Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit

I already know that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and I , like you, also know that those people will never in a billion years come here and that the only hope we have to convincing a person like you is this new Russian Spy who is currently sitting in U.S. Prision awaiting trial.

this is really a bitwise question, I expect a bitwise answer from you.

Do you or do you not think the vast majority of the finding in these investigation findings are false.

yes

or

no

please stop dancing around the simple question

Well, you're asking a leading stupid question here.

Do I believe the tax-evasion and the crimes committed 10 years ago by Manafort and the others, are false? no of course not, no one would be taking a plea deal or saying they are guilty if they aren´t

Do I believe that the indictments against the Russians are fake, well who knows and we will never find out if they are true.

I will parse that answer as 'yes' yes you think the vast majority of the information is likely false.

Step 1: establish the facts

Step 2: talk about if they are relevant.

we cant talk about step 2 of which I think I would agree with a person on the Right to a large degree, but we cant do that without Step 1. I refuse to talk about something that one side will randomly deny even happened and at this stage of the game..with this much information on it.wow!

@Jacanuk: really...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/us/politics/trump-russia-indictment.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/16/russian-woman-charged-washington-dc-spying-behalf-moscow/amp/

The indictment are fake some how?

That´s not what i said.

First, an indictment is not a guilty verdict. Second, the chance of the evidence being weighed up in court and proven to be either true or false is zero.

So I know you guys on the left takes this as an already guilty plea, but it´s not.

however, the young woman who was arrested is in U.S. Custody and will be testifying,

what you are saying however, is shocking when you think about it. that can leave a HUGE window for countries to hack and attack and all you would do is say 'well dang, cant bring them to trial so oh well sorry about your evidence'

its like saying 'well I know we have the bullet that matches the gun, we have your prints, we have an email you wrote saying you shot the guy, the time you did it, which confirms what we found but all that is not proof becasue we cant bring you to trail to have your testimony'

In regards to what?

Or are you somehow doing a "find Wally" and linking her to Trump?

in regards to collusion with Person 1 and the GOP and Russia

that is 'with what'

i never said it was linked to Trump. in fact none of the indictments are, not sure why you are so hell bent on not accpeting them given that reality.

your guy is safe..for now of course, you know that, i know that, but right now he is safe, so you dont have to be so defensive.

@Jacanuk: no indictment is done with out massive proof given. Many witnesses even her own college professor stated she said she had had connections to trump and the kgb.

She has connection to the nra, many pics with republican congressmen and actually gave a question to trump on live tv on us relation ship with Russia.

You can play devil's advocate all you want but this a case where there too much proof for her to come out of this with out being guilty.

It can't be a massive case of coincidence. Lightning does not hit the sane spot so many time with no reason.

False,

Grand Jury´s are not "massive proof" it´s simply 12+ laymen being explained one sides case. All the DA have to do is meet the minimum burden "reasonable doubt" which is far from the same burden they have in an actual case.

Also, there is a reason why there is a move away from Grand Jurys in favour of preliminary hearings.

So at least get the law straight before you try to make this molehill into a mountain.

but like I said they EXCEDED THE MIN REQUIREMENTS for an indictment on these 12 EXPLICTLY because they knew these people would likely not defend themselves.

my question to you is this, why are YOU so confident that they will not defend themselves?

How do you know they exceeded the min. requirement? were you present at the grand jury or is it just your presumption?

I heard about it on a legal show, I forget who is was but it was someone close to the work as well as other legal members with experience in this kind of thing.

now my question please.

why are you so confident that innocent people would not show up to defend themselves?

So you heard someone say something that is not true.

Mueller does not need to exceed the min burden, all they have to do is meet it and they have an indictment.

And again you seem to have a problem with our legal system," innocent until proven guilty" And the reason why we won´t see these people, well your guess is as good as mine, but them not showing does not mean they are any less innocent.

they didnt say they needed to

they said they DID

different. again, they exceeded the MIN REQUIREMENTS

and showing up in court and saying anything in the universe is not forensic evidence

so again my question

why are you so confident that innocent people would not show up to defend themselves?

And i am telling you there is no way for them to know since there won´t be someone saying "wow you went past the burden"

All, there is known is that Mueller met the burden and the burden is "reasonable doubt" which is the lowest burden.

And again, who gives a frag why they don´t show, they are still innocent until proven guilty, which part of that are you having a hard time getting?

multiple legal experts ARE saying that. just not the one you want whoever that is.

the Court does not have to make that assertion and they dont have to make that assertion for it to be true.

so again:

why are you so confident that innocent people would not show up to defend themselves

I guess I will just have to wait before I see a Trump supporter start to question, there is a F TON more coming anyway maybe even soon

You mean the Republican dossier that the Democrats contributed toward after the trump won the primary and which has been proven to have truth to it?

@Jacanuk

let me take a stab at how I think you see it overall, never minding all the technical.

you think that multiple major intelligence agencies in the U.S. have this all wrong because they dont like Trump. That they have orchestrated a massive conspiracy filled with false detailed information all designed to bury Trump. This is completely possible but it leaves two questions.

