can i get a hold of Comey's crystal ball he used to know what Flynn would say? powerball is lookin fat.

4d chess my man

Just to expand now that I'm at a computer

It depends what context you say "Trump family Watergate". I think this is definitely going to be a major association with his presidency for a long long time, for better or worse. However I never made a claim that there's definitely collusion, only that there's enough for an investigation to be warranted.

I never said the economy was going to "crash and burn", I said Trump was riding trends that were already present when he took office, specifically pointing out the good and the bad. (i.e. Trump hasn't fixed any underlying issues with the economy, but hasn't done much to dent the growth that was present before he took office).

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=72969075&f=119&o=14530
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=72969075&f=119&p=530477851
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=78998971&f=119&p=532996688
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=72969075&f=119&o=16450
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=72969075&f=119&p=530322605
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=72969075&f=119&p=530334904
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=72969075&f=119&p=530452850

Jared Kushner is currently unveiling a major immigration reform plan and soon will be rolling out his mideast peace plan
...not sitting in prison

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 16 2019 06:00pm

So you got me on pointing out that Trump is riding Obama's fundamentals on the economy, which is basically impossible to avoid if you've only been in office 8 months.

And pointing out that investigations don't happen over night.

I get it, I said Watergate so clearly I must have thought Trump was guilty. Can't be that I was using an example of a guilty investigation that took years to show that investigations aren't automatically worthless if they take time to conclude.

Kushner didn't get brought up on charges though, you're right on that one. Mueller actually wrote in his report that much of his staff was saved by genuinely not knowing campaign law so they couldn't have knowingly broken them.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 16 2019 06:07pm

*LAUGH OUT LOUD*

Little fella thor has been wrong about Trump since the get-go. Even flat-earther tried to explain it to thor when his campaign started in 2015 http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=72969075&f=119&p=492417859 and http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=72969075&f=119&p=492418245

but as usual thor ended up getting intellectually bamboozled, by flat-earther of all people

it’s no surprise he’s been denying math and the election since Trump won it

This post was edited by excellence on May 16 2019 07:06pm

The view that the investigation was baseless or that there was no wrongdoing found is further from the truth than the belief that it was reasonable to think the campaign colluded.

It's sort of like people who predicted Trump would win the election. They ended up being right, but it wasn't because they were viewing the facts in a dispassionate, objective way. Based on the evidence that was available at the time, the most reasonable positions were that Hillary winning was highly likely and the Trump campaign colluding was fairly likely.

there isn't a dichotomy between the investigation being baseless or entirely by the book
We have ample proof that large chunks of the investigation was done improperly and clearly influenced by bias, but just how poisoned it was from its inception- through a lens of legal, ethical and political considerations- is up in the air. There's not enough evidence to prove some conspiracy theory that the entire thing was a setup and built up purely as an operation to spy on Trump and influence the election. But there is enough evidence for me to say that it violated the concept that you shouldn't touch the third rail of spying on a political campaign without compelling evidence of an imminent threat. The whole 'reaching into the queen's blouse' thing. We've seen enough to say that at best they had dubious evidence, far-fetched rumors and guilt by association. Nothing that should have been considered credible in the first place, let alone compelling enough to justify the extreme steps that threaten the fabric of democracy.

We could have Horowitz come back and conclude that the FISA wiretaps were obtained unlawfully every single time like Joe diGenova is claiming- even saying he has a grand jury right now- and yet he might still decline to charge anyone or say the investigation itself was poisoned by any such misconduct, simply calling it moot now that the report is out. We might have Barr's lackeys do a big review and say that top officials at the FBI abused their powers and allowed politics to interfere in their duties, and decline to charge them and simply set out a list of reforms to avoid a repeat.

you might want to watch this, debunking your whole ridiculous spin comprehensively: