Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,344
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 24, 2019 23:39:45 GMT -5
Reread the Obstruction of Justice section in the summary letter in the link I posted. trump has not been cleared of obstruction of justice. No determination of guilt or innocence was made by Mueller and his team and therefore, Barr. Muller had nearly 2 years with a team of people who were mostly rabid Hillary Clinton supporters. And he not only didn't prove guilt, he couldn't come up with enough evidence for an indictment. While I agree with you that failing to indict is not the same as proving innocence, may I remind you that we do not live in a country where people are guilty until proven innocent. Hillary did not in any way shape or form prove that none of the emails she deleted from her private server did not contain some kind of quid pro quo involving the tens of millions of dollars that the Clinton Foundation collected from Russians and other bad actors. Frankly, being able to cover her tracks is the most sensible reason why someone who is not tech save would bother having a private server. And since the server was wiped, there is no way to prove that some bad actor doesn't have leverage on her. Had she won the election, would you be ok with her being subjected to never ending special council investigations, because she could not prove her innocence? And may I remind you the Justice department states the Justice Department cannot indict a sitting president. Next!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,039
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2019 0:35:47 GMT -5
Reread the Obstruction of Justice section in the summary letter in the link I posted. trump has not been cleared of obstruction of justice. No determination of guilt or innocence was made by Mueller and his team and therefore, Barr. Muller had nearly 2 years with a team of people who were mostly rabid Hillary Clinton supporters. for example?
Mueller himself is a Republican. Rosenstein is a Republican. Comey is a Republican.
where are these "Clinton Supporters" i keep hearing about?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,039
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2019 0:37:37 GMT -5
Hillary did not in any way shape or form prove that none of the emails she deleted from her private server did not contain some kind of quid pro quo involving the tens of millions of dollars that the Clinton Foundation collected from Russians and other bad actors. Frankly, being able to cover her tracks is the most sensible reason why someone who is not tech save would bother having a private server. And since the server was wiped, there is no way to prove that some bad actor doesn't have leverage on her. Had she won the election, would you be ok with her being subjected to never ending special council investigations, because she could not prove her innocence? one need not prove themselves innocent. the standard in justice is to prove guilt. either you admit that Clinton is innocent by the standards of justice, or you allow that Trump may not be, but you can't have it both ways.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2019 6:15:48 GMT -5
Also, fair warning: If the full report is released and by some miracle Pres. Trump and his family all come out smelling like roses (excepting anything highly speculative), I pledge to write a bot to comb through the YMAM Mueller threads from the past three years, compile the 1,000 most hyperbolic "Here comes the whammy!" statements along with names and dates, and then craft them into a giant 4K "goose egg" infographic, with the egg made up of (just a fraction of the) 3+ years of insufferable Mittmentumism the statements represent. Republican board members can use it as a desktop background. It will stand as a somber reminder to all that neither wishful thinking, nor the fervent assurances of the MSM, nor the express certainty of hundreds of millions of people can ultimately change the nature of reality. But... let's not get ahead of ourselves. The war ain't over yet. So, how is that different from what you usually do? Not much of a pledge. Oh Weltz. I do know how much you hate it when things aren't flushed down the memory hole. Give us one of your "Virgil is so neurotic, I just can't..." barbs, do. For old times' sake.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 25, 2019 6:47:14 GMT -5
I believe the news thus far is limited to: no additional federal indictments, no obstruction (as determined by AG Barr). All I can say is that the MSM had better hope either i) the report is heavily redacted before being released, or ii) the report isn't redacted before release and includes powerful circumstantial evidence (in the eyes of 2020 swing voters) of wrongdoing that for whatever reason didn't rise to the level of indictable offenses. Failing either of those, the MSM just shot the few lingering shreds of public faith they have left since 2001. As I've said since 2016, I personally expect there will be some skeletons in the report. Not related to Russian "collusion", but conflicts of interest, backroom business deals with Russian heavies, false testimony, graft, etc. Suffice it to say I'll be astonished if Pres. Trump, Mr. Kushner, and the Trump family all come out squeaky clean. And of course, NY state may still indict any or all of them--or at least try to. Assuming I'm correct, the MSM gets a slight reprieve. They still look hopelessly biased (the report outcome wasn't going to change this), but at least they won't look like tinfoil-wearing dark web conspiracy theorists. You keep referencing the Main Stream Media, as though all the world is an MSNBC editorial show. Who are you referring to? Because the "Main Stream Media" that I read and listen to largely did NOT jump to premature conclusions on any of this either- with the exception in a few quarters of the Trump Tower meeting. Since the Trump Tower meeting was clearly an attempt by some on both the Russian and American (Trump) sides at colluding, it was the low hanging fruit, and easily pointed to as an example of where collusion would likely be found. Which was not even something that seemed to be covered, at least based on Barr’s summary?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,856
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 25, 2019 7:03:54 GMT -5
Reread the Obstruction of Justice section in the summary letter in the link I posted. trump has not been cleared of obstruction of justice. No determination of guilt or innocence was made by Mueller and his team and therefore, Barr. Muller had nearly 2 years with a team of people who were mostly rabid Hillary Clinton supporters. And he not only didn't prove guilt, he couldn't come up with enough evidence for an indictment. While I agree with you that failing to indict is not the same as proving innocence, may I remind you that we do not live in a country where people are guilty until proven innocent. Hillary did not in any way shape or form prove that none of the emails she deleted from her private server did not contain some kind of quid pro quo involving the tens of millions of dollars that the Clinton Foundation collected from Russians and other bad actors. Frankly, being able to cover her tracks is the most sensible reason why someone who is not tech save would bother having a private server. And since the server was wiped, there is no way to prove that some bad actor doesn't have leverage on her. Had she won the election, would you be ok with her being subjected to never ending special council investigations, because she could not prove her innocence? Sure he did. Mueller indicted a bunch of people, just not Trump. 34 people charged, 7 guilty pleas, 1 conviction by trial, 4 jailed or incarcerated and 5 sentenced (so far). Plus, there are some sealed indictments hanging out there. Compared to, say, the Whitewater investigation, the Mueller investigation generated a lot of indictments. And while Mueller concluded there wasn't enough evidence to charge Trump himself with colluding with the Russians (although there was plenty of evidence the Russians attempted to collude with Trump) Mueller passed the buck on whether or not Trump should be charged on obstruction charges.
I'm not sure where you got the idea this was a team of 'rabid Hillary Clinton supporters' - most of them were Republicans, including Mueller himself. If there was a 'rabid' anything, it was Barr, Trump's hand picked successor for Sessions, brought in specifically because Barr claimed 'sitting presidents can't be indicted.' Barr attempted to claim that he and Rosenstein had reviewed the information and decided together that there wasn't enough information to indict Trump on obstruction charges, but you can be sure that will NOT be the end of that. Dems will make damned sure the whole Mueller report gets out, and will no doubt bring Mueller himself to testify in front of Congress to outline all the reasons he thought Trump might be guilty of obstruction - those will be electrifying hearings, and should land right before the next presidential election.
Actually, when I said 'I don't know where you got the idea this was a team of rabid Hillary supportors' - that was rhetorical. I know exactly what nationally televised state propaganda machine generates that false narrative.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,856
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 25, 2019 7:07:37 GMT -5
I believe the news thus far is limited to: no additional federal indictments, no obstruction (as determined by AG Barr). All I can say is that the MSM had better hope either i) the report is heavily redacted before being released, or ii) the report isn't redacted before release and includes powerful circumstantial evidence (in the eyes of 2020 swing voters) of wrongdoing that for whatever reason didn't rise to the level of indictable offenses. Failing either of those, the MSM just shot the few lingering shreds of public faith they have left since 2001. As I've said since 2016, I personally expect there will be some skeletons in the report. Not related to Russian "collusion", but conflicts of interest, backroom business deals with Russian heavies, false testimony, graft, etc. Suffice it to say I'll be astonished if Pres. Trump, Mr. Kushner, and the Trump family all come out squeaky clean. And of course, NY state may still indict any or all of them--or at least try to. Assuming I'm correct, the MSM gets a slight reprieve. They still look hopelessly biased (the report outcome wasn't going to change this), but at least they won't look like tinfoil-wearing dark web conspiracy theorists. You keep referencing the Main Stream Media, as though all the world is an MSNBC editorial show. Who are you referring to? Because the "Main Stream Media" that I read and listen to largely did NOT jump to premature conclusions on any of this either- with the exception in a few quarters of the Trump Tower meeting. Since the Trump Tower meeting was clearly an attempt by some on both the Russian and American (Trump) sides at colluding, it was the low hanging fruit, and easily pointed to as an example of where collusion would likely be found. I am not talking about editorial missives here. I am talking about news stories, by the old bastions of MSM, such as the NYT, the WP, Network news, NPR, even my home state newspaper. I did not see a rush to judgement before judgement was due, and even now I see notes of caution to wait until we actually see the report before drawing any final conclusions. What I did see was a lot of caution to put it in perspective, to realize that this investigation had but ONE goal, and that was to investigate claims of collusion, and that its scope was limited. I also saw what seemed like a continual drumbeat of indictments, guilty pleas and convictions, and that drumbeat sure sounded like GUILTY for two years. So perhaps you are understandably confused? Virgil lumps everything that isn't Trump's state propaganda network into 'MSM' - including satire like The Daily Show and the Onion.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,856
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 25, 2019 7:12:25 GMT -5
OK, Mueller didn't find enough proof to indict Trump on collusion, and we'll be fighting about whether there was enough to prove obstruction for the next two years (until, hopefully, the 2020 election puts anyone other than Trump in office and it becomes a moot point). So, now let's move to the next criminal phase, the SDNY and all the other state and local investigations into the Trump family money grab called the Trump inauguration committee, the Trump charity, and the money laundering Trump Inc itself, and Trump's questionable relationship with Deutsche bank.
That should keep us entertained with perp walks until 2020.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,856
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 25, 2019 7:29:44 GMT -5
Which was not even something that seemed to be covered, at least based on Barr’s summary? Barr's summary may not have mentioned it, but I would be absolutely amazed if Mueller did not look at it- closely. It was a meeting at which collusion was discussed- we know that. However, discussion possible collusion is not indictable I don't believe. He would need more. The way I read it, it sounds like Mueller found evidence of multiple occasions when the Russians offered to collude, but no evidence that Trump's campaign accepted those offers.
However, Trump's campaign never reported that they had been approached by the Russians during the campaign, which they are legally required to do. Didn't report it, AND then several of them lied about it when asked, which is why there were so many other indictments of campaign members.
So this is what Trump is celebrating - a bunch of his campaign members, including his campaign chairman, were approached by Russians, failed to report it, but failed to agree to collude with the Russians, a bunch of them got indicted for lying, but because no one could find a specific agreement to collude, we win! WHOO HOO.
Seems like one of our local rednecks celebrating the fact that, while a bunch of them were caught for drunk driving, the sheriff didn't find the moonshine still, just rumors that the still exists. Still makes them a pack of thugs and criminals.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2019 7:36:08 GMT -5
I believe the news thus far is limited to: no additional federal indictments, no obstruction (as determined by AG Barr). All I can say is that the MSM had better hope either i) the report is heavily redacted before being released, or ii) the report isn't redacted before release and includes powerful circumstantial evidence (in the eyes of 2020 swing voters) of wrongdoing that for whatever reason didn't rise to the level of indictable offenses. Failing either of those, the MSM just shot the few lingering shreds of public faith they have left since 2001. As I've said since 2016, I personally expect there will be some skeletons in the report. Not related to Russian "collusion", but conflicts of interest, backroom business deals with Russian heavies, false testimony, graft, etc. Suffice it to say I'll be astonished if Pres. Trump, Mr. Kushner, and the Trump family all come out squeaky clean. And of course, NY state may still indict any or all of them--or at least try to. Assuming I'm correct, the MSM gets a slight reprieve. They still look hopelessly biased (the report outcome wasn't going to change this), but at least they won't look like tinfoil-wearing dark web conspiracy theorists. You keep referencing the Main Stream Media, as though all the world is an MSNBC editorial show. Who are you referring to? Because the "Main Stream Media" that I read and listen to largely did NOT jump to premature conclusions on any of this either- with the exception in a few quarters of the Trump Tower meeting. Since the Trump Tower meeting was clearly an attempt by some on both the Russian and American (Trump) sides at colluding, it was the low hanging fruit, and easily pointed to as an example of where collusion would likely be found. I am not talking about editorial missives here. I am talking about news stories, by the old bastions of MSM, such as the NYT, the WP, Network news, NPR, even my home state newspaper. I did not see a rush to judgement before judgement was due, and even now I see notes of caution to wait until we actually see the report before drawing any final conclusions. What I did see was a lot of caution to put it in perspective, to realize that this investigation had but ONE goal, and that was to investigate claims of collusion, and that its scope was limited. I also saw what seemed like a continual drumbeat of indictments, guilty pleas and convictions, and that drumbeat sure sounded like GUILTY for two years. So perhaps you are understandably confused? You can't say "I'm not talking about editorial missives here," and throw away 80%+ of the MSM's "value added" in the Internet age as though it isn't important. I will grant you a few things: 1) reporting in NYT and WP non-opinion pieces was decent whenever developments broke; the problem was with their ceaseless editorializing, 2) the "continual drumbeat of indictments" was real and newsworthy; again, the problem was the constant editorializing and speculation. What we observed was a steady trickle of facts over three years that was buried in an avalanche of rank editorialism and irresponsible speculation. In one sense, you can't blame the MSM for clinging to life. We live in an age when every tweet, indictment, Washington meeting, and sparrow breaking wind is instantly put up and shared online by somebody. Investigative journalism in the MSM is well and truly dead. (As a silver lining: the NYT's biggest gaffes in Russiagate all centered around poorly-sourced investigative journalism, hence a lack of it isn't an entirely bad thing.) So what do the dinosaurs in the MSM have left to offer? Some institutional credibility, yes. Battered and badly eroded since 2001, but still extant. But that won't sell enough papers or draw enough eyeballs in the Internet age, so what else? Analysis. Editorials. More editorials. Special guests. Op eds. Talking heads. "Here come the feds!" "Beware the reds!" As you point out, some outlets (particularly MSNBC, CNN, FOX, Wapo, and Huffpo, which collectively comprise a massive share of US news consumption) were worse than others. These also benefited more than others. The Russiagate affair is credited by many for stalling--even reversing--decline in viewership in many of them. But they got that bump through editorializing and drama, and now comes the reckoning for that gambit.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 13:39:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 7:42:43 GMT -5
Reread the Obstruction of Justice section in the summary letter in the link I posted. trump has not been cleared of obstruction of justice. No determination of guilt or innocence was made by Mueller and his team and therefore, Barr. ibid.: Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice, Mr. Barr said, so he made his own decision. The attorney general and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators had insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed that offense. This sounds to me like A.G. Barr et al. clearing Pres. Trump of obstruction. If by "clearing" you mean "determined to be innocent", then neither Mr. Mueller nor Mr. Barr has cleared Pres. Trump... of anything. The report and Mr. Barr's follow-up letter are equally clear on that. "Insufficient evidence to establish...", etc. Not necessarily "Zero evidence of any indictable offense was found." So I agree with you: the war ain't over yet.