1. why would they select this one president to do such a massive thing over? maybe its actually warranted, maybe they are doing it because they feel national security is at risk. so what is it about Trump plans for our future that is so radical that all these intelligence agencies (most of which contain GOP members by the way) so freaked out right now? The wall? Tariffs that you dont understand? what is it exactly?

2. From even before the election every single step Trump has made is EXACTLY what a person who was compromised by the Russians would do. Is that evidence? no but its hyper suspicious isn't?

And you know the problem with experts? they have no knowledge or facts to base it on. It´s a pure guess, so what about we stick to provable facts. Especially considering that experts on the other side of the fence , says something else.

The burden is reasonable doubt and that is what the Grand Jury weighs on.

Also again with the stupid question, which part of "innocent until proven guilty" is it you have such a hard time understanding? maybe I can help you get the basic legal system if you tell me which word you have a problem with.

no its not 'pure guess'

your statements on the current situation of Dark Matter is not the same as one who studies that field dayly

@Jacanuk: There is none so blind as those who will not see...........

Here's a more important question. If the entire US intelligence community was anti trump...............do you really think he's be elected? Hell Comey handed him the election on a platter with his last minute email assertions which were nothing.

More ramblings.

it´s a guess, the "experts" base it on their political bias, which is why you can have one expert say shit on one channel and another say different shit on another channel.

Nowhere in the Grand Jury´s indictment does it state that the evidence burden has been exceeded.

But allow me to quote.

"The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Instead, a prosecutor will work with a grand jury to decide whether to bring criminal charges or an indictment against a potential defendant, a determination of probable cause made by a grand jury" Also, the decision does not have to be unanimous.

Mob justice is not Justice.

that is an excellent point

Get back to me when you understand what mob justice is because clearly you don't...........

you are building the case of 'nobody on the planet can say if this exceeded the min. requirements'

in my mind that FAR exceeds the threshold of 'reasonable doubt'

Here is the correct question. "why did the entire self-proclaimed political elite" get it so wrong and assume that Trump would never win.

And Comey did not hand anyone anything.

In your mind lol ok.

But keep on believing false shit, but do yourself a favour and go read up on what our country´s legal system is founded on.

lol..i like that.

why didnt comey hand anyone anything....when? before the election when he knew it was happening? think on that.

Bull shit. Bringing up the email scandal in the last month more or less was a detriment. It gave trump some votes he wouldn't have otherwise. And in the end when there was nothing there.....it was too late.

That is your guess. I don´t believe that Comey bringing up the emails again moved any deciding votes.

But why don´t you see a problem with the blacksite meeting Comey had with Bill and Hillary's campaign staff at the airport.

Then you would be wrong. Hell even the polls showed it. That wasn't Comey.

You are right it was not Comey, but it was that meeting that made him re-open the investigation. Somehow got it mixed up that he had the meeting.

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-comey-loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-hillary-emails-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

@Jacanuk: yes it is..do you know what it take to get a Federal indictment issues?

You need a lot of proof to do it. You keep trying to down play it using Devil's Advocate

But you don't seem show you know how they are issued....do you?

Why in the living hell is @Jacanuk still defending Trump when Trump himself now says interference is a matter of fact?

God damn this guy is so extreme right it's sickening.

Russia interfered. Get over it you conspiracy nut.

LOL, there is no difference in how the Grand Jury work mate.

All you need to do is meet the lowest burden.

This is basic law school 101.

Please provide the link to credible proof that there were actual physical votes moved to Trump from Hilliary.

lol...again.

TRYING to steal from a bank is illegal, you dont have the succeed in doing it for it not to be a crime.

you americans are funny

Well, we were not debating fantasy land here, but Zaryia´s misunderstanding of what is actually being said.

Since i could not care less about some ads on Twitter and Facebook and fake news. Anyone dumb enough to be fooled by them, only have them selfes to blame.

again.

ATTEMPTING to commit a crime, is a crime, you do not have to be successful for it to be a crime.

sometimes I wish Russia would hurry up with this and send some school books to help with this infection of ignorance we have in this country.

did you know they have a higher literacy rate then we do? and yes I know, make fun of my spelling is what you will do next

I assume your american because of your lack of understanding

Shifting goal posts. Interference is the subject. Stop pretending otherwise.

At the end of the day what did they do? They told the truth about the DNC.

what truth are you refering to?

you mean the theft of personal information from 500,000 voters, or the theft of the DNC analytics software?

as a side note I am warming to Russia as a country. I know I should be careful with that but it doesnt seem so bad if they take over, I mean at a personal level, as long as one watches a few things

Good to hear Comrade Tryit.

You will make a fine Russian agent once Putin takes over America.

You have no idea how controlling Russia is with it's citizens to say that.

oh I am not interested in being an agent for anyone, I just want to understand our new home country better and its actually not to bad.

free health care, free education, transportation is easy. BUT there are some things about life in Russia I would not like and I dont know if they have full access to Steam like the US has. never the less, overall it doesnt look horrifying.

yes you keep pointing out the ignorance I have already openly admitted I have and I keep asking you to feel free to share detailed information that you might have and you never do.

eventually I will get around to the american perspective of russia but for now I still have a lot of unanswered questions that I am researching.

Ahh don´t worry Comrade Tryit.

Russia is fine and as the world cup showed, the women are great and the beer is plenty and the football is good.