Coronavirus - are we all doomed? (1 Viewer)

[AccessBlaster]

We can also point out that Fox New's biggest competitor, CNN, had 24//7 coverage of Trumps guilt for colluding with Russia and that ran for years. All shown to be fake news in the end.

Edit: Just to add, as mentioned in another post, even our independent BBC is misrepresenting information, and our government.

I think you will find the truth somewhere in the middle.

 

[Jon]

I think you will find the truth somewhere in the middle.

Not according to the Muller report, which was a partisan group of about 17 democrat supporting lawyers all trying to bring Trump down. They found no collusion.

I've just seen the Scottish health minister, who has been preaching to people to stay at home, don't travel to your second home etc, has now been caught travelling to her second home about an hours drive from her main home. Her position is untenable in my view.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Sorry, I mean the partisan bickering and butt-hurt-fullness on both sides.

The birther issue is an example of distasteful politics that was unnecessary.

 

[Jon]

I think on a crisis of this magnitude, both sides should keep politics out of it. Unfortunately, that seems to be impossible.

 

[moke123]

All shown to be fake news in the end.

I doubt it is the end. If you have ever been involved in litigation, and in the case of impeachment it is more akin to criminal litigation, there is much that never sees the light of day. For instance in a criminal case some evidence, often very damning evidence such as a confession, is suppressed before trial for technical reasons and the accused goes free. There is still a lot of information that was successfully suppressed (taxes, grand jury testimony, etc.) that will eventually see the light of day which is why I dislike the label "Fake News" History will be the final judge.

check this out @Jon :

TRAFFIC REPORT

those records are pretty good indicators that I'm attracting attention for some reason. be it from governments, criminals, or anyone else that want to know what the hell I'm doing. I'm not too worried about it though, as i'm not a criminal. not that I know of anyway. note the records that start with "scanner" and "researchscan". those are foreign places, some in russia, that are providing really high tech security-based services. also, note the million records from facebook's proxy servers. that's a pretty laughable attempt at trying to figure out what people are thinking. pretty pathetic actually.

and then of course, there are visits from server.jon7.com . isn't that your stuff? according to the hyperlink it is NOT, but I seem to remember you being at Jon7.

You're an easy target.

 

[AccessBlaster]

"Fake News"

Even liberal cable stations have adopted the term "Fake News" now.

 

[vba_php]

You're an easy target.

oh really?

 

[Jon]

I doubt it is the end. If you have ever been involved in litigation, and in the case of impeachment it is more akin to criminal litigation, there is much that never sees the light of day. For instance in a criminal case some evidence, often very damning evidence such as a confession, is suppressed before trial for technical reasons and the accused goes free. There is still a lot of information that was successfully suppressed (taxes, grand jury testimony, etc.) that will eventually see the light of day which is why I dislike the label "Fake News" History will be the final judge.

Why do you doubt it? Do you have evidence that he did collude? Are you assuming guilty until proven innocent? Or is this a case of assuming guilt when already proven innocent? They spent $30M with thousands of subpoenas and 500 odd interviews and found no collusion. To me, this is a clear case of motivated reasoning. You want something to be so and so cannot accept the outcome of a comprehensive two year investigation by a team of Trump haters.

Why still assume that Trump is guilty of collusion when after an investigation into the investigation that led to spying on the Trump campaign, there was found to be numerous "errors", which, coincidently, were all in the same direction: against Trump. Do you not think that fails the smell test? He was being set up by nefarious forces. There was a lawyer who flipped the information 180 degrees on one crucial bit of evidence so they can get a FISA warrant. There is an ongoing criminal investigation into the investigation of the investigation. My, that was a mouthful!

There is still a lot of information that was successfully suppressed (taxes, grand jury testimony, etc.) that will eventually see the light of day

There are reasons in law why certain information can be withheld. I presume you don't want anyone to break the law. But more importantly, this question should be asked: why was the investigation started in the first place if there was no evidence that he colluded? Surely you need evidence before you investigate, otherwise why don't you investigate Hillary instead?

 

[moke123]

I didn't render any opinion of guilt or innocence. I merely stated that it is not the end. There is still much to be learned. The matter is still subject to litigation. Heres one article regarding some litigation... https://www.abajournal.com/news/art...lity-and-orders-review-of-full-mueller-report I believe the DOJ just complied with the judges order this past week. There are also still pending matters arising out of the Special Counsels investigation in the SDNY and NY state.

But more importantly, this question should be asked: why was the investigation started in the first place if there was no evidence that he colluded?

Are investigations started due to evidence or are they started based on allegations or suspicions? An allegation could be evidence. It could also be excluded. How would one know there was or wasn't evidence unless one investigated it?

Or is this a case of assuming guilt when already proven innocent?

Again not taking a position with regards to Trump, Does our system of justice decide innocence or does it just aquit someone of the charges brought? If a person is found not guilty by virtue of the fact that his confession was excluded does that make him innocent?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Hopefully you wont mind when some of the Presidents accusers get prosecuted for "allegations" of breaking FISA laws.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[moke123]

Hopefully you wont mind when some of the Presidents accusers get prosecuted for "allegations" of breaking FISA laws.

I really wouldn't care either way as long as its not me getting prosecuted. From what I know of the Fisa allegations its not really whether laws were broken but rather whether the warrants would issue had the errors and omissions come to light. Even though a lot of people are screaming for prosecutions I highly doubt any will issue.

I've reviewed search warrants for nearly 40 years and doubt I could name one that didnt contain some sort of error or omission and still issue, especially after the fact. Hindsight is always 20\20.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Remember

An allegation could be evidence

 

[Steve R.]

Are investigations started due to evidence or are they started based on allegations or suspicions? An allegation could be evidence. It could also be excluded. How would one know there was or wasn't evidence unless one investigated it? (emphasis added)

Logically circular. That means everything needs to be investigated. Furthermore, there is a universal truth: ---> "There is never enough evidence. There is always another factual link that must be followed and investigated". Investigations will therefore never be concluded.

The Mueller Witch-Hunt spent two years and millions of $$$ pursuing an investigation looking for a crime based on nothing but manufactured allegations. Compare that to Hillary Clinton's alleged crimes. The media and the Democrats ferociously asserted with extreme arrogance that there is/was nothing "there" so an investigation would be unwarranted, yet they disingenuously demanded an investigation of Trump.

Sanity needs to prevail. There needs to be sufficient (unbiased) evidence to trigger an investigation.

 

[vba_php]

this video has been posted on numerous boards and on facebook for days now. this is not new.

 

[moke123]

Telling a police officer "He punched me in the mouth" is an allegation. Telling a jury "He punched me in the mouth" is evidence.

 

[AccessBlaster]

this video has been posted on numerous boards and on facebook for days now. this is not new.

Its new to me, I don't venture onto social media much. Apologizes.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Telling a police officer "He punched me in the mouth" is an allegation. Telling a jury "He punched me in the mouth" is evidence.

We might get there, stay tuned.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Ha ha probably.

 

[vba_php]