• Welcome to SVTPerformance!

Mueller Thread

Discussion in 'Politics Forum' started by Blk04L, Dec 5, 2018.

  1. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,959
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    I am just quoting from the doc that @tt335ci03cobra is referring to. He seems to think that it says one thing but it in fact says the literal opposite of what he thinks it says.

    I assume you have read the Mueller report, correct? If not, why do you have an opinion on it? You are familiar with OLC opinion as the basis for not charging obstruction, correct?
     
  2. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    You’re quoting the text expanding on the allegations from the prosecutors.

    This country’s legal system functions on innocent until proven guilty. That’s what you’ve mixed up. Happens often, I’m sure mal intent. Re read the 1st page, and the 2nd page. You’re quoting the prosecutors (lawyers of dnc) position and opinion. The judge gave a lot of space to show their view point. He goes on to show the defenses view point as well later. Usually these reports start off with the cases intro, judges verdict, judges quick opinion, then discusses at length the plaintiffs position, followed by the defendants responses and exculpatory or clearing information, then closes with a quick recap. I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on the Internet.

    I can’t say, but I think you’ve used a filter to read the areas where the judge expands and covers the dnc’s allegations.

    I read that but glossed over it to where the judge explains he finds them unfounded and unproven. The evidence produced was

    1. Info was “hacked and stolen”, we promise! Here look! Our servers were breeched! By Russians!

    2. Obviously the Russians helped Trump because Trump won by spreading this info that the Russians got for him!!! Fact, 200% promise!!!

    3. The dnc suffered a huge financial and political impact! We need restitution and a huge political win! Find Trump and his people guilty of everything and times it by 6!!!

    The judge threw this out quick and easy because it was meritless and infringed on the 1st amendment.

    My opinion.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  3. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,959
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    Correct, but you stated that the judge ruled on the facts. He didnt. He accepted the DNCs claims on all of these items as true. It literally says that in the doc. So if you think that this is a win because the judge ruled that DNC claims regarding Russian interference were false you are wrong. This is spelled out in very plain language in the ruling. Not my opinion.
     
  4. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    I didn’t see that, I saw a line such as “given the dnc’s position to be true, it still doesn’t matter because it’s filed wrong.”

    As in a double strike against the clause.

    1. Judge determined the allegations were unproven.

    2. Judge determined the allegations were improperly filed.
     
  5. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    A5CEEB0C-CD2B-4328-92E1-3B5A8199B491.jpeg E9B77BFD-105C-4028-B668-FED1811B091F.jpeg

    This is lockstep with what I took away and it’s all of 4 pages in.
     
  6. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    Further, if you read that line about what legal or state actions exist to demerit a foreign body that conducts criminal activity against the us, or it’s citizens or corps, they list sanctions as a viable state action.

    Donald Trump put many sanctions on Russia and tightened them further as the crap swelled from Russian interests. He’s said he can continue to do so or they can cut the shit. He doesn’t want or need their “help” and by sanctioning them heavy, proved he’s not lying imo.
     
    Klaus likes this.
  7. capnkirk52

    capnkirk52 Eat more POTATOES!!! Established Member

    Messages:
    5,439
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Location:
    Center, CO
    In the three points made by the Judge around page 46-50, he clearly states that the DNC is mistaken and why the motions are dismissed.
     
    Klaus and tt335ci03cobra like this.
  8. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    Yep
     
    Klaus likes this.
  9. T.Man

    T.Man Active Member Established Member

    Messages:
    654
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Location:
    The Desert
    I choose not to read that members posts.


    I have no desire to read something so heavily slanted and written by who knows. Kind of like reading the Bible for me. Garbage information being passed on by who knows. Yes, I'm familiar with the opinion you mentioned but if the facts were so damning as you seem to believe and continue to regurgitate, that whole opinion could and would be thrown out the window. It's an opinion, not law. It guides but doesn't strictly enforce anything.
     
    Klaus likes this.
  10. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,959
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    That's cool. I prefer to be informed on the stuff that I have an opinion on rather than regurgitate other's opinion. It is nothing to afraid of, maybe you should read it?
     
