What Exactly Are Mueller's Russians Supposed To Be Guilty Of?

UsualName said:
I would expect the indictments of Russian government officials to come in a separate tranche.
More...

That may be but you replied to posters who were asking about what the crime was in the current set of indictments.

Might want to save the reference to "foreign governments" until it applies although we know that the lefty ilk has created an atmosphere where to just say the word "Russian" is supposed to automatically subsume a whole set of crimes and connections. That may work over on in the opinion section on Salon and Huffpo but in a court of law- not so much.
 
Donald Trump warned in an interview Tuesday that Hillary Clinton's policies as president to address the Syrian conflict would lead to World War III, arguing the Democratic nominee would draw the US into armed confrontation with Russia, Syria and Iran.

"What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," Trump told Reuters on Tuesday morning at his resort in Doral, Florida. "You're going to end up in World War III over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton."
The Republican nominee, who has called for a rapprochement with Russia in order to jointly combat ISIS, argued that his Democratic rival's calls for taking a more aggressive posture in Syria to bring the conflict there to an end and combat ISIS will only draw the US into a larger war. Trump's remarks come as he trails Clinton in most national and key battleground state polls just two weeks from Election Day.


"You're not fighting Syria anymore, you're fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-world-war-iii-syria/index.html

trump was correct.
hillary screwed up everything she did.
she screwed up libya
she and Obama created Isis and armed them by "arming moderate" al queda types.
she was dangerous with her failed policies.
and don't even get me started on Obama and getting nukes to Iran
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
That may be but you replied to posters who were asking about what the crime was in the current set of indictments.

Might want to save the reference to "foreign governments" until it applies although we know that the lefty ilk has created an atmosphere where to just say the word "Russian" is supposed to automatically subsume a whole set of crimes and connections. That may work over on in the opinion section on Salon and Huffpo but in a court of law- not so much.
More...

Let me remind you 17 intelligence agencies identified the Russian government as interfering in the 2016 presidential election. It’s not an opinion.
 
UsualName said:
Let me remind you 17 intelligence agencies identified the Russian government as interfering in the 2016 presidential election. It’s not an opinion.
More...

Again, and I know this is difficult for the binary mind, but the discussion was around and in response to what was alleged in the indictment- including your response. What may be "proven" elsewhere or in a future case is neither here nor there. Mueller did not allege in the current set of indictments that the defendants were foreign agents- PERIOD.

If Hillary or one of the many other dem or fbi criminal are indicted for something then their understanding of what they are charged with is set forth or is required to be set forth in the indictment. The fact that we know of all sorts of other crimes she or her colluding dem colleagues may or could be charged with at some future point is not responsive to what she is being charged with in that indictment. Jem and, I think AA, were asking what the charges or allegations were in this indictment/s.

It is not part of our legal process to notify a defendant of charges/allegations as specified in the indictment AND SUCH OTHER CRIMES AS USUAL NAME BELIEVES TO BE TRUE OR HAS EVIDENCE IS TRUE. Just doesn't work that way yet.
 
Last edited:
DWe-lBOVAAE7Jeo.jpg
 
Ha!

If Hillary thought that a handful of Russians could be so effective at controlling an election, why didn't she just make arrangements- behind the scene- to have a British agent hire current or former KGB agents to find dirt on Trump. Did she ever think of doing that?

:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top