1. #21801
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    ^^ Sigh.

    Please note that Barr did not have to make any of the report public. Yes, for real. You say above that "Trump is doing his best to keep it all hidden" and it falls flat onto its face five seconds into the matter. If Trump was doing his best to keep it all hidden, we'd have had no report published to date. (Not even talking about Trump being able to fire Mueller at any point during the investigation and a ton of similar things.)

    Same for "Trump wouldn't be stonewalling evidence that makes him look good" - there have been lifts of redactions and the less redacted version of the report was available to the top dems / reps for quite some time. The reps looked into it, commented that the redactions in the public version do not contain anything that would run counter to the conclusion and are just technical. The dems deliberately chose not to look into it, because they know there is nothing there and they think they have a better game pretending that they are being denied access to the report while they are not.

    Nothing but cheap soundbites that end up being deceiving...

    Waiting for next portion of BS next week, wondering what it's going to be (not directed at you personally, directed at the thread).
    Are you suggesting that this is all theater?

  2. #21802
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Are you suggesting that this is all theater?
    The dems pretending that they want full access to the report and are denied it? Yes, that's theater, an insincere pose.

    Or what do you mean?

  3. #21803
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    The dems pretending that they want full access to the report and are denied it? Yes, that's theater, an insincere pose.
    You don’t mean that when it comes to Trump, transparency is not a virtue? Just like with tax returns, every candidate that ran since Nixon from DNC or RNC, didn’t have to release their taxes. Trump is the only one that didn’t. The report on Hillary email investigation is up on the FBI site. You have to fight in courts to get any truth out of Trump... which if you paid attention to Trump’s 30+ years in the public eye, is exactly what Trump’s MO is.
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell

  4. #21804
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    The dems pretending that they want full access to the report and are denied it? Yes, that's theater, an insincere pose.
    And it is frequently used pose on both sides too.

    Check this:
    Nunes demands Justice Department records. Then he doesn't read them.
    As Nunes has moved aggressively to publicly sow doubt about the Russia investigation, the moment marked at least the second time that he has demanded sensitive documents from the Justice Department, only to choose not to read them -- allowing his staff or Gowdy to pore through the materials instead. The California Republican admitted in February that he did not read any applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
    His supporters say there's nothing untoward about a chairman being briefed by his staff. But critics say it's another sign Nunes is merely interested in wielding his power to target his political enemies and give cover to Trump, rather than independently learning about the nuances of a complex investigation.

  5. #21805
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    ^^ Sigh.

    Please note that Barr did not have to make any of the report public. Yes, for real. You say above that "Trump is doing his best to keep it all hidden" and it falls flat onto its face five seconds into the matter. If Trump was doing his best to keep it all hidden, we'd have had no report published to date. (Not even talking about Trump being able to fire Mueller at any point during the investigation and a ton of similar things.)

    Same for "Trump wouldn't be stonewalling evidence that makes him look good" - there have been lifts of redactions and the less redacted version of the report was available to the top dems / reps for quite some time. The reps looked into it, commented that the redactions in the public version do not contain anything that would run counter to the conclusion and are just technical. The dems deliberately chose not to look into it, because they know there is nothing there and they think they have a better game pretending that they are being denied access to the report while they are not.

    Nothing but cheap soundbites that end up being deceiving...

    Waiting for next portion of BS next week, wondering what it's going to be (not directed at you personally, directed at the thread).
    You specifically have been point for point corrected on nearly everything you say here, and pretty much all of your last 30 posts, yet you continue to post the same thing over and over. At some point you're either flat out trolling or just spamming, and now we're three hills past that point, looking back and waving.

  6. #21806
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapemask View Post
    You specifically have been point for point corrected on nearly everything you say here, and pretty much all of your last 30 posts, yet you continue to post the same thing over and over. At some point you're either flat out trolling or just spamming, and now we're three hills past that point, looking back and waving.
    I keep hearing these stories that I specifically has been point-for-point corrected on nearly everything, and stories that I have been lying or posting in bad faith, but every time I hear this there are zero examples.

    What are you talking about with your "specifically"? Link me those cases. Put up or shut up.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    And it is frequently used pose on both sides too.

    Check this:
    Nunes demands Justice Department records. Then he doesn't read them.
    As Nunes has moved aggressively to publicly sow doubt about the Russia investigation, the moment marked at least the second time that he has demanded sensitive documents from the Justice Department, only to choose not to read them -- allowing his staff or Gowdy to pore through the materials instead. The California Republican admitted in February that he did not read any applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
    His supporters say there's nothing untoward about a chairman being briefed by his staff. But critics say it's another sign Nunes is merely interested in wielding his power to target his political enemies and give cover to Trump, rather than independently learning about the nuances of a complex investigation.
    Well, yes.

    This all current post-report circus, the way I see it, is essentially this:

    The Trump camp / Barr / whoever know that no matter what they do, they are going to have to fight the dems sooner or later. Because the dems just constantly jump demanding more and more. They cannot get anything implicating Trump enough from the report, so they just pick on everything and they won't stop on their own. So, it's not a question of if Barr / whoever is at the spear is going to have to fight, it's a question of where the fight will happen. So, for now, we see this nonsense about who will testify and who won't and about the executive privilege regarding this. This is all temporary. Same as the dems are in it for the show, Barr is also not putting everything into not testifying - he will testify alright should that become better. It all is a stupid game, this time it was started by the dems. The reps did their fair share of such games as well.

    (What's beyond me is the anti-Trump posters in this and other threads who think this is the fight for freedom, blind to really obvious dishonest tricks of their side.)

  7. #21807
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    I keep hearing these stories that I specifically has been point-for-point corrected on nearly everything, and stories that I have been lying or posting in bad faith, but every time I hear this there are zero examples.

    What are you talking about with your "specifically"? Link me those cases. Put up or shut up.
    Hmm. Interesting. Then right under you post:

    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    They cannot get anything implicating Trump enough from the report, so they just pick on everything and they won't stop on their own.
    You do realise that there was just hundreds of former Federal prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples where Trump was implicated by the report to the extent that he would already be facing charges if he weren't President? Because what you've just written there suggests that you don't know that. Or that you are deliberately posting misinformation to try and cloud the issue. There isn't a third option.
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.

    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Brexophilia: The act of rubbing yourself against dead political ideas for sexual pleasure.

  8. #21808
    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    You do realise that there was just hundreds of former Federal prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples where Trump was implicated by the report to the extent that he would already be facing charges if he weren't President? Because what you've just written there suggests that you don't know that. Or that you are deliberately posting misinformation to try and cloud the issue. There isn't a third option.
    I know about that, you could have just asked.

    There are hundreds of former fed prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples of Trump doing the wrong thing. They are entitled to their opinion. But that's just an opinion. It starts becoming more than just an opinion when some of them will be in the position to actually take this report for real and act on it, turning it into a case if their opinion stands, etc. Currently, Mueller was in such a position. He failed to recommend indictment. If you are saying that an opinion of hundreds of former fed prosecutors should be somehow preferred to the opinion of Mueller, well, go ahead and fight for that, I suppose, but you won't have much support.

  9. #21809
    Immortal Fahrenheit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    7,073
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    I know about that, you could have just asked.

    There are hundreds of former fed prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples of Trump doing the wrong thing. They are entitled to their opinion. But that's just an opinion. It starts becoming more than just an opinion when some of them will be in the position to actually take this report for real and act on it, turning it into a case if their opinion stands, etc. Currently, Mueller was in such a position. He failed to recommend indictment. If you are saying that an opinion of hundreds of former fed prosecutors should be somehow preferred to the opinion of Mueller, well, go ahead and fight for that, I suppose, but you won't have much support.
    Because he couldn't. If Trump were anyone beside POTUS, he'd have been indicted already. Mueller's whole point was to kick it to Congress for them to mull over impeachment, but Barr ran interference purposely to shape the public narrative to be as pro-Trump as much as he could before the bulk of the report came out.

    Essentially, the report was about as bad as it possibly could've been, at least in regards to Obstruction, with the rules Mueller set up for himself initially.
    Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
    You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.

