patrick.net

anonymous says

This has been proven to be an absolute lie, due to transfer speeds. Metadata has shown the email files were copied to a flash drive DIRECTLY from the servers inside the DNC. There's zero evidence the data was hacked from a remote location. This is why the DNC won't let the FBI look at their computers.

The theory of one anonymous blogger called “The Forensicator” isn't proof of anything.

bob2356 says

proof of anything

That's exactly what we are missing. Proof of goddam anything!

Quigley says

1. Interfering with an FBI investigation? Cmon that's ridiculous

No, it's not. Firing a head cop for the expressed purpose of hindering the investigation that cop was conducting when you are integrity suspect in that investigation is the very definition of obstruction of justice. It's like if Al Capone had fired Eliot Ness.

It is ridiculous to assert that Trump was not obstructing justice.

Quigley says

2. I'm not aware of ANY perjury by Trump or his campaign, on any subject. Reminding you of course, that one is only able to commit perjury while under oath by a court or congress

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/11/donald-trump-jr-may-have-just-crossed-the-legal-line-on-collusion/?utm_term=.99b817459708

Jacobovitz said conspiracy to commit election fraud is the big legal fish Mueller and his team may be trying to fry. But they're probably also looking at a whole host of laws that could have been broken under this scenario: quid pro quo with the Russians, bribery, potential perjury related to what members of the Trump campaign said under oath to Congress and failing to disclose these contacts in official security forms.

And you can commit perjury without lying to Congress, as again, the Trump campaign did.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-jr-russia-email/533304/

“If the emails are probative of anything, it’s of any sworn statements [Trump Jr.], or others, might have made to federal investigators or on paperwork signed under penalty of perjury, where the meeting might either have been omitted or mischaracterized,” Vladeck said. Lying to federal investigators during an investigation is a felony offense.

OK, so now that you are aware of the evidence, you'll change your mind, right?

Quigley says

3. Yes, but his arm is crooked in that picture so it's fake!

A non-argument that carries no weight.

Quigley says

Could you BE any more grandiose and wrong at the same time? It's a high bar.

The facts are the facts, and you have failed to refute them. What you call grandiose, the rest of the world calls serious legal liability. Your attempts to make like of these facts and the legal issues does not detract from the gravity of the situation. If you tried to make such a defense to any judge, you'd lose big time.

Quigley says

That's exactly what we are missing. Proof of goddam anything!

What exactly would constitute proof by your standards?