Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics Forum' started by Blk04L, Dec 5, 2018.
Are we done here? I’m not sure what your saying is wrong. The text looks clear to me
You are so close and yet so far. There are two words above the word "defendant" and before the words "et. al." The other parties are the et. al. parties. The two words are in capital letters. This party is the primary defendant. That is why this party is so named.
It's time for you two to get a room.
We have 6 children together. It’s a complicated arrangement, but ya.
You should read the 1st paragraph of the report.
Paraphrasing very closely:
“the plaintiff brings this action against the campaign, Donald J Trump Jr., Paul J Manifort, Jared Kushner, George Popodapolous, and Richard W Gates, (collectively the campaign defendants), Roger J stone, the Russian federation, Aras russianguy, Emin foreignguy, JOSEPH MIFSID (I just saw this and have a lot I will explain in a sec), Wikileaks, and Julian Assange.”
It also states Trump Jr. in like 5 places and was obviously attempting to scare the President into submitting to save his son. I’d personally counter sue hard, which they did. I believe all the counter suits were also denied.
Now to something new!!!! Teacher call on me, I need the attention!!!
Joseph Mifsid is an asset so discovery here is very interesting. Depending how the Trump campaign went about that little land mine could inadvertently close a pandora box on a different situation. That’s very interesting.
See by accepting that the judge here is correct in denouncing these claims, which oddly contain an action against Mifsid, it creates precedent that the Trump campaign and arguably Trump feel Mifsid is not of bad character or they would accordingly call to order their points on Mifsid, but doing so would muddy this ruling and diminish its value by dragging it out for further scrutiny.
Do you take the easy win but give the arguably corrupt intelligence community their out, or do you go through the process to actively (in this case retroactively) classify Mifsid from the account via showing this judge he’s being investigated in other avenues? Now the cat comes outta the bag.
Thing is by not doing so, now the ongoing investigation into Mifsid’s activity and it’s correlation to deeper state actors like Brennan and Clapper and ultimately the orderer IE the obama administration, and Obama himself circa June 2016, has just became a harder tale to expose.
Imo, This case was quickly handled and “given” to the Trump campaign as such to protect Mifsid who is of far greater importance assumed innocent than known as guilty to criminal actors in relation to this “matter”
Ok. Attention appeased
Imo this lawsuit was a cya event that was drafted so as to fail in court, and media outlets were given talkin points of how to cover it to continue the ridiculousness we have become subject to for 2.5 years.
Again, Trump sanctioned Russia hard enough to arguably prompt a nuclear war... take that in context
I'm now thinking, I've never seen so much bullshit tossed back & fro, possibly in my entire life.
Lol, we’ll i laughed
When I saw Joseph Mifsud as a defendant, I was like WTF? Just like you tt335. Why did Jim Jordon bring him up last week if he was working with the Trump campaign enough (at all) to be mentioned in this suit? There are a lot of WTF's in this development. Are the Dems turning on him? He was the guy that started this whole thing with his little quip about Russia having dirt on HRC. Where he got his "info" or talking points has got to be a source of an ongoing investigation with Durhum.
He’s the burnable double agent sent in, pulled out. The low hanging fruit, the firewall.
I will lose all faith in the entire drain the swamp movement and it’s validity if he ends up going down as a good guy, and the link to the crime network dries up.
Nothing lines up if you take mifsid out.
I’m glad at least one other person has seen how crucial he is.
He is the double agent tasked with getting to trump campaign with Russian dirt. He’s the setup guy. The “free lunch, here take it” guy.
I’m sure President Trumps legal team is 5 steps ahead of us on this. I hope anyways.
Coats out, ig report signaling prosecution of comie, Epstein incarcerated, tons and tons and tons of other events...it all leads me to think we are working towards draining the swamp.
I have read the motion (its not a "report") and am quite comfortable with my understanding of what it is communicating.
The other parties are not the primary defendant, I am not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. The judge explicitly uses the language of "primary" and "secondary" to describe the defendants. There is a reason why one defendant is named on the cover page. Maybe you missed this?
A follow up question. The motion to dismiss against the primary defendant was based solely on the legal question of who is allowed to sue a country. The motion to dismiss against the other parties was based on ________? Fill in the blank for me. Hint: it states explicitly in the doc. If you search for "motion to dismiss" you will find it. Second hint: it has nothing to do with your "interpretation" thus far.
I will give you a third hint that the motion to dismiss against the secondary defendants was more about freedom of the press than anything else.
A final question: Trump lawyers asked for sanctions against DNC for filing lawsuit but were denied. In two sentences or less, what was the judges explanation as to why these were denied?
Ya, pesky first amendment and all that. It was dismissed because it's not against the law to disseminate information that you didn't have a hand in stealing. I guess I'm not sure what you're arguing? You're correct about not being able to sue a country but you're also correct that these other motions have been dismissed for a third time?
Just reread the first 20 pages. Cliff notes:
Cover says “Russian federation et al.” as defendants. You’re mistaken. Et al is a phrase meaning and all.
Defendants all listed 1st paragraph
Judge prefaces with the key word alleged before deeper dive.
Judge assumes alleged info true to allow for 1st and 2nd level defendant defense.
In doing so, he also mentions he’s doing so because there is no evidence provided that the campaign solicited or gathered any info. Finding opposition research, regardless of who offers it, is only a crime if one is complicit in illegal activity to obtain it. Nowhere was evidence shown that the campaign cheered on hacking or illegal collection. The info was offered as material, not material available if illegally hacked and paid for via favor or asset exchange.
10 pages carryon of alleged and assumed true activity. Later it will show that regardless of any of that being true or not, there is no evidence the second level defendants engaged in it.
Later it will explain that the second level defendants have a 1st amendment and what that entails.
Yer gun is shooting blanks
Ding ding ding. Now that was not so hard, was it? Note that this has nothing to do with the fact of interference, which is accepted as true. I agree with the ruling BTW.
Now that we are on the same page, essentially the judge ruled that it is OK for the Trump campaign to have cooperated with Russia since they used an intermediary. So, you will be cool with this if dems use same argument to cooperate with China, right?
This is getting boring. Do not take it personally but you are struggling to grasp the basics of the ruling. Maybe its me Regardless, lets just agree to disagree.
That's taking it out of context. Let's put it back for posterity sake "so heavily slanted and written by who knows".
Nice try Comrade. Nothing to be afraid of. Just not so hung up on fantasy like you are. Best of luck arguing with the resident tinfoil hat SVTP member.
That’s not what was ruled so it won’t end up pertaining to Democrats in the future.
The judge ruled its ok for the trump campaign et al to have a first amendment protection to releasing info, basically whistleblower clause.
I had no problem with this when I was a sperm in my dads crotch in the 70’s and the whistleblower clause allowed the dems to do what they chose to do with their first amendment rights.
Do you retroactively have a problem with the dems use of it during Nixon now that the trump campaign et al may have done similar? Seems a tough line to walk.
Also, you’re not going to be very believable to me if you want me to believe you don’t think every political campaign engages in some forms of questionable opposition research. China talks with tons of dems, I don’t see you making a deal about that. Too uninteresting to carry this cross when it doesn’t suite fancy? Seems slanted and biased