Presently the only reason the MSM has egg on its face is because they pushed the idea of Pres. Trump being perp-walked out of the White House for so long and with such fanatical certainty that literally anything less seems like a nonevent by comparison. They bet the horse, the farm, the kids' college fund, the company payroll, and grandma's china collection on indictments, impeachment, and Pres. Trump not serving a full term, and the way Washington insiders are behaving, they've almost surely lost that bet. If the MSM had been calm, rational, and objective since November 2016, Trump supporters would presently be nervously awaiting the publication of the report, not dancing in the streets. Architects of their own doom. I hope they enjoyed their ratings bump. And as I've been posting ad nauseam, it was always about the ratings. Fodder for the target audience. Time for them to start reporting about the next maybe, could be, possibly.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2019 7:43:20 GMT -5
You keep referencing the Main Stream Media, as though all the world is an MSNBC editorial show. Who are you referring to? Because the "Main Stream Media" that I read and listen to largely did NOT jump to premature conclusions on any of this either- with the exception in a few quarters of the Trump Tower meeting. Since the Trump Tower meeting was clearly an attempt by some on both the Russian and American (Trump) sides at colluding, it was the low hanging fruit, and easily pointed to as an example of where collusion would likely be found. I am not talking about editorial missives here. I am talking about news stories, by the old bastions of MSM, such as the NYT, the WP, Network news, NPR, even my home state newspaper. I did not see a rush to judgement before judgement was due, and even now I see notes of caution to wait until we actually see the report before drawing any final conclusions. What I did see was a lot of caution to put it in perspective, to realize that this investigation had but ONE goal, and that was to investigate claims of collusion, and that its scope was limited. I also saw what seemed like a continual drumbeat of indictments, guilty pleas and convictions, and that drumbeat sure sounded like GUILTY for two years. So perhaps you are understandably confused? Virgil lumps everything that isn't Trump's state propaganda network into 'MSM' - including satire like The Daily Show and the Onion. I've proscribed the MSM before. It's based on ownership and synchronicity of message. 'The Onion' obviously doesn't qualify because it's not owned by the Big Six conglomerate and it doesn't run precisely the same news stories as all of the outlets owned by the conglomerate. 'The Daily Show' is owned by the Big Six conglomerate and does run (or at least cover) precisely the same news stories, with identical biases, omissions, etc., hence it is a part of the MSM. FOX is also a part of the MSM, if that's what you mean by "Trump's state propaganda network". FOX is unusual in that it has pro-Republican biases, but it reports the same things, ignores the same things, hypes the same things, downplays the same things, and in many ways crafts the same narratives as all the rest.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 13:39:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 7:47:36 GMT -5
Barr's summary may not have mentioned it, but I would be absolutely amazed if Mueller did not look at it- closely. It was a meeting at which collusion was discussed- we know that. However, discussion possible collusion is not indictable I don't believe. He would need more. The way I read it, it sounds like Mueller found evidence of multiple occasions when the Russians offered to collude, but no evidence that Trump's campaign accepted those offers.
However, Trump's campaign never reported that they had been approached by the Russians during the campaign, which they are legally required to do. Didn't report it, AND then several of them lied about it when asked, which is why there were so many other indictments of campaign members.
So this is what Trump is celebrating - a bunch of his campaign members, including his campaign chairman, were approached by Russians, failed to report it, but failed to agree to collude with the Russians, a bunch of them got indicted for lying, but because no one could find a specific agreement to collude, we win! WHOO HOO.
Seems like one of our local rednecks celebrating the fact that, while a bunch of them were caught for drunk driving, the sheriff didn't find the moonshine still, just rumors that the still exists. Still makes them a pack of thugs and criminals.
No, it simply makes them victims of a politically motivated rumor mill. Smear politics at its boring best.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,856
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 25, 2019 7:52:56 GMT -5
The way I read it, it sounds like Mueller found evidence of multiple occasions when the Russians offered to collude, but no evidence that Trump's campaign accepted those offers.
However, Trump's campaign never reported that they had been approached by the Russians during the campaign, which they are legally required to do. Didn't report it, AND then several of them lied about it when asked, which is why there were so many other indictments of campaign members.
So this is what Trump is celebrating - a bunch of his campaign members, including his campaign chairman, were approached by Russians, failed to report it, but failed to agree to collude with the Russians, a bunch of them got indicted for lying, but because no one could find a specific agreement to collude, we win! WHOO HOO.
Seems like one of our local rednecks celebrating the fact that, while a bunch of them were caught for drunk driving, the sheriff didn't find the moonshine still, just rumors that the still exists. Still makes them a pack of thugs and criminals.
No, it simply makes them victims of a politically motivated rumor mill. Smear politics at its boring best. Trump loves that - painting himself as a victim. He'd invite you to the WH for a hamberder, if he heard you say that.
If it was possible to create victims from a politically motivated rumor mill, why the fuck weren't we knee deep in indicted Clinton associates due to the Benghazi! fake witch hunt? How many congressional inquiries and hearings did that generate? And yet only the Mueller investigation racked up double digit indictments?
Maybe one was a witch hunt, and the other actually found some witches?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,344
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 25, 2019 8:01:45 GMT -5
Now that the investigation is over, trump will now be able to implement his infrastructure plan, his healthcare plan, his plan to reduce drug prices, a replacement for the Paris Accord, hundreds of unilateral trade agreements, reducing the budget deficit, and another one of those beautiful middle class tax cuts!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2019 8:03:35 GMT -5
One outstanding question: What does "collude" even mean here? "So I saw Joe and Jimmy colluding in the corner." "Colluding to do what?" "No. Just colluding." "But I mean: were they colluding to steal a waffle, put a firecracker in someone's underpants, what?" "Well, it was Joe doing most of the colluding." "What?" "Yeah, Jimmy wasn't really colluding much. Joe was doing pretty much all the colluding." "It takes at least two people to collude." "No it doesn't. Joe was colluding perfectly well on his own." "That doe... Y... Colluding to do what?" "Colluding to collude."
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 25, 2019 8:03:45 GMT -5
Also, fair warning: If the full report is released and by some miracle Pres. Trump and his family all come out smelling like roses (excepting anything highly speculative), I pledge to write a bot to comb through the YMAM Mueller threads from the past three years, compile the 1,000 most hyperbolic "Here comes the whammy!" statements along with names and dates, and then craft them into a giant 4K "goose egg" infographic, with the egg made up of (just a fraction of the) 3+ years of insufferable Mittmentumism the statements represent. Republican board members can use it as a desktop background. It will stand as a somber reminder to all that neither wishful thinking, nor the fervent assurances of the MSM, nor the express certainty of hundreds of millions of people can ultimately change the nature of reality. But... let's not get ahead of ourselves. The war ain't over yet. I thought it very telling that Trump's sons as well as his son-in-law were not indicted as promised by mass media for the last two years. As Conservatives have said here for two plus years there was no collusion and later, no obstruction from anyone connected to Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 13:39:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 8:06:00 GMT -5
No, it simply makes them victims of a politically motivated rumor mill. Smear politics at its boring best. Trump loves that - painting himself as a victim. He'd invite you to the WH for a hamberder, if he heard you say that.
If it was possible to create victims from a politically motivated rumor mill, why the fuck weren't we knee deep in indicted Clinton associates due to the Benghazi! fake witch hunt? How many congressional inquiries and hearings did that generate? And yet only the Mueller investigation racked up double digit indictments?
Maybe one was a witch hunt, and the other actually found some witches?
