Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thanks Tree5Thanks
  • 1 Post By Goofball
  • 3 Post By Rasselas
  • 1 Post By pragmatic

Thread: Jonathan Turley: Indictments mean NO TRUMP/RUSSIA COLLUSION.

  1. #1
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    49,333
    Thanks
    9924

    From
    United States

    Jonathan Turley: Indictments mean NO TRUMP/RUSSIA COLLUSION.

    Too bad, so sad.

    Time for libs to make up something else to use to try to overturn an election.


    Lewis Carroll once wrote in praise of adjectives, saying that “adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs.” That is certainly true with the latest indictments by special counsel Robert Mueller of 13 Russians for interfering with the 2016 presidential election. For the White House, the entire report comes down to a single adjective. Let’s see if you can spot it: The Russian defendants “communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”

    Despite a 37-page indictment with a long narrative on a coordinated Russian campaign of interference, the most newsworthy fact comes from the carefully placed adjective “unwitting.” It confirms that the special counsel has found no knowing coordination or collusion between these hackers and Trump officials. The indictment names 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities in alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election. It describes a coordinated effort by Russians, including the shadowy Internet Research Agency, to wage “information warfare” against the United States.

    That brings us back to “unwitting.” Not only did the indictment clearly say that no one in the Trump campaign was wittingly or knowingly involved with the Russians, it explains how the Russians used fake names and groups to hide their real identities. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave a press conference and drove home that point, stating that there was no evidence of any knowing involvement by the Trump campaign, as well as no evidence that this effort impacted the election. Indeed, Rosenstein stated that there is “no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge” of the Russian effort.
    For over a year, some of us have been questioning the weekly “bombshells” announced on cable programs of criminal Russian collusion. Indeed, for months I asked for someone to point to a crime of collusion in the criminal code or the criminal evidence to support a criminal indictment if such a related charge is made. With each week, experts have given breathless accounts of the circle of collusion tightening on the Trump campaign.

    Now, the special counsel and the deputy attorney general are saying that there is no evidence of knowing interaction of campaign staff with Russians interfering with the election. The paucity of such evidence follows a year of intensive investigation and the much heralded plea bargains with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and the expected plea with former campaign official Rick Gates. There is still no evidence of anyone “wittingly” or knowingly colluding with these Russians. Moreover, the indictment says that the Russian efforts began in 2014, long before the candidacy of Trump.

    Mueller indictments still miss the mark on Trump-Russia collusion | TheHill
    Thanks from excalibur

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,859
    Thanks
    36384

    From
    in my head
    Yet.

    You and Turley can draw this conclusion when the special counsel probe has been completed.

    Now go out and play a good second half.

  3. #3
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    4,568
    Thanks
    4589

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    Too bad, so sad.

    Time for libs to make up something else to use to try to overturn an election.







    Mueller indictments still miss the mark on Trump-Russia collusion | TheHill
    Jonathan who? lol.

  4. #4
    We choose both. Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    45,963
    Thanks
    27977

    From
    Wisconsin
    Turley has been shilling for the Republicans for many years now.

  5. #5
    Going Nuclear- Daily Yetisports6 - Big Wave Champion, Bezerk Champion, All Ball Champion, Magic Gem Champion, Crystal Clear Champion, Flower Power Champion, Space Thieves TD Champion, X-treme Moto Idiot Cross Champion, Micro Tanks Champion, Race Horse Tycoon Champion, Railway Line Champion, Raju Meter 2 Champion, Metal Slug - Kill the Nazis Champion, Decoder Champion, 1 in 24 Speed v32  Champion Crusher's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    26,701
    Thanks
    8329

    From
    California
    Turley is likely right. But, that statement was likely true before these Russians were exposed.

  6. #6
    Under Protest excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    10,818
    Thanks
    3453

    From
    The Milky Way
    Turley has been shilling for Republicans? LOL

    Oh, he took a case to court for them (and he won). So, in the world of the left, if you represent someone in court it means you are a shill. LOL

    Turley is on the left on many issues.

    Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda" have led liberal and progressive thinkers to consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian."

    Turley has nevertheless exhibited his disagreement with rigid ideological stances in contradiction to the established law with other stated and published opinions.

    In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he has called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley#Politics
    Last edited by excalibur; 17th February 2018 at 10:32 AM.

  7. #7
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    31,242
    Thanks
    19383

    From
    between Moon and NYC
    "Now, the special counsel and the deputy attorney general are saying that there is no evidence of knowing interaction of campaign staff with Russians interfering with the election."

    So that is where we are. No more. No less.
    Thanks from Crusher

  8. #8
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,859
    Thanks
    36384

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by pragmatic View Post
    "Now, the special counsel and the deputy attorney general are saying that there is no evidence of knowing interaction of campaign staff with Russians interfering with the election."

    So that is where we are. No more. No less.
    At the moment. I'm not sure you're conclusion is correct. Just because they didn't mention "evidence of knowing interaction" at this moment doesn't mean they don't have any. It just means that such interaction wasn't necessary to these indictments. Is a prosecutor required to reveal everything they know when they file an indictment, or do they just have to mention the information necessary to demonstrate the crime?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 4th December 2017, 02:29 PM
  2. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 31st October 2017, 07:59 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 19th May 2017, 05:51 AM
  4. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 19th November 2014, 06:01 PM
  5. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 4th March 2014, 11:59 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed