Rudy's Henchmen Arrested

Two associates of Rudy Giuliani connected to efforts to dig up dirt in Ukraine on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden were arrested trying to leave the country and indicted on criminal charges for allegedly funneling foreign money into US elections.

The charges against the men suggest Giuliani's push on Ukraine and President Donald Trump's receptiveness to it had ties to an illegal effort to influence US politics and policy using foreign funds. The indictment involves two people central to the impeachment inquiry in the House.

Link

It appears they were trying to flee the country and Rudy had lunch with them just hours before their arrest. 

The "key" phrases in this biased article are; "Two associates of Rudy Giuliani connected to efforts to dig up dirt in Ukraine on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden- and-The charges against the men suggest -and-It appears they were trying to flee "------ more lying liberal speculation with no factual foundation. In other words, making shit up, again, to cloud reality.

You know it actually says right in the article they were planning to leave the country and the Feds had to arrest them a day earlier than planned. 

What is illegal about leaving the country? People leave the country every day. Using the word "flee" insunates that their leaving was an illegal endeavor in play.

There is nothing illegal about leaving the country, but if you leave the country on the eve of being indicted it is presented as evidence in your trial that you are gulity as you didn't think it was worthwile staying in the U.S. to mount a defense of your actions. They had one-way tickets by the way.  Oh, and the best part is Rudy was plainning to meet them in Vienna a day after they fled. 

Once again, you assume they knew they would be indicted. How do you know this? So what if they had one way tickets. How do you know if they were going to meet Rudy the next day and what is illegal about meeting him? You state YOUR assumptions as if they are proven facts, when in reality, they are YOUR assumptions, or, in reality, lies that you make without facts to back them up. Nothing has changed with you.

Once again, you assume they knew they would be indicted. How do you know this?  Just like I know someone found with a murder weapon shortly after the crime is committed is likely the one that did it. 

How do you know if they were going to meet Rudy the next day and what is illegal about meeting him? 

Rudy told a reporter he was going to Vienna the day before. It is not illegal, but again it is evidence that he was part of their illegal conspircy that would be presented at trial. It isn't illegal to have a knife on you, but if you used it to murder someone, it is evidence you murdered someone. Get it? 

You state YOUR assumptions as if they are proven facts, when in reality, they are YOUR assumptions, or, in reality, lies that you make without facts to back them up. Nothing has changed with you.

If you are found alone standing over a body holding a bloody knife seconds after the victim was stabbed it creates a pretty strong assumption you are the one that stabbed that person. I'd say there is a 99% chance you will be found to have stabbed that person at trial. 

It is you that is being untruthful. You are taking two felons that booked a oneway flight overseas a day before they were to be indicted and concluded they likely have an innocent reason for doing so. In reality, most non-biased people looking at these facts would say these two were fleeing.

You distort that simple truth and say well because it is not 100% certain they are innocent.  >>>>>  That is not how the real world works.  If you were honest, you would say something like it looks bad, I suspect they did it, it is likely they did it and or they probably did it. You wouldn't say they were innocent or that there is no proof they did because in actuality there is quite a bit of proof that is what they were doing. In fact, all of the publicly disclosed evidence at this point indicates they were fleeing. There is no publicly disclosed evidence that indicates they had an innocent reason for the trip.

A rational person weighs the evidence available to them and doesn't invent new purely theoretical evidence to conclude that the real evidence in existance dosen't prove anything. We will know shortly because if they were fleeing the prosecutors will argue for higher bail or no bail and present evidence they were fleeing. 

I am tired of this BS argument, and I am going to call you on it every time you make it from now on. 

In other words, you have no evidence or proven facts to back up your lies. As usual. There is no argument here - just you making shit up and me calling you out on your lies. If you don't like it , then quit lying. Simple, even you should be able to understand it.

Again, you are distorting the truth to fit your arguments. There is evidence and all the evidence at this point indicates they were fleeing. You are saying what is defined as evidence in the U.S. doesn't really count because theoretically there is some evidence out there in existence that might prove they had an innocent reason for doing what they did. 

You are a lying liar David or you simply have no understanding of how criminal trials are conducted in the United States or even the meaning of simple legal terms like evidence. I suggest you educate yourself if you want your arguments to be taken seriously outside your circle of Facebook friends. 

Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

David, What is the available body of facts saying in this case?

Facts Proving They Were Fleeing:

1.  They were a day from being indicted

2.  The met with Rudy at Lunch

3.  Shortly thereafter they tried to get on a plane to take them overseas with no return tickets.

Facts Proving They Were Not Fleeing:

Nada, none, zilch, nothing, zero, scratch, diddly, nihility, nil...

Once again, all of your "facts" are nothing but assumptions of a possible wrongdoing. And you are correct, I don't have your perceived definition of "evidence" that is wholy based on unrelated facts that have been strung together to form your twisted view of reality. Did they know they were about to be indicted? You did not answer that question because you don't know. So they had lunch with Rudy - what does that mean, that they had lunch is all you really know. Why they had lunch has not been addressed, only speculated by you. People fly overseas everyday with one way tickets. Are we going to arrest every one of them? You got nothing, just your speculation. When you have some verifyable facts, then state them. Until then, I will call you out each and everytime you post unfounded lies. Facts- a thing that is known or proved to be true.