    Sovereign
    Mass Effect

  10. #21810
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    I know about that, you could have just asked.

    There are hundreds of former fed prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples of Trump doing the wrong thing. They are entitled to their opinion. But that's just an opinion. It starts becoming more than just an opinion when some of them will be in the position to actually take this report for real and act on it, turning it into a case if their opinion stands, etc. Currently, Mueller was in such a position. He failed to recommend indictment. If you are saying that an opinion of hundreds of former fed prosecutors should be somehow preferred to the opinion of Mueller, well, go ahead and fight for that, I suppose, but you won't have much support.
    You seem to have a problem with reading.
    Mueller couldn't indict a sitting President and all the former fed prosecutors are saying that if Trump was not president he would totally be charged based on the information in the report.

    There is no contradiction there.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  11. #21811
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    You seem to have a problem with reading.
    Mueller couldn't indict a sitting President and all the former fed prosecutors are saying that if Trump was not president he would totally be charged based on the information in the report.

    There is no contradiction there.
    It could be actual illiteracy. He's been reminded of all of these points at least two dozen times. He's been quoted specific parts that contradict him 5 times. But here he is, still trolling with the same spam.

  12. #21812
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapemask View Post
    It could be actual illiteracy. He's been reminded of all of these points at least two dozen times. He's been quoted specific parts that contradict him 5 times. But here he is, still trolling with the same spam.
    When does Soro sends us our paychecks? I keep calling him but that mofo keeps making excuses.
    Violence Jack Respects Women!

  13. #21813
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Left Coast
    Posts
    43,258
    Quote Originally Posted by ViolenceJackRespectsWomen View Post
    When does Soro sends us our paychecks? I keep calling him but that mofo keeps making excuses.
    Yeah we ain’t carrying water for the international liberal conspiracy for free you know.

    "Which matters more; the freedom to live an authentic life, or the freedom to crush degenerates under the heel of a jackboot?
    As a centrist, I am undecided."

    - Natalie Wynn, "Transtrenders"

  14. #21814
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/u...struction.html

    White House officials asked at least twice in the past month for the key witness against President Trump in the Mueller report, Donald F. McGahn II, to say publicly that he never believed the president obstructed justice, according to two people briefed on the requests.

    Mr. McGahn, who was the president’s first White House counsel, declined, one of the people said. His reluctance angered Mr. Trump, who believed that Mr. McGahn showed disloyalty by telling investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, about Mr. Trump’s attempts to maintain control over the Russia investigation.

    The White House made one of the requests to Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, before the Mueller report was released publicly but after the Justice Department gave a copy to Mr. Trump’s lawyers to read. Reading the report, the president’s lawyers saw that Mr. Mueller had left out that Mr. McGahn had told investigators that he believed Mr. Trump never obstructed justice.

    White House officials believed that Mr. McGahn asserting his belief publicly would calm the president and help the administration push back on the episodes that Mr. Mueller detailed in the obstruction section of the report, said one of the people. Neither would be named describing private conversations involving the White House and spoke on condition of anonymity.

    The episode shows the lengths the White House has gone to around the release of the Mueller report to push back on the notion that Mr. Trump obstructed justice. House Democrats have used the report to launch investigations into whether Mr. Trump abused his position to insulate himself from the investigations.

    “We did not perceive it as any kind of threat or something sinister,” Mr. Burck said in a statement. “It was a request, professionally and cordially made.”
    Clearly, this continues to be the behavior of an innocent man who did nothing wrong. I wonder why, if there was no credible evidence that Trump obstructed justice, McGahn wouldn't make this statement?

  15. #21815
    How to double triple quadruple down after the collusion hoax was destroyed.

  16. #21816
    Quote Originally Posted by bagelmanman View Post
    How to double triple quadruple down after the collusion hoax was destroyed.
    But it wasn't. It only was to the people that don't live in fucking reality.

  17. #21817
    The Undying Butter Emails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Blaming HillaREEEEEE
    Posts
    32,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    It'd be a public airing of evidence of trump's corruption, and would make a formal, condensed case, instead of the piecemeal we get, where 1/2 the people forget the last outrage because of the next one. Neither the news cycle nor regular congressional hearings lend itself to coherent narratives like an impeachment hearing does, where you have experienced lawyers presenting an actual case.