    Methodm947 and tt335ci03cobra like this.
  11. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,959
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    @capnkirk52 @tt335ci03cobra

    Fellas, do me a favor. tell me
    1. who is the primary defendant in this case?
    2. quote verbatim why the case is dismissed against the primary defendent.
    3. quote what comes after the phrase "accepted as true."

    Not looking for your interpretation, just what the direct quote is from the motion.
    thanks
     
  12. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,959
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    That is your interpretation but it is not the correct interpretation. The judge explicitly accepts Russian interference as true.

    Correct. The whole reason that motion was denied was because DNC cannot sue the Russian Federation.
     
  13. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    Thankfully this is the first and last time I can recall reading one of your posts.

    Run free and do as you please, I’d pity you if you spitefully read my posts just to banter back objections at me so thanks for saving us both time and energy.

    Regarding bible bashing, that’s your freedom to do so. I assume you live in the USA, if you do, this is a country that has freedoms. If you lived in an Arabic or totalitarian country, you’d be unable to jocularly represent the predominant religion of the land without facing death or jail time. Let that at least resonate with you however much you chose to or not to.

    Good wishes and safe travels, no bad blood or pretending to be anything here towards you. I’d rather flat tell you something than beat around a bush or whatever this post was meant to be.
     
  14. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    1. Donald Trump jr*, Popadopolaus, etc, Trump election campaign and members, and those who passed on the information assumed hacked by the Russian federation. The plastif is the Trump campaign. That’s a no questions basis. Donald Trump and the campaign would not hire lawyers to defend the Russian federation. The sought outcomes were against Trump campaign et al, not solely the Russian federation.

    2. (In process of editing. Will return with pic.)
    Edit

    498E537B-1189-4DB8-AD88-D70827EC5017.jpeg

    3. (In process of editing. Will return with pic.)
    Edit
    As requested
    D8D1123C-B662-4E6D-A559-319F0E94EC87.jpeg

    With context to make even more obvious that it’s likely you’re mistaken A12ED81A-7120-415E-B31C-CD433CDE84D5.jpeg

    The question isn’t whether Russians hacked or not. The judge assumes the allegation true so that he can show cause and precedent where regardless of the source of information gathering, releasing the information is guarded by the 1st amendment. He lists multiple court cases as precedent. Those cases had similar 1st amendment ambiguity’s that were clarified by similar interpretations of the 1st amendment.

    Your second paragraph is incorrect in my opinion. The entire case was denied because regardless of the Russian federations actions, the judge found the defendants were a: not proven to have conspired to attain the infor from the Russians, this being the case regardless of whether the Russians did or don’t hack any of it. By saying granted the Russians meddled; no. The judge is signifying that the source is not the defendant so the sought damages and restitution’s are not viable. Case dissmissed.

    Further the Judge, almost entering political assessment, confirms that the proper course of action for the dnc would be to seek posturing with the state to produce sanctions on Russia. What’s very telling here is that the presidential campaign being sued for grievance did just that to a larger scale than scrutiny would dictate necessary-lest we seek nuclear retaliation or other war (imo).

    The judge is likely aware that the the president has indeed sanctioned Russia heavily.

    Please assume the best of my explanations, I’m implying and offering no animosity or negative energy. I get that it may read as such, but I would openly say I was moved to anger or so on if I was. Please let me know if I am frustrating you, I feel like we might be going in circles. My understanding of law is innocent until proven guilty.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  15. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,959
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    Nothing in your reply is correct. Do you want to try again? Hint it is on the first page above the word "defendent." I can point you to the correct answers on "2" and "3" if you would like, as well. LMK.
     
  16. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    Sorry champ, but the document reads clear. I’ll post the 1st 5 pages.
     
  17. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    A71F126B-0A55-4140-88F2-BCEC8ADA9B13.jpeg Page 1.
     
  18. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    C6B8C1AC-B0A1-4E80-894C-F399A49A74E5.jpeg Page 2
     
  19. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    896D4358-26BE-4525-B89C-34E23C4FDB60.jpeg Page 3
     
  20. tt335ci03cobra

    tt335ci03cobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    5,804
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    5DFC3A31-238B-4588-9FA1-0EFA217376DE.jpeg Page 4
     

Share This Page