Raeford, I know about process crimes. While the term is meant by you to minimize the apparent severity of same, they are in fact highly consequential in this instance for several reasons. First, the alleged conspiracy is literally a threat to our very democracy; therefore obstructing the understanding and prosecution of same matters large. Second, since a sitting POTUS can't be indicted (probably), prosecutors have to approach the crime obliquely. Third, since the apparent ringleader-- POTUS-- is the nominal head of law enforcement in America the very existence of a huge cloud of lies and outright obstructionist behaviors across a small army of individuals close to said POTUS is, shall we say noteworthy.
Friend Raeford, I hope that helped YOU understand "process crimes" as they relate to this current moment. If not, feel free to PM me and I'll be glad to help you understand, and all in a very nonconfrontational manner.
But that's not why I chose to burn a few minutes here tonight on this wonderful discussion forum. I just wanted to point something out in case you guys had missed it, or, in your partisan blood frenzy, didn't give it proper weight. I don't mean "partisan blood frenzy" confrontationally, it's just my attempt to encapsulate what I'm seeing here. If it's an offensive term, please let me know how you'd LIKE to be described when you are foaming at the mouth and acting irrationally. I aims to please.
ANYway, silly me, I digress. Just wanted to point out what might've seen like just a lil ol' nuthin to you fellas, but in fact is an interesting semantics "tell"... to wit:
"....the question, and the big thing, is that the Mueller investigation is supposed to center on is whether or not the president in some outrageous way colluded with Russia and the answer to that is no.”
That's the esteemable Ms. Sanders. In the least confrontationalistic way possible, I just want to point out that goalpost has been moved yet again. Now we need "outrageous" collusion to move the needle, says Ms. Sanders. Also, she's factually incorrect WRT to Mueller's mandate.
Make of that what you will, my good and dear friends.
Lets see. Manafort charged with lying to the FBI. Flynn charged with lying. Cohen charged with lying. Stone charged with lying. Hummm. Are we seeing a pattern here? Msm jumps in with both feet on each case, blinded to justice by hate. No charges connected to Trump. Do you maybe see a hint of a pattern? Can you get a clue of anything unless CNN tells you to? Every time you and the press go crazy as a beagle and run the trail down a rabbit hole and catch nothing. TDS.
Did you evenn consider Sarah? Sarah Sanders asked when Hillary would be charged with lying.
You and the stupid and treasonous MSM have been suckered in.
The truths that are revealed to you on the Fire are comming in a way you wont ignore.
Its going to burn your ass.
Last edited by jaguartx; 01/26/19.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Again, I want to extend the warmest possible morning greetings to my fellow truth-seekers! As we progress together through this process of enlightenment it's my sincere wish that as the picture becomes clear to even you guys, it's as painless as possible.
Really! Any good debate requires two sides, and while the scales are certainly tilted towards my ongoing interpretation of events, in the sense that I've actually been lucky enough to be almost 100% correct, it bears remembering that you guys have not been 100% WRONG. I will refer you to my award-winning Numerical Analysis a few pages back for further illumination.
Aight, let's get to work. I'm sure we've all been wondering, on all sides of this, what the HELL is Rudy G. up to?! Why would a presidents' personal lawyer publically concede highly damning points that said POTUS has denied literally since the election? I mean, not to overuse the word, but it makes Trump out as a literal, serial, liar on multiple very important issues. So why would he do that?
Here's an insightful The Hill article asking just that. The Hill is hardly a bastion of liberalism so I offer this in good faith and in my continuing efforts to be as nonconfrontationalistic as possible.
In a nutshell, the author opines that Rudy G. knows what Trump revealed to Mueller in the written questions he filled out under oath, so he knows what's coming so to speak. And he finds himself acting as a sort of goofy short-necked "bridge" from the alt.facts based reality Trump has tried to create for you, dear friends, and the actual fact-based reality the rest of us inhabit. An unenviable task to be sure; given that he has now publically conceded that Trump had a major financial interest in Russia that Putin held the key to, and further that at a bare minimum there was campaign collusion with Russia. Notably, those are both things Trump lied about repeatedly and directly, and they both matter a LOT. Anyway, enough of my silly little analysis, here's the story itself.
So, I'm working today in the shop, cutting bearing pockets to a tolerance of a couple ten-thou as it happens, because I'm gonna take a couple days off early in the week to go slay fish and I don't want to feel guilty. While engaging, it does leave me some time to reflect on my many faults. On that note, I feel I need to do a better job explaining to Raeford the significance of a process crime in this specific case.
But first, now I'm worried that some here will feel I'm not practicing nonconfrontationalisticisms by mentioning I'm doing precision machine work for a high rate of pay. Guys, I KNOW for a fact that whatever work it is you do, it is meaningful! It's manly! It has VALUE. It's difficult, at least for you, because I know you want to achieve excellence just as I do. And I SALUTE your contributions to this fine nation's economy!! Salute!
Ok, so, process crimes. If the process being undertaken by LEO's is insignificant, such as let's say figuring out who's dog pooped on the sidewalk ILLEGALLY.... then yes, to prosecute for a process crime, in this case lying about one's dog shït, would be silly.
But now let's imagine something different. Let's imagine that a foreign adversary mounted an attack on the single most foundational principle of our democracy, namely free and fair elections. Without which, we'd be a banana republic. Let's further say that some unpatriotic Americans helped in this attack. I'd say that would bear investigating, wouldn't you agree? Good. (side note: This whole nonconfrontationalism stuff is sooooo much better than arguing in that regard!) At any rate, in such a case, process crimes- particularly impeding said investigation or even outright lying to investigators- becomes a pretty big deal, right fellas? It's literally interfering with an investigation into an attack on America! Man, that just gives me the all-over willies. In addition, of course, though I would never presume that the folks around Trump are anything but fine, upstanding, patriotic Americans I think we all have to agree that lying to impede the investigation of such an attack does make one seem a tad bit guilty. I mean, I wouldn't lie to the FBI investigating an attack on America! Nor would you fine people. Yet they did. It has a bad look to it, is all I'm saying.
So, friend Raeford, it turns out these process crimes are about as serious as a heart attack.
Sure is great sharing thoughts and most importantly FEELINGS with y'all as we search for the evil perpetrators of this attack. You guys are the BEST and I value our relationship beyond my meager abilities to express. Have a great day, guys!
After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.
Well, rumor has it Mueller drops his report soon. Clearly, the public will end up seeing it one way or the other; I don't think Barr is a Trump patsy and there's certainly significant, shall we say, public interest in transparency here.
We already know via his own lawyer's screwup that Trump's campaign manager (Manafort) actively colluded. Whether the conspiracy to defraud America extended to Donald Trump Sr. is really the only question left at this point. We also know that POTUS and basically everyone around him lied their asses off and attempted to impede and, let's just use the word, obstruct the investigation at every turn. Not a good look, that. Not what, oh I don't know, "innocent people" generally do?
But, we will find out sooner than later, it appears.
But, we will find out sooner than later, it appears.
Phuuuck..........I hope so! You’ve been growing more and more manic about how imminent repercussions were coming for a while now. I’m genuinely interested as to what you’re going to do when your fantasyland comes crashing in.
Hopefully the THC keeps you from doing anything too final.
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/1bbc7pg.gif)
