any substantial question … well, that is the definition of politicization. It also comes after numerous similar actions by the Barr Justice Department.

One good way to judge these question is to imagine how the Times would cover a similar set of facts in another country. To suggest that this would be framed as leading to “fears of politicization” would be absurd.

When someone chops someone’s head off that does lead to fears of people being killed. That is people being killed.

It continues in the very first paragraph.

President Trump and his supporters on Friday praised Attorney General William P. Barr’s decision to drop the prosecution of Michael T. Flynn, even as career law enforcement officials warned that the action set a disturbing precedent and Democrats accused the administration of further politicizing the Justice Department.

“Democrats accused the administration …” Trumps supporters say it’s awesome. Democrats say it’s not awesome. To-May-toe, To-Mah-Toe …

Again, how would this article be written about events in another country? The question answers itself.

And then again …

Many current and former federal prosecutors across the country said they were shocked by the Flynn decision. But current and former department lawyers and F.B.I. officials also sent department leaders “significantly positive feedback” and “applauded the recommendation” to drop the Flynn case, said Kerri Kupec, a department spokeswoman.

Again, we learn that many current and former prosecutors find this a ‘shocking’ decision. But the Attorney General’s spokesperson told the Times that other unnamed officials said it was awesome. So who is to say?

We’ve learned this lesson many times. Contemporary journalism has an imperative for “balance” and also for accuracy. But in a pinch – and it’s in the domains of politics, public policy and governance where the pinch comes – the former wins out over the latter. Consistently. A better standard is accuracy and fairness. In a pinch, perhaps impartiality. Balance, as widely understood, is too often placed in opposition to accuracy. And it becomes an available crowbar by which bad faith actors can leverage favorably inaccurate coverage of themselves."

[cubby]

I thought this was pretty great timing considering the existence of this thread: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...new-york-times

"We are well past “fears of politicization”. When the President’s loyalist Attorney General intervenes on the President’s behalf in a case in which a defendant/loyalist has already pled guilty in order to short-circuit a prosecution about which no disinterested party has raised any substantial question … well, that is the definition of politicization. It also comes after numerous similar actions by the Barr Justice Department.

One good way to judge these question is to imagine how the Times would cover a similar set of facts in another country. To suggest that this would be framed as leading to “fears of politicization” would be absurd.

When someone chops someone’s head off that does lead to fears of people being killed. That is people being killed.

It continues in the very first paragraph.

President Trump and his supporters on Friday praised Attorney General William P. Barr’s decision to drop the prosecution of Michael T. Flynn, even as career law enforcement officials warned that the action set a disturbing precedent and Democrats accused the administration of further politicizing the Justice Department.

“Democrats accused the administration …” Trumps supporters say it’s awesome. Democrats say it’s not awesome. To-May-toe, To-Mah-Toe …

Again, how would this article be written about events in another country? The question answers itself.

And then again …

Many current and former federal prosecutors across the country said they were shocked by the Flynn decision. But current and former department lawyers and F.B.I. officials also sent department leaders “significantly positive feedback” and “applauded the recommendation” to drop the Flynn case, said Kerri Kupec, a department spokeswoman.

Again, we learn that many current and former prosecutors find this a ‘shocking’ decision. But the Attorney General’s spokesperson told the Times that other unnamed officials said it was awesome. So who is to say?

We’ve learned this lesson many times. Contemporary journalism has an imperative for “balance” and also for accuracy. But in a pinch – and it’s in the domains of politics, public policy and governance where the pinch comes – the former wins out over the latter. Consistently. A better standard is accuracy and fairness. In a pinch, perhaps impartiality. Balance, as widely understood, is too often placed in opposition to accuracy. And it becomes an available crowbar by which bad faith actors can leverage favorably inaccurate coverage of themselves."

If Trump "wins" this year I truly believe we will be lost.

[Zaydin]

Flagged for conspiracy mongering. Time to see if the rules get evenly applied.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

There has been a perception that topics and threads considered important to particular ideologies are getting locked under the assumption we are policing or enforcing specific opinions. The reality is that mods are trying to address the frequent intense personal back-and-forth flaming, baiting, and derailments that those threads often trigger and the lack of meaningful discussion therein. We could see that was a demand for this topic to be debated among users, and after discussion with the team it was decided to give people a chance to do so.
Threads in the past may have been handled in a less than ideal way and we're trying to improve that.

Having said that, derailment is still derailment and discussing moderation is still against the rules.

So how does this work exactly? My thread about a jogger being shot was locked with next to not flaming or rule breaking and it wasn’t derailed should I just make another one on the same topic as there seemed to be a demand for it as people were discussing it Or would that be infactable?

[Felya]

Yeah... It is crazy...

It’s insulting that they think we are this stupid... people are complaining this is a conspiracy thread. I’d take issue with how the OP is absolutely flaming us, by thinking we are such fucking morons, that we wouldn’t see through it, within the first sentence. You can almost feel the sneer at us plebeians. Pretty harsh...

[Acidbaron]

If Trump "wins" this year I truly believe we will be lost.

Imagine having a republican president dealing with an economic crisis, yikes!

They are generally the ones that create an environment for it and that is not even including all possible challenges that are going to come up.