Yeah, I'm tired of useless investigations also. Anything to motivate the respective bases, or use as a vehicle to slam your least favorite politician on a forum. As an aside, in regards to witches, how many of those indictments were for collusion, per the Mueller investigative directive.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 25, 2019 8:06:52 GMT -5
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 25, 2019 8:08:52 GMT -5
Listening to Trump's two senior lawyers this morning was interesting. Rudy and Jay had some good thoughts on what is next. Former heads of Obama's Administration will not be happy.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 25, 2019 8:11:41 GMT -5
Yes. Coming from them that is an almost 100% admission they were wrong without admitting to it by about 99% but I take it as a complete win from fake news and Jeff Bezos please spare us the bullshit talking points. WaPo is one of the most reliable journals in the US. Please spare me the accusation of talking points. I do not use them. My thoughts are strictly my own. You should have as good of a record predicting Presidential results in this century as I do.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 25, 2019 8:22:10 GMT -5
I will probably be chastised for doing this, bringing up an old thread, but please go to page 55 of this old thread. ymam.proboards.com/thread/49490/general-election-2016-clinton-trump?page=55Although not a prediction dj, says Clinton had the lead, and dezi questioned the electoral number for Clinton. Next couple of pages talked how the stock market was collapsing in front of everyone's eyes because Trump won. Quite a few posters were in total shock. They were wrong then about a Trump Presidency and wrong today about collusion and obstruction of Justice.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,432
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2019 8:31:44 GMT -5
FWIW: The headline states "global media" and, last time I checked, the United States was on the globe.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 25, 2019 8:34:19 GMT -5
FWIW: The headline states "global media" and, last time I checked, the United States was on the globe. I understand that. Just wanted to qualify the headline so someone did not gig me for posting a headline that quoted more of our national news organizations than overseas outlets. Now I have you pointing out the obvious!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,432
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2019 8:52:13 GMT -5
FWIW: The headline states "global media" and, last time I checked, the United States was on the globe. I understand that. Just wanted to qualify the headline so someone did not gig me for posting a headline that quoted more of our national news organizations than overseas outlets. Now I have you pointing out the obvious! It is always interesting to me to read what you post and then read the link you provide. FWIW: The article quoted more overseas outlets than US news organizations.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 25, 2019 8:57:13 GMT -5
I understand that. Just wanted to qualify the headline so someone did not gig me for posting a headline that quoted more of our national news organizations than overseas outlets. Now I have you pointing out the obvious! It is always interesting to me to read what you post and then read the link you provide. FWIW: The article quoted more overseas outlets than US news organizations. Yes, but that was way down in the article. I imagine most people never read that far down into the article before their eye's glaze over, while wondering if the article is fair and balanced, or a left or rightwing site
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 25, 2019 9:00:45 GMT -5
Muller had nearly 2 years with a team of people who were mostly rabid Hillary Clinton supporters. for example?
Mueller himself is a Republican. Rosenstein is a Republican. Comey is a Republican.
where are these "Clinton Supporters" i keep hearing about?
OK, which ones are PRO Trump??
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 25, 2019 9:02:42 GMT -5
for example?
Mueller himself is a Republican. Rosenstein is a Republican. Comey is a Republican.
where are these "Clinton Supporters" i keep hearing about?
OK, which ones are PRO Trump?? Comey always claimed to be Republican, but he was way too slimey to be one. Rosenstein, we have to wait and see if he actually wanted to go in wired to meet Trump.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,432
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2019 9:20:21 GMT -5
It is always interesting to me to read what you post and then read the link you provide. FWIW: The article quoted more overseas outlets than US news organizations. Yes, but that was way down in the article. I imagine most people never read that far down into the article before their eye's glaze over, ... I am not sure how many even go to linked articles at all to see if things like "(t)he headline states ..." or "quoted more ..." are accurate.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Mar 25, 2019 9:29:16 GMT -5
Conservatives can cheer and jeer and say I told you so all they want. The Trump tower meeting with the Russians and the bald face lie about it told me all I needed to know. If as an American, that doesn't bother you, so be it. This country stands for nothing anymore. "This country stands for nothing anymore. " The country is doing fine....now when it comes to the current POTUS and his rabid followers who can see no wrong.....different story.
|
|