    Unless you think the evidence somehow exonerates him, even though trump is doing his best to keep it all hidden, it won't look good for the president. The impeachment hearings surrounding nixon had the same effect that trump's will. I have seen zero exonerating evidence. It's all been inculpatory. This is where the idea that "it would be bad for democrats" falls apart. Trump wouldn't be stonewalling evidence that makes him look good. If the GOP fails to convict, the dems can literally run on the fact that the GOP is willingly allowing criminality at the highest levels of our government after a public display of evidence, where everyone would be able to see it and judge for themselves.
    The problem is that Republicans in the Senate will acquit. Without a doubt, they will acquit. Not because Trump is innocent, but purely because of partisan politics. This is similar to what happened to Clinton, and even though Clinton technically did obstruct justice over a blow job, the Senate's acquittal of Clinton made the public view it as an exoneration. It's also an exoneration in the sense that Trump cannot be tried for the same crime twice. So once he's out of office, they could no longer pursue obstruction charges then either.

    In Nixon's time, America was a bit more united against corruption. Ever since Reagan, the country has been splitting, and parties don't care if their side commits a crime, especially Republicans. A failure to convict in the modern era is not viewed as "not guilty", it is viewed as "COMPLETELY INNOCENT, NO WRONG DOING, COMPLETE EXONERATION OF ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE ACCUSED CRIMES!" Failure to convict would likely be viewed by the middle as Democrats "wasting time playing partisan politics".

    Unless they can nail a home run to the point that the Senate would convict, impeachment is a very bad idea for attempting to beat Trump in 2020. And the funny part is... not impeaching is "playing partisan politics" while impeachment is the correct move. I fully agree on that, but we know how dumb the average American is, and they'll see a long impeachment trial as partisan politics.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bagelmanman View Post
    How to double triple quadruple down after the collusion hoax was destroyed.
    Trumpkins always CONVENIENTLY forgetting to mention obstruction when they do driveby shit posts. Stay classy, party of "law and order", lmaoooooooooooooooo.
    "Nazis are like cats. If they like you, it's probably because you're feeding them." -John Oliver
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    I don't care if he committed tax fraud. Scoring political victories and crushing the aspirations of your political opponents is more important than adhering to moral principles.
    Knadra finally just admitting Trumpkins care more about political victories than morals.

  18. #21818
    Not really forget....it is just like the Ford hoax...we all know it is false but the leftists will continue crying/pushing about it while everyone else ignores them. It will fade away in a few weeks, exactly like Ford hoax did.

    But Innocent until proven guilty has taken a backseat to leftists for a while now.
    Last edited by bagelmanman; 2019-05-10 at 11:03 PM.

  19. #21819
    Quote Originally Posted by Butter Emails View Post
    The problem is that Republicans in the Senate will acquit. Without a doubt, they will acquit.
    Again, that's not detrimental to democrats. That literally allows them to run the campaign, "These guys are literally fine with criminals running our government. You all saw the evidence, they're not willing to do anything about it." The senate didn't convict clinton, not because he wasn't guilty, but because he was obstructing an investigation into adultery. This damaged the GOP because very few non-partisans thought adultery was what starr should have been investigating in the first place. They didn't think lying about adultery was worth deposing a president. I already explained this. That's much different than obstructing an investigation into a foreign power undermining our democracy. That's a vastly different situation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  20. #21820
    Epic!
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    But it wasn't. It only was to the people that don't live in fucking reality.
    And even then I'm still kinda squinting at the logic of someone being innocent - or not 'not guilty, in this case - of one thing meaning they're automatically exonerated of all their other alleged crimes so we should stop trying to investigate or pursue those avenues.

    Doubly squinting at the people who look at the behavior out of the Trump admin and feel that his actions are entirely reasonable for someone who's innocent of wrongdoing. But I'd rather not summon the sock-puppet again to try and hand wave how it's absolutely normal for someone to abuse their authority and repeatedly attempt to shutdown investigations into their actions because they didn't do anything illegal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •