Opinion : "Mueller Report" will result in new investigations in Congress

  
By:  john-russell  •  one month ago  •  362 comments

Opinion :    "Mueller Report" will result in new investigations in Congress

Analysts are going through the now released Mueller Report. 

There is more than enough in there to trigger investigations in Congress.  

The report specifically states that the prosecutors were not able to conclude that Trump did not obstruct justice. 

It also shows that Mueller's team was not able to acquire sufficient evidence about various topics because witnesses were not forthcoming. 

I see calls for impeachment hearings forthcoming virtually immediately. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

Barr misrepresented the report.  He is disgraced (no surprise). 

What caught my ear was the report's claim that on some topics they were unable to develop all the evidence they needed to reach a conclusion.  That is why congressional hearings will skyrocket now. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

320

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1    one month ago

I guess conservatives got a different version of the report, so far everything I'm reading is a clear condemnation of Trump and the criminals and liars he surrounded himself with. Apparently conservative Republicans have completely abandoned any pretense of demanding an ethical standard of the President and have lowered the bar to "no concrete evidence of criminal conspiracy". Even Sarah Sanders admitted she lied to protect this inept moron in the oval office, but that doesn't matter to those with no shame, no ethics and don't care about truth as long as they feel they are getting their way.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.1    one month ago

I've been saying for three years that Trump supporters are the real problem in this country. Today is just more proof of it. 

We are in a non shooting war. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    one month ago
I've been saying for three years that Trump supporters are the real problem in this country.

And Iv'e been saying that progressive ideology is a cancer to our nation.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    one month ago
And Iv'e been saying that progressive ideology is a cancer to our nation.

So the numerous indictments, guilty pleas and convictions of dozens of those around Trump that the Mueller report concluded "materially impeded" their investigation preventing them from confirming any actual criminal conspiracy, but certainly not exonerating them either, is the "good and pure conservative ideology" that will save our nation, while those who demand accountability, transparency, equality and justice are the "cancer" to our nation? What a seriously fucked up world view.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.5  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    one month ago
Trump supporters are the real problem in this country

Funny.........we have been saying the same thing about the democrats.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.6  KDMichigan  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.1    one month ago
 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    one month ago
progressive ideology is a cancer to our nation.

While the GOP is stricken with a severe case of DT's...

We're all hurting and the worst thing, every wound is self-inflicted.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.4    one month ago

Mueller had all the force of the US government to make his case. He spent over two years and as of yet untold millions after other investigations, yet came up with not a single conviction of a Trump official conspiring with "Russia". So, why don't you admit what Mueller admitted - THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.

As for a charge of "materially impeded", we know better. Take a look at the part on George Papadopoulos. Tell me he wasn't set up? Better still, wait and see how that turns out.

The investigators and the leakers and the unmaskers are all going face investigations of their own. It's their turn now!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.9  author  JohnRussell  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.5    one month ago

Yeah, but you are the ones that support Trump. Thats just pitiful. 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
1.1.10  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.9    one month ago

He doesn't really support Trump, no one does. They just like what he does to you.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.11  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1    one month ago

My dearest boy, feel free to post all the derogatory Hillary stuff you want.  Just please do not help put Trump back in office.  Pretty please?  With a cherry on top?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.8    one month ago
The investigators and the leakers and the unmaskers are all going face investigations of their own. It's their turn now!

So it looks like your posit that no investigations have occurred, that no leakers have been exposed, and that 'unmaskers' haven't been prosecuted because of Mueller's investigation. So that tells me that Trump's DOJ can't walk and chew gum at the same time. You must be proud. 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
1.1.13  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.11    one month ago

I'm voting for Jill Stein. She has a band.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.14  1stwarrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.4    one month ago

You really need to read the report.  The indictments are for causes NOT related to collusion.  They are PURE greed by the azzwipes indicted.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.15  1stwarrior  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.11    one month ago

Sister - sorry, but for your information, Trump is STILL in office.

And when Hillary starts her trial - you better believe I'll be cheering for the prosecutor's side.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.16  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @1.1.12    one month ago

You do know that he didn't "Dr. Seuss" you.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.1.17  dennis smith  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1    one month ago

Now that the Mueller report found nothing the usual suspects will deflect and spin since they pinned their hopes on the report for 2 years.

A nothing burger is just that, a nothing burger. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.1.19  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    one month ago

I've been saying for three years that Trump detractors are the real problem in this country. Today is just more proof of it. 

Fixed if for you JR 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.20  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @1.1.10    one month ago
He doesn't really support Trump, no one does. They just like what he does to you.

I need to re-reg so I can vote that one up more than once.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.1.21  dennis smith  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.14    one month ago

Reading and understanding do not go together for some lefties on NT.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.22  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.1    one month ago

Did you forget that it was Obama that protected Bears Ears/Chaco Canyon and it's Trump that opened it for gas/oil/mining exploration? 

Seems that you did...I have a lot more if you want to go down that path, 1st.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.23  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.9    one month ago

But you supported crook Hillary, that's even more pitiful.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.24  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.14    one month ago
You really need to read the report.  The indictments are for causes NOT related to collusion.  They are PURE greed by the azzwipes indicted.

I didn't see any claim that Papadopoulos, Flynn or even the Russians indiceted were in it for profit. I must have missed that, what page is that on 1st.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.25  MUVA  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @1.1.10    one month ago

You as usual are correct good fish.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.26  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.9    one month ago

And the Dems supported Hillary and Bill, which makes them equally pitiful. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @1.1.10    one month ago
'He doesn't really support Trump, no one does. They just like what he does to you.'

You too BF?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @1.1.17    one month ago

You mean a nothing burder?  LOL

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.8    one month ago

'The investigators and the leakers and the unmaskers are all going face investigations of their own. It's their turn now!'

Investigators, and leakers, and unmaskers, OH MY!

How ludicrous.  Investigating those who investigated the shitpile in the oval office and his whole goddamned corrupt administration.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.15    one month ago
'And when Hillary starts her trial - you better believe I'll be cheering for the prosecutor's side.'

What trial?!?!?!??!!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.31  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.15    one month ago
'And when Hillary starts her trial - you better believe I'll be cheering for the prosecutor's side.'

What trial?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.32  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1    one month ago

Massive, irreversible, terminal HDS, there.  Sad case. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.33  Vic Eldred  replied to  dennis smith @1.1.17    one month ago
Now that the Mueller report found nothing the usual suspects will deflect and spin since they pinned their hopes on the report for 2 years.

So true, but at first glance, we find there is fodder for both sides in the report that defies DOJ guidelines. Remember all those unnamed sourced bombshell stories from the media?

We now know:

Michael Cohen never went to Prague.                        (that was one of the unverified claims of the Steele Dossier)
Carter Page was not a Russian Agent.                       (regardless of all those he met, he was never a Russian Agent)
Donald Trump did not direct Cohen to lie to Congress (Another Buzzfeed false story)
Cohen's call with a Russian did not prove "collusion"   (Another Chris Hayes falsie)
Paul Manafort was not giving polling data to Putin       (A John Marshall false story)


The underlying documents would help the Senate Judiciary Committee more than Nader's crew and Nader wants all of it even the Grand Jury stuff!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.34  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1    one month ago

How droll.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

"I see calls for impeachment hearings forthcoming virtually immediately. 


Then I have but one question. Do you recall what Nancy Pelosi said about impeachment?

"Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Pelosi said in a Washington Post interview published Monday.

Clearly, congressional Republicans don't see, as you do, "more than enough" for impeachment. You won't have bipartisan support and no conviction in the Senate and most important of all you won't have Nancy Pelosi on board, so how can there be impeachment?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    one month ago
Clearly, congressional Republicans don't see, as you do, "more than enough" for impeachment.

Yet.

It took quite a while for Goldwater to reach the tipping point...

You won't have bipartisan support and no conviction in the Senate and most important of all you won't have Nancy Pelosi on board, so how can there be impeachment?

Lacking a conviction in the Senate didn't stop the House from impeaching Clinton, did it? As for Pelosi being on board, I think she'll wait to hear from Mueller before she decides whether his report is 'compelling and overwhelming' enough. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
That is why congressional hearings will skyrocket now

And that is why they will go absolutely nowhere.  If the experts can't find clear and convincing evidence, I doubt that the Democrat bumblers will do much better.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.3.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3    one month ago
And that is why they will go absolutely nowhere.

Yeah,  just like the Mueller report that "totally exonerated" Scumbag........jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
squiggy
1.4  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

A glass of water with a D on it could trigger a congressional investigation. It still lacks meat and bones.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.4.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  squiggy @1.4    one month ago
A glass of water with a D on it could trigger a congressional investigation.

If it had Scumbag's filthy paw prints on it....you betcha. 

 
 
 
squiggy
1.4.2  squiggy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.4.1    one month ago

No. You completely missed Pelosi's denigration of her own kind.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.4.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  squiggy @1.4.2    3 weeks ago
No. You completely missed Pelosi's denigration of her own kind.

WTF are you yammering about now?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.4  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.4.3    3 weeks ago
WTF are you yammering about now?

Is there something in post 1.4 you need help understanding?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.5  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
 evidence they needed to reach a conclusion

Do you really think if Mueller had the evidence to reach a conclusion he wouldn't have recommend charges, if so why?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.1  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5    one month ago

Is it up to Mr. Mueller to recommend charges?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.5.2  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.1    one month ago
Is it up to Mr. Mueller to recommend charges

Really................. than explain to me how Manafort, Cohen, Flynn and Stone along with countless other were charged. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.3  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.1    one month ago
Is it up to Mr. Mueller to recommend charges?

Didn't you get the memo ?

People were charged by "Mueller" and his team....for doing the "Martha Stewart" Thingy here and there !

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.4  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.3    one month ago

That makes no sense, as usual.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.5  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.4    one month ago
That makes no sense, as usual.  

I know....right ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cms5
1.5.6  cms5  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5    one month ago
Do you really think if Mueller had the evidence to reach a conclusion he wouldn't have recommend charges, if so why?

From report  - page 213 of pdf file First

The Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions".
Apart from the OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

Second

While the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.
Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Page 214 - Third

We considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.
Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.

Fourth

If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

No talking heads...straight from the report. I don't see where they weren't able to 'develop all evidence' to reach a conclusion. In fact, I see that they gathered all of the testimony and documentary materials they could. (Under Second).

The President has immunity from criminal charges while in office.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.7  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5    one month ago
Do you really think if Mueller had the evidence to reach a conclusion he wouldn't have recommend charges, if so why?

Mueller clearly explains why he did not make a 'traditional prosecutorial decision' in the report. Go read it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.8  Dulay  replied to  cms5 @1.5.6    one month ago

Sebsection #2 is quite pertinent. I imagine that Trump will be making the argument that only reelection can protect him from the 'witch hunters' using the 'preserved evidence' against him in Jan. 2020. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.9  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.5.7    one month ago
Mueller clearly explains why he did not make a 'traditional prosecutorial decision' in the report.

Apparently it wasn't "Clear" enough. So many "Opinions" abound now !

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.5.10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5.2    one month ago
than explain to me how Manafort, Cohen, Flynn and Stone along with countless other were charged.

None of them is president.....c'mon, catch up.  

 
 
 
cms5
1.5.11  cms5  replied to  Dulay @1.5.8    one month ago

I have read the entire section 2 of the report regarding Obstruction. I am still reviewing Section One.

Trump doesn't need to make that argument at all. While the report gives various reasons why there is no actual conclusion, Barr did arrive at a conclusion. The Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.12  Dulay  replied to  cms5 @1.5.11    one month ago
Trump doesn't need to make that argument at all.

I didn't say that Trump needs to make that argument, I said he will and in fact he's already done so in his 'rallies'. 

While the report gives various reasons why there is no actual conclusion, Barr did arrive at a conclusion.

Barr is a LIAR. It's up to the Congress to decide whether Trump has committed impeachable offenses. 

The Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

I really can't believe that you said that after reading the report. No thinking person could have any doubt that Trump 'endeavored to influence' the 'due administration of justice'. The only reason that there isn't 'slam dunk' evidence of obstruction is that, as documented in the report, multiple people REFUSED to carry out his orders. Comey, Coats, Rogers, McGahn, Lewandowski, Kelly, the list goes on. 

Compare Trump's actions with those listed in the Articles of Impeachment for Nixon and Clinton. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.13  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.9    one month ago
Apparently it wasn't "Clear" enough.

Cite what part you don't understand, perhaps we can help. 

So many "Opinions" abound now !

The only relevant opinions now are from the Congress. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.14  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.5.13    one month ago
Cite what part you don't understand, perhaps we can help. 

YOU...claimed it was clear. Fill us in with your knowledge. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.5.15  gooseisgone  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.5.10    one month ago
None of them is president.....c'mon, catch up.

There were plenty not indicted, none...….let me repeat that for you so you can "catch up"....NONE were for conspiring with the Russians to effect the outcome of the 2016 Election.  Do I need to remind you that was the reason for the investigation.  Now the question is how can obstruction take place for an investigation with no underling crime. Second, were the warrants obtained using false information?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.16  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.14    one month ago
YOU...claimed it was clear. Fill us in with your knowledge. 

Actually, I stated the FACT that Mueller explained his reasons CLEARLY. At no time did I CLAIM that everyone would be able to understand his reasoning. Some just don't have the intellectual capacity or curiosity it takes to gain a layman's understand of legal findings.

As I said, if you cite the section or page or even just a paragraph that you're having trouble understanding, perhaps we could help. If all you've got is snark, whining about things not being clear enough is juvenile. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.17  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.5.16    one month ago
At no time did I CLAIM that everyone would be able to understand his reasoning.

I never said anything on that matter at all !

But....since it's "Clear" to you ("Mueller clearly explains why he did not make a 'traditional prosecutorial decision' in the report.")...… FILL US ALL IN of YOUR interpretation of what Muellers report said !

I have time to wait. jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.18  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.17    one month ago
I never said anything on that matter at all !

So what was the basis of your statement about it not being 'CLEAR enough'?  

FILL US ALL IN of YOUR interpretation of what Muellers report said !

The political and social reason for government transparency is so that the electorate to review the evidence and make their own conclusions and then discuss their conclusions. While you may rely on others to give you the 'Crib notes' on government documents, I prefer to READ them myself. It is a wasted endeavor to have a discussion with someone that doesn't have the intellectual curiosity to review the document and reach their own conclusions. 

Your comments have nothing to do with your understanding of the content of the report. They aren't about your desire to better understand that content. They ARE about an obsession with deflecting from serious constructive discussion. Well done. Carry on. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.19  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.5.18    one month ago

Your blather is fun to read, but all it shows me is even you don't have any "Clear" idea of what the report ACTUALLY says.

If you did, you wouldn't need to go into some lengthy diatribe crap of "ME" and understanding !

Spit it out man .….. It's "Clear" to you (so you say) ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.20  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.19    one month ago
Your blather is fun to read, but all it shows me is even you don't have any "Clear" idea of what the report ACTUALLY says.
If you did, you wouldn't need to go into some lengthy diatribe crap of "ME" and understanding !

The fact that is what it shows you proves to me that I was right about trying to have a discussion with those who lack intellectually curiosity is a wasted endeavor. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.21  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.5.20    one month ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

I see you STILL can't clearly tell all of NT what is Clearly shown in the Mueller report !

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.5.22  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dulay @1.5.13    4 weeks ago
Cite what part you don't understand, perhaps we can help. 

Here's a variation of an old saying:  You can't make someone understand something if his ideology requires that he not understand it. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.23  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5.2    4 weeks ago
'Is it up to Mr. Mueller to recommend charges'
'Really................. than explain to me how Manafort, Cohen, Flynn and Stone along with countless other were charged.'

I asked a question.  What the fuck are you talking about?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.5.24  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.23    4 weeks ago

My bad I read it as "It isn't".

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
 He is disgraced (no surprise). 

He disgraced himself before he was put in charge of the DoJ with that unsolicited legal blow-job for Scumbag that he wrote to get the job.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.6    one month ago
'He is disgraced (no surprise).' 
'He disgraced himself before he was put in charge of the DoJ with that unsolicited legal blow-job for Scumbag that he wrote to get the job.' 

Barr's resume

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.6.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.6.1    one month ago

Democrats could always impeach Barr, but, gee, they haven't made a move to do so.

Why not?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.3  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.6.2    one month ago
Democrats could always impeach Barr, but, gee, they haven't made a move to do so.
Why not?

Perhaps they are waiting for Barr to testify about his bullshit summaries of the report and get him on the record lying...

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.6.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.6.3    one month ago
Perhaps they are waiting for Barr to testify about his bullshit summaries of the report and get him on the record lying...

Perhaps, maybe...…...lots of flapping gums but no action.

Yawn.

Funny how the Mueller Report was going to "Get Trump", and yet, there he is--still in office, still pissing people who disagree with him off.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.6.4    one month ago
Perhaps, maybe...…...lots of flapping gums but no action. Yawn.

You bore quickly. We have only had the evidence of Barr's bald faced lies for just over 24 hours. 

Funny how the Mueller Report was going to "Get Trump", and yet, there he is--still in office, still pissing people who disagree with him off.

It took 4 years to 'get' Nixon. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.6.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.6.5    one month ago
It took 4 years to 'get' Nixon. 

Get Trump for WHAT EXACTLY?

Please be specific.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.7  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.6.6    one month ago
Get Trump for WHAT EXACTLY? Please be specific.

What did my comment state about Trump XD? 

Please be specific. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.6.8  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.6.7    one month ago

My apologies.

Now;

Get BARR for EXACTLY.

Please be SPECIFIC.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.9  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.6.8    one month ago
My apologies.

Accepted. 

Now;

Get BARR for EXACTLY.

Please be SPECIFIC.

What in my comment said anything about 'get BARR'? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.6.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.6.5    one month ago
You bore quickly. We have only had the evidence of Barr's bald faced lies for just over 24 hours.

We have heard plenty over the last 2+ years how the great and wondrous Mueller was going to find proof of collusion and get Trump.

Still waiting for the Democrats to file for impeachment--what's the freaking hold-up?

Or why haven't they filed impeachment for Barr?

We're waiting...……………………...AGAIN, or should I say STILL?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.6.10    one month ago
We have heard plenty over the last 2+ years how the great and wondrous Mueller was going to find proof of collusion and get Trump.

There is TON of proof of 'collusion' in the report. Go read it. 

There is a LEGAL distinction between Trump's favorite term 'collusion' and a violation of the statute prohibiting CONSPIRACY. The evidence of 'collusion' does not raise to a criminal violation of the CONSPIRACY statute. 

Still waiting for the Democrats to file for impeachment--what's the freaking hold-up?

That already happened in 2017. Did you miss it? 

Or why haven't they filed impeachment for Barr?

I already answered that question. 

We're waiting...……………………...AGAIN, or should I say STILL?

Patience. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.6.12  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.6.11    one month ago
There is TON of proof of 'collusion' in the report.

Please do expand on that. jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

Enquiring minds really do want to know ! jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

tick, tick, tick …... I expect some jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif as a response !

But what the heck.....I had to ask anyway ! jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.13  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.6.12    one month ago
Please do expand on that.

102 pages under the subheading "Russian Government Links to and Contact with the Trump Campaign. 

Enquiring minds really do want to know !

Enquiring minds have READ at least the summary of the report for themselves. You should try it. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.6.14  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.6.13    one month ago

Oh....I'm more interested in YOUR interpretation !

You up for it ? jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.15  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.6.14    one month ago
Oh....I'm more interested in YOUR interpretation !

Why post a bald faced lie? 

You up for it ?

Sure. Can you point me to someone willing to have such a discussion in good faith? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.6.16  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.6.15    one month ago
Why post a bald faced lie?

I'm truly interested ! jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

Amuse me……. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

Bet ya can't do it ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.17  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.6.16    one month ago
I'm truly interested !

Why lie? 

Amuse me……. 

Nope. 

Bet ya can't do it !

I'll hold out until you double dog dare me.  /s

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.6.18  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.6.17    one month ago

I knew you couldn't do it. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Your wordy, but say nothing !

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.19  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.6.18    one month ago
I knew you couldn't do it.

Couldn't do what? Post my interpretation? Ridiculous. 

Your wordy, but say nothing !

This from the emoji king...

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.6.20  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dulay @1.6.11    4 weeks ago
Patience.

This is a virtue that they will never seem to get, it seems.  They were demanding that this investigation come to an end and it has and now they're complaining about the results (as we knew they would, of course). 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.6.21  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.6.4    4 weeks ago
Perhaps, maybe...…...lots of flapping gums but no action.

This from a Scumbag supporter.  'Tis to guffaw. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.6.22  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.6.19    4 weeks ago
Couldn't do what?

It Figures ! jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

One interesting revelation is that Mueller found that Trump asked white house counsel Don Mc Ghan to lie and say Trump had not wanted to fire Mueller when that was in fact what Trump had told McGhan. 

Trying to get the white house counsel to lie sounds like an impeachable offense to me. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

The Mueller Report destroys the right wing talking points that this investigation was based on a hoax. 

Let's see how many on the right have the guts to realize that. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    one month ago
The Mueller Report destroys the right wing talking points that this investigation was based on a hoax. 

It was a hoax in all manner, right from the start with no criminal pretext and Mueller unlawfully leading any such investigation.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.1.2  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    one month ago
destroys the right wing talking points that this investigation was based on a hoax

Please point to me in the report that indicates Carter Page was involved in anything illegal or involved in election tampering?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

320

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2    one month ago

I take it you havent heard anything about the report. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    one month ago
I take it you havent heard anything about the report. 

He obviously gets all his information from fake Facebook accounts spamming Russian propaganda memes like that one.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    one month ago
I take it you havent heard anything about the report.

She probably actually read some of it. You are the one who most likely "heard" about it and most likely from CNN & MSNBC

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.2    one month ago
He obviously gets all his information from fake Facebook accounts spamming Russian propaganda memes like that one.

First of all 1st is a she. Second of all Facebook has claimed to have eliminated such accounts. Beyond that, I don't think there is a single human being who was influenced by that so called "propaganda". 

Do you think FB is being used by "Russia?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago
Beyond that, I don't think there is a single human being who was influenced by that so called "propaganda". Do you think FB is being used by "Russia?

If you don't think false advertising that reached 120 million Americans didn't influence a single person, then I don't think anything I say can penetrate the dense lead vault you must use to store your beliefs. As for the rest of humanity, the fact is most human brains are pliable and very susceptible to advertising. Study's have shown how we might not even recall having seen an advertisement but we are more likely to purchase a brand if we were even unconsciously exposed to its advertising. The Russian election interference was both overt and subliminal in that the advertisements were blatant in their content but were surreptitiously created with the intent to sway the viewer to accept a foreign enemies desired agenda. And sadly, in 2016 a lot of conservatives, independents and even rust belt Democrats were bamboozled by the targeted Russian propaganda into voting against their own interests and electing the most incompetent joke of a president America has ever had. 120 million Americans were targeted by the Russians with their online profiles being used just like some company that's trying to sell you diapers because you just bought a pregnancy test at Target.

"Advertisers are increasingly monitoring people's online behavior and using the information collected to show people individually targeted advertisements. This phenomenon is called online behavioral advertising (OBA)." "Advertisers see OBA as one of the most important new ways of reaching targeted audiences. Online advertising revenues are growing rapidly and setting records every year". "OBA is believed to be part of the future of advertising. It is one of the new options advertisers can choose to use in their campaigns that allows for more precise targeting".

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00913367.2017.1339368

http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/8392/volumes/v27/NA-27

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.6  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago
First of all 1st is a she

Well 1st and I don't agree on everything, especially on the political situation,  but the one thing that I'm going to have to agree with dismayed and 1st on is that he is a he. 

Even his cat's think that he is a he. 

I'll admit that we do dance together at times. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

native-american-dancers-prepare-to-compe

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.5    one month ago
If you don't think false advertising that reached 120 million Americans didn't influence a single person, then I don't think anything I say can penetrate the dense lead vault you must use to store your beliefs.

Use yourself as an example. Could any comment you read on facebook change your vote over to Trump?  Be real!  Do you think anybody could ever convince me to vote for a democrat?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @2.2.6    one month ago

Really?  I got the impression 1st was female?

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.9  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.8    one month ago
Really?  I got the impression 1st was female?

I don't know where you got that impression but 1st is a male...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.2.10  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @2.2.9    one month ago
Really?  I got the impression 1st was female?

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_74_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.11  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.8    one month ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
2.2.12  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.7    one month ago
  Do you think anybody could ever convince me to vote for a democrat?

What if Beto promised socialized AR-15's?

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.13  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago
First of all 1st is a she

When you can be that far off with something as simple as the gender of a fellow lonnng, long time member,

it doesn't improve the credibility of your closely held beliefs in ideologies and conspiracy theories.

Beyond that, I don't think there is a single human being who was influenced by that so called "propaganda". 

Wrong, I know more than several, and I think it's plainly evident that FB was being used by Russia, and continues to struggle with 'bad actors'


 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.14  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.7    one month ago

Could any comment you read on facebook change your vote over to Trump?  Be real! 

Facebook? Well assuming you are not kidding, no.  And nothing anywhere would probably allow me to vote for Trump in any capacity.
Do you think anybody could ever convince me to vote for a democrat?

That's your personal problem.  I would have no problem voting for the best candidate, regardless of Party or lack thereof.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.2    one month ago

[delete.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago
Beyond that, I don't think there is a single human being who was influenced by that so called "propaganda".

What lead you to that conclusion? Facebook Russian bot accounts had hundreds of thousands of likes and shares. That's exactly how Facebook AND Trump gauges 'influence'. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.17  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    one month ago

Oh, I've heard about it - and I've read 'bout a quarter of it.

How much have you read?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.18  1stwarrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.2    one month ago

Damn DP - you came a long way for that one.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.19  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.3    one month ago

Who is the "she" Vic?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.20  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago

You wanna know who/what I am??  Click on my name and go to my homepage.

I'll accept your public apology.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.21  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @2.2.6    one month ago

But NO damn slow dances.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.22  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.8    one month ago

Man, that would really pizz off my former wives and present wife - and my daughter - and six cats.jrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.2.23  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.7    one month ago
Could any comment you read on facebook change your vote over to Trump?  Be real!  Do you think anybody could ever convince me to vote for a democrat?

Don't look now, but you are the ideal propaganda victim.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.24  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.8    one month ago

Standing at the base of the Canadian Defence Forces War Memorial in Toronto - 1999.  Still think I'm a "female"?320

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.25  MUVA  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.24    one month ago

Your hot and I'm a guy that stash is next level looks like your pimp hand is very strong.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.26  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.19    one month ago

To someone named 1st warrior, I apologize for that error. Should have known better

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.27  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.24    one month ago

Alright Sir    

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.28  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.13    one month ago
Wrong, I know more than several

And how many do you know who were influenced by all the msm media's anti-Trump coverage?  Do you think the last minute dump of the "Access Hollywood Tapes" had any influence?  Or constantly smearing Trump as a "racist"?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.29  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.28    one month ago
Do you think the last minute dump of the "Access Hollywood Tapes" had any influence?  Or constantly smearing Trump as a "racist"?

The "last minute dump" was Trump in his own words, not some invented smear piece. And the only person who "smeared" Trump as a racist was himself with his constant racist comments and racist dog whistles to white supremacists who heard him loud and clear and came out to support him in droves. That's a far cry from the fake Facebook ads claiming Hillary was running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor or was some Bond villain who had Seth Rich and about a dozen others murdered. We know at least one dumb fuck conservative fell for the fake news fed them by the Russians.

"A North Carolina man was arrested Sunday after he walked into a popular pizza restaurant in Northwest Washington carrying an assault rifle and fired one or more shots, D.C. police said. The man told police he had come to the restaurant to “self-investigate” a false election-related conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton that spread online during her presidential campaign."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/12/04/d-c-police-respond-to-report-of-a-man-with-a-gun-at-comet-ping-pong-restaurant/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.04c3a2880962

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.30  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.26    one month ago

No problem sir - wuz just trying to have some tongue and cheek humor wid ya.jrSmiley_34_smiley_image.gif

Have a super day, OK?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.31  gooseisgone  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.5    one month ago
If you don't think false advertising that reached 120 million Americans didn't influence a single person,

You constantly tell us how much smarter democrats are than Republicans, are you know saying they were tricked by Facebook.   

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.32  It Is ME  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.31    one month ago

It ALWAYS must be someone or some other things Fault …... in "Liberal Land" ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

They're to smart to be Faulty on their own. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
2.2.33  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  MUVA @2.2.25    one month ago

Dammit he has a Burt Reynolds stash and super manlyness... .I'm heading  to the gym.....

.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago
Do you think FB is being used by "Russia?

Surely the smart progressive liberals weren't stupid enough to be fooled by Russians, were they?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.35  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.28    one month ago
And how many do you know who were influenced by all the msm media's anti-Trump coverage? 

Why deflect from the fact that a hostile foreign power used propaganda and illegal hacking to tampered with our election? 

Do you think the last minute dump of the "Access Hollywood Tapes" had any influence? 

Obviously not enough. 

Or constantly smearing Trump as a "racist"?

Citing a fact isn't smearing. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.36  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.30    one month ago

I know you were.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.37  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.7    4 weeks ago
Do you think anybody could ever convince me to vote for a democrat?

Do you think anyone's even trying?

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.3  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
Don Mc Ghan

Was Mc Ghan telling the truth ?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.1  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @2.3    one month ago
Was Mc Ghan telling the truth ?

Why would you doubt his veracity? 

Secondly, the facts about that incident didn't just rely on McGahn's testimony. Priebus and others corroborated McGahn. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.3.2  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @2.3.1    one month ago
Why would you doubt his veracity? 

2 years of nonsensical investigations, people and politicians saying they have proof over and above Mueller, politicians crying wolf, "talking Heads" claiming they know EVERYTHING, etc.....

Why shouldn't I ?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.3  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @2.3.2    one month ago
2 years of nonsensical investigations, people and politicians saying they have proof over and above Mueller, politicians crying wolf, "talking Heads" claiming they know EVERYTHING, etc..... Why shouldn't I ?

What did McGahn have to do with that other than to cover Trump's ass for 2 years and tell the Special Counsel the truth, supported by documents and corroborating witnesses? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.3.4  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @2.3.3    one month ago
What did McGahn have to do with that other than to cover Trump's ass for 2 years

What Did Trump actually LEGALLY do wrong again ?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.3.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @2.3.4    4 weeks ago
What Did Trump actually LEGALLY do wrong again ?

See Vol. II of the Mueller report on obstruction.  It's very clearly written and easy even for non-lawyers to understand -- unless there's something preventing them from understanding it, of course.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.3.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dulay @2.3.1    4 weeks ago
Why would you doubt his veracity? 

Anything to prop up The Scumbag no matter how preposterous or dishonest. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.7  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @2.3.4    4 weeks ago
What Did Trump actually LEGALLY do wrong again ?

What Atheist said.

READ Volume II. Each instance is listed under "Analysis: Obstructive Act"

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.3.8  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @2.3.7    4 weeks ago
READ Volume II. Each instance is listed under "Analysis: Obstructive Act"

Do expand on YOUR interpretation !

I'll wait.....AGAIN ! jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.9  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @2.3.8    4 weeks ago
Do expand on YOUR interpretation ! I'll wait.....AGAIN !

Please explain your need for my interpretation in lieu of your own? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.3.10  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @2.3.9    4 weeks ago
Please explain your need for my interpretation in lieu of your own?

STILL ….. waiting. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
cms5
2.4  cms5  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
One interesting revelation is that Mueller found that Trump asked white house counsel Don Mc Ghan to lie and say Trump had not wanted to fire Mueller when that was in fact what Trump had told McGhan.  Trying to get the white house counsel to lie sounds like an impeachable offense to me. 

According to the report (page 216 of the pdf), June 17, 2017 - Trump called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out direction.

(Page 217) Early 2018 the Press reports that Trump directed McGahn to have Special Counsel removed in 2017.

(Page 218)

The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.

Trump reacted to news stories. McGahn didn't carry out either direction. No retaliation from Trump for McGahn basically telling him to shove it.

Is that really an impeachable offense? How did the Press get the story in early 2018?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago
One interesting revelation is that Mueller found that Trump asked white house counsel Don Mc Ghan to lie and say Trump had not wanted to fire Mueller when that was in fact what Trump had told McGhan. 

I look forward to McGahn's congressional testimony.  When Dean did so, the revelations of Nixon's lying and obstruction rocked the country.   I don't see how McGahn's could be any less explosive. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
3  evilgenius    one month ago
There is more than enough in there to trigger investigations in Congress.  

Of course. There is a lot of stuff to make political hay.

I see calls for impeachment hearings forthcoming virtually immediately. 

Nope. There is nothing criminal in the report.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @3    one month ago

The Mueller report says that the collusion investigation was  MATERIALLY IMPEDED by all the lying that Trump associates did to the investigators about Russia.  Congress can call these people to testify with the threat of putting them in prison if they don't tell the truth. 

I think it is highly likely that congressional hearings will ramp up, and depending what is developed impeachment will happen. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago
I think it is highly likely that congressional hearings will ramp up...

This isn't any great revelation. The House has already said they would investigate everything they can up to and including where Trump purchases his underwear. 

...and depending what is developed impeachment will happen. 

They would have to find something so egregious it couldn't be ignored. With Trump, it's possible, but there is a saying about eggs and chickens you should remember. It would be a political mistake to push impeachment without knowing they can get a conviction in the Senate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.1    one month ago

I dont think they should go immediately to impeachment, but they will have hearings into the material from the report that is damaging to Trump , and that very well may lead to impeachment. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    one month ago

Mueller has already been summoned to two different committees. We'll see how that goes.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago
Congress can call these people to testify with the threat of putting them in prison if they don't tell the truth. 

That is exactly what they are going to do. These liars will be brought before Congress who will lay out the Mueller report findings and then try to get to the truth of those lies. Of course the Trump loyalists will plead the 5th and we won't actually get the concrete evidence needed to impeach Trump, but it's going to be happening during the run up to and through the campaign, all of Trumps liars trotted out and forced to repeat their lies and then refuse to tell the truth all to protect the candidate who will be running for re-election. It will be as Trump predicted when he found out Mueller had been appointed to investigate the Russian election interference, "This is the end of my Presidency, I'm fucked...".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago
Congress can call these people to testify with the threat of putting them in prison if they don't tell the truth. 

Can congress prosecute?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.5    one month ago
Can congress prosecute?

Yes, and incarcerate. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.7  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago

Sorry John - you're gonna have to point that out to us 'cause that's not in the report.

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.8  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago

spin, spin and more spin

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.1    one month ago
It would be a political mistake to push impeachment without knowing they can get a conviction in the Senate.

Absolutely right If the Dems don't quit this clown show pretty soon, it will likely end up to be the biggest political mistake they have even made....other than choosing HRC as a candidate.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.9    one month ago

The House leaders are already publicly distancing themselves from impeachment. How could they not?

They just want to hold hearing after hearing to attack Trump without actually doing anything. 

 
 
 
cms5
3.1.11  cms5  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago
The Mueller report says that the collusion investigation was  MATERIALLY IMPEDED

What page is that on? Seriously, for those of us who have the actual redacted report...what page is that on?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  evilgenius @3    4 weeks ago
There is nothing criminal in the report.

Didn't read what's in Vol. II, then. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  evilgenius @3    4 weeks ago
There is nothing criminal in the report.

I don't think you've paid close enough attention to Vol. II and how the Mueller investigators basically set the stage for ten indictments for it.  In fact, that's the part of the report that's set off Scumbag's current round of  tantrums, and interestingly leading him to commit even further cases of obstruction by refusing to hand over documents and trying to intimidate even former WH officials from testifying. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4  XDm9mm    one month ago
I see calls for impeachment hearings forthcoming virtually immediately. 

Too late John.  "Calls" for impeachment were happening before President Trump even took the Oath of Office.

And we all see how those previous calls proceeded.

I see "calls for impeachment" having the same useless screaming at the sky effect as this:

tenor.gif?itemid=9225992

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @4    one month ago

The Mueller Report does not "exonerate" the Trump campaign or Trump himself. That is clear now. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago

Keep screaming at the sky John

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.1    one month ago

I'm totally calm. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago
The Mueller Report does not "exonerate" the Trump campaign or Trump himself. That is clear now

And yet once again, the purpose of the Mueller investigation was NOT to exonerate Trump.

Why do you think that was the purpose?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    one month ago

Trump SAID he is exonerated.  DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? 

The Mueller report does not exonerate Trump. I have been watching the analysis and people reading from the report for the past hour. 

There is a great deal of damaging material in there. 

TRUMP SAID HE IS EXONERATED. 

And he's not. 

Stop asking me about "exoneration". I am not going to repeat myself on your whim. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one month ago
Trump SAID he is exonerated. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

Loud and clear, John. Do you think the purpose of it was to exonerate someone?

The Mueller report does not exonerate Trump. I have been watching the analysis and people reading from the report for the past hour.

It wasn't supposed to, John.

There is a great deal of damaging material in there.

So you say. I look forward to the next 30 days and the seeds you will run on all of it.

Stop asking me about "exoneration". I am not going to repeat myself on your whim.

Sorry, John, but when you consistently keep bringing it up, it is considered fair game.

If you don't want to talk about exoneration, why do you keep talking about it?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.5    one month ago

Because Trump said he was exonerated. Actually he said it about 20 times. Most smart people will understand that but you seem to repeatedly be unable to. 

If Trump claims loudly that he is exonerated, it is of course appropriate to see if the report does that. It doesn't. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    one month ago

Keep gnawing on it.

Hell, plenty of Democrats and others said unequivocally that the Mueller Report would prove Trump colluded with Russia.

Still waiting.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.7    one month ago
Hell, plenty of Democrats and others said unequivocally that the Mueller Report would prove Trump colluded with Russia.

The New and Improved version now is :

"It's a cover-up" ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    one month ago
Because Trump said he was exonerated. Actually he said it about 20 times. Most smart people will understand that but you seem to repeatedly be unable to.
If Trump claims loudly that he is exonerated, it is of course appropriate to see if the report does that. It doesn't.

You say you don't want to talk about it, yet you keep doing so.

Which is it now--talking about it or not?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one month ago
I am not going to repeat myself on your whim. 

You repeat yourself daily.  Don't try to blame another.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.11  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one month ago
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? 

THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.  To quote YOU,

"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?"

 
 
 
lady in black
4.1.12  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.11    one month ago

Funny, this doesn't read like an exoneration at all. Was Barr reading the same report when he wrote that fake summary?

Sounds like Barr should be dismissed as well. First he says trump fully cooperated with Mueller, but then Mueller lists numerous, detailed accounts to prove that is not the case.

Sure sounds like plenty of obstruction to go around. All Mueller did was put it in the hands of Congress to impeach.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.13  katrix  replied to  lady in black @4.1.12    one month ago

The report says that the only reason Trump didn't commit obstruction is because the people around him refused to do what he told them.  But it clearly shows he attempted to obstruct.  Not that's any surprise; he did it so publicly, we heard him do it with our own ears in many cases.  He think he's above the law and the constitution - egomaniac who couldn't lead (or tell the truth) if his life depended on it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.14  author  JohnRussell  replied to  lady in black @4.1.12    one month ago

It turns out that Mueller specifically said he could not indict Trump if he wanted to because a sitting president cannot be indicted. 

So Barr lied this morning when he said otherwise. 

Trump is open to impeachment. Pelosi will make a political decision about that. 

This report is very bad for Trump to anyone who wants to be objective. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
4.1.15  evilgenius  replied to  katrix @4.1.13    one month ago
The report says that the only reason Trump didn't commit obstruction is because the people around him refused to do what he told them.  But it clearly shows he attempted to obstruct. 

Now I'm hearing Ghouliani is saying Trump's "motive" isn't criminal. Hahahahaha! It's gone from "He didn't" to "Being a man-child isn't criminal".

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.16  1stwarrior  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.8    one month ago

320

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    one month ago

Yawwwnnn...

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.16    one month ago

thanks 1st

I got a chuckle out of that one, lol.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.19  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.17    one month ago

It must suck to know that the president you support is a worthless piece of shit. 

You have to be smoking something to think this report clears Trump. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.20  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.18    one month ago

LOL. What is funny about that meme? It is ridiculous. 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.1.21  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.20    one month ago

Because that's exactly what happened John.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.22  author  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.1.21    one month ago

Keep dreaming. 

One of the main conclusions we can make from the Mueller report is that the investigation was not a "hoax". 

Which makes all your booshwa inoperative. 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.1.23  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.22    one month ago

Total Hoax inspired by your Hilda. 

Democrats dropped the ball in 2016.  Egomaniac decided not to campaign in the swing states, had it in the bag.

 The impossible happened and you and your ilk have spent 2 years promoting a fakasaurus story.

You're answer now is to put 25 fruitballs on the stage? The answer is to find a reasonably normal candidate and beat trump and lay off the fake news bong.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.24  author  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.1.23    one month ago

If that is "comedy" to you, God bless ya. 

Most people will see it as pathetic. 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.1.25  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.24    one month ago

Every rag and media circus you watch was just hit with a woolly Mammoth sized pile of poop. It's almost unbearable to watch you continue their talking points.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.26  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.24    one month ago
Most people will see it as pathetic. 

Sorry John but to paraphrase Maverick in Top Gun ...... you got that "inverted"

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.1.27  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.26    one month ago

Is that like being schmeckled?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.1.25    one month ago
It's almost unbearable to watch you continue their talking points.

But certainly not unexpected.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1.29  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.19    one month ago

Please be so kind as to provide any proof or evidence that I have said I ever supported Trump. The fact is I don't. I just support progressive liberal agendas even less. I await any proof you can dig up or fabricate. Bye now...

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.22    one month ago
One of the main conclusions we can make from the Mueller report is that the investigation was not a "hoax".

One of the main conclusions is also that no collusion occurred.

Despite being told for 2 years that THIS report would do exactly that, and that Trump would be impeached or resign.

I haven't seen him resign, and I don't see where Dems filed articles of impeachment, either.

Why haven't they?

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.1.31  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.29    one month ago

The Evidence you ask? She lost....@#!@#%!#@$%!#$!

We are in a new era of post election campaigning for the loser. It has to be the funniest thing I've seen in my life.  What could possibly occur now? I mean we already had crotch hat marches and He will not divide us Art where you stand in a camera like a douche canoodle and chant, "He will not divide us"!  Then there is the Antifa and all their 160 Genders marching around with pepper spray? LOL 

What's next? An army of Betos to fight the Millions of mythical Nazis?  It's getting kind of weird ya know? All of it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because as the messiah said, we all die in 12 years since Weather is mad at the privileged white male patriarchy.

Smash the Patriarchy and Die cisgender scum!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.32  author  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.1.25    one month ago
Every rag and media circus you watch was just hit with a woolly Mammoth sized pile of poop.

You are trying to bamboozle again. I know you can't help it. 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.1.33  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.32    one month ago

John seriously you won the trophy for the last two years of hoax seeding. Can you just please deliver your acceptance speech and take a seat?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.34  author  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.1.27    one month ago

Now we will get all the pointless blabbering from the trumpsters. 

Lame jokes and verbal nonsense. You guys need a new act. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.35  author  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.1.33    one month ago

The Mueller Report conclusively demonstrates that the investigation was not a hoax.  Bad day for trumpsters today. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.36  author  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.1.31    one month ago
The Evidence you ask? She lost....@#!@#%!#@$%!#$!

Evidence of what? That you have no point? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.37  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.30    one month ago
One of the main conclusions is also that no collusion occurred.

Actually that's not what the report says. There was not evidence sufficient for a slam dunk guilty verdict. 

We found out why Trump Jr wasnt indicted. He didnt have the "mentality" to understand that meeting with the Russians was a crime.  ( But your honor, I can't be guilty, I'm too stupid") lol

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.1.38  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.34    one month ago

I'm working on a new routine once you nominate your leader Bernie the Kook. This election is going to be absolutely entertaining.

Once couldn't ask for anything more. I mean we get the Trump vs the Bern?

Two idiots mud wrestling.

Please tell me Jill Stein is coming out with a new album and running too.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.39  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.34    one month ago

Translation:

I just got me ass handed to me so now i need to deflect like a race car airfoil.

C'mon John .... man up and take your lumps.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1.40  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.29    one month ago

How about that, not a word. The silence is deafening....jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.41  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.39    one month ago

Take my lumps for what? 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.1.42  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.41    one month ago

It's important to check for lumps.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.43  author  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.1.42    one month ago

Trump walked right past the reporters today as he climbed into Marine One on his way to Florida for the weekend. Usually he stops and says something and takes questions. Walked right past . 

He knows the bottom fell out on him today. 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.1.44  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.43    one month ago

I am not sure what report you read but the reporters looked so sad. They had to be thinking, will i have to give back my Pulitzer prize now that it has been exposed as fake news?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.45  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.43    one month ago

You Trump haters will still be creating lies and whining about our president until January 20, 2025 when He leaves office.

President Trump is the only thing standing between our liberty and the fall of our nation to the communism of the Democrats

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.46  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.41    one month ago

My bad, one would need to be at least marginally self aware to realize there were lumps to be taken.

Carry on ....

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.47  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one month ago

John - you have just dug your own hole.

If you are judging the intent/extent of the report based on "what you are hearing" - dude - you done lost it.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.48  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    one month ago

More deflection and spin does not make you look good

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.49  1stwarrior  replied to  lady in black @4.1.12    one month ago

And there ya go - starting with the naysaying and "Barr's" a liar.

Thanks.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.50  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.22    one month ago

Keep dreaming?  We will as Hillary is walking into the jail house, along with many of her "former workers" in the government.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.51  dennis smith  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.39    one month ago

That is an impossibilty 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.52  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.34    one month ago

So do you.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.53  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    one month ago
And yet once again, the purpose of the Mueller investigation was NOT to exonerate Trump. Why do you think that was the purpose?

Yet in multiple places in volume 2 , it clearly states that IF they COULD have exonerated Trump, they would have done so. So while it may not have been the 'purpose' of the investigation, the report DOES exonerate those that they COULD exonerate, Page for instance. 

One thing that WAS a purpose of the investigation was Russian interference in our election and neither Trump nor the GOP seem to want to talk about THAT part of the report. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.54  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.20    one month ago

it struck me as funny John,

now what does not strike me as funny

is seeing it at least three times on the same article

without a complaint by the seeder for comment spamming.

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
4.1.55  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  lady in black @4.1.12    one month ago
All Mueller did was put it in the hands of Congress to impeach.

Mueller is doing his best Pontius Pilate impersonation saying he couldn't find any criminal actions by Trump so he's putting it in the hands of his Democratic buddies in Congress to crucify him.

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.1.56  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.50    one month ago

The crazy makes CNN funnier than Comedy Central.

Absolutely amazing.

The shills are pulling out their hair.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.57  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.49    one month ago

If you read the report, you'd agree the Barr was a liar too. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.1.58  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.1.56    one month ago
The crazy makes CNN funnier than Comedy Central.

https://www.cnn.com/?fakenews

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.59  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @4.1.53    one month ago
One thing that WAS a purpose of the investigation was Russian interference in our election and neither Trump nor the GOP seem to want to talk about THAT part of the report.

And can you name the Democrat that is making that a priority?

What the report DID accomplish was splattering the egg all over the faces of ALL the Democrats that were claiming they saw the EVIDENCE of Trump/Russia COLLUSION and the Mueller Report would validate that, Shiff for example, and I believe Swalwell for another.  But, alas, the was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.1.60  Snuffy  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @4.1.55    one month ago
Mueller is doing his best Pontius Pilate impersonation saying he couldn't find any criminal actions by Trump so he's putting it in the hands of his Democratic buddies in Congress to crucify him.

Actually I think you mean Caiaphas.  Caiaphas was the head priest who wanted Jesus crucified. The Sanhedrin trial finally pronounced him guilty of blasphemy and was pronounced worthy of death. However since the Jews could not legally execute prisoners Caiaphas has to send Jesus to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.61  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.59    one month ago
And can you name the Democrat that is making that a priority?

Actually, I can name quite a few and they've been doing so for quite a while. I haven't watched much coverage on this but I saw Amy Klobuchar and Swalwell made that their priority to address. 

What the report DID accomplish was splattering the egg all over the faces of ALL the Democrats that were claiming they saw the EVIDENCE of Trump/Russia COLLUSION and the Mueller Report would validate that, Shiff for example, and I believe Swalwell for another. But, alas, the was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Perhaps now that we're dealing with an actual legal document, we could STOP using the bullshit COLLUSION term. Though Barr seems intent on perpetuating the bullshit, we can now use the PROPER legal terms as seen in the report. 

The report found that there was no prosecutable evidence of CONSPIRACY. There WAS however plenty of evidence of Trump and his minions lying their asses off to the FBI and to Congress. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.62  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.37    one month ago
Actually that's not what the report says. There was not evidence sufficient for a slam dunk guilty verdict.

gee, when there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge Hillary, most Dems were saying that it proved she did nothing wrong.

Why the change now?

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.63  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.14    one month ago

Pelosi will make a political decision for her party. Everything she does is for political gain only.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.64  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.18    one month ago

It's off topic like his meme elsewhere on here.  It should be removed.  

I mean some of my comments should be removed on other pieces because they were definitely off topic, etc., etc., but when you say I'm violating the CoC by telling a poster You Do ! it's getting a little bit ludicrous around here.  

Remove my comments constantly but some seem to be allowed to run rough shod with no warnings, constant off topic comments and memes, I don't why I bother some times.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.65  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.20    one month ago
'LOL. What is funny about that meme? It is ridiculous.' 

It's stupid and it makes no sense.  That's why it's allowed to stay.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.66  It Is ME  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.16    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

I really hope Barr presses on what he said !

This may come back and bite Democrats in the ass....worse than it has already ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.67  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @4.1.61    one month ago
There WAS however plenty of evidence of Trump and his minions lying their asses off to the FBI and to Congress. 

What evidence are you talking about? Do you even understand the meaning of "no prosecutable evidence of CONSPIRACY?" Or COLLUSION or OBSTRUCTION for that matter?

What difference, at this point, does it make?  Congress can't really touch a sitting president.

It's doubtful that the House Democrats will get enough votes to impeach, even they are able to come up some supposedly impeachable offense. The Senate will certainly not vote to convict. So once again, the dopey Dems will end up with egg on their silly faces for promising much, but delivering big fat zeros.

This lack of power and purpose and inability to lead or influence will surely be noticed by the voters come 2020.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.68  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.67    one month ago
What evidence are you talking about?

Read the report.

Do you even understand the meaning of "no prosecutable evidence of CONSPIRACY?" Or COLLUSION or OBSTRUCTION for that matter?

Yes. 

What difference, at this point, does it make?

If you have to ask that ridiculous question, it's not something you'd understand anyway. 

Congress can't really touch a sitting president.

Constitutionally, Congress are the only one's that can touch Trump for obstruction. Once Trump's taxes are released to the Ways and Means Committee, we'll see what hell breaks loose. 

As for the other crimes that are being investigated by the SDNY, it sure as hell looks like Trump's 'empire' is fucked. 

BTFW, the NY AG has already 'touched' Trump and will continue to do so. 


It's doubtful that the House Democrats will get enough votes to impeach, even they are able to come up some supposedly impeachable offense.

Please DO give me your expert analysis on why the House Democratic majority won't vote for impeachment. 

The Senate will certainly not vote to convict.

What difference, at this point, does it make? A GOP House impeached Clinton knowing that the Senate would not convict. 

So once again, the dopey Dems will end up with egg on their silly faces for promising much, but delivering big fat zeros.

More of your expert analysis is needed to clarify that comment too. Perhaps you can point to the political price paid by the GOP for impeaching Clinton. 


This lack of power and purpose and inability to lead or influence will surely be noticed by the voters come 2020.

That's hilarious considering the FACT that Trump ended up signing a budget that he promised he would never sign after a shutdown that the majority blamed on Trump.

Now we have the Charimen of the Committees calling witnesses. The Democratic Chairmen will NOT accept the bullshit 'privilege' claims that the GOP did. The first affirmative contempt of Congress vote will set the stage for more forthcoming testimony by those witnesses. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.1.69  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @4.1.53    one month ago
One thing that WAS a purpose of the investigation was Russian interference in our election and neither Trump nor the GOP seem to want to talk about THAT part of the report

No....it was whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to interfere with the 2016 Election.  Please point me to the area of the report that you say shows this or the GOP doesn't want to talk about. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.70  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @4.1.69    one month ago
No....it was whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to interfere with the 2016 Election. 

From the letter appointing Mueller as Special Counsel:

to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election
Please point me to the area of the report that you say shows this or the GOP doesn't want to talk about.

I base that perception on the plethora of statements from GOP 'leadership' that boil down to 'it's time to move on'. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.71  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.20    4 weeks ago

It's ridiculing the rightwing idea that somehow Scumbag and all his criminality and scumminess is Obama's fault. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.72  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.7    4 weeks ago
Keep gnawing on it.

You mean like BENGHAZI!!!BENGHAZI!!!!BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!

If only there'd been a real bone there.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.73  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.72    4 weeks ago
You mean like BENGHAZI!!!BENGHAZI!!!!BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!

Do not attempt to put words in my mouth and then debate THAT. That is intellectually dishonest.

Had I actually meant Banghazi, I would have stated that.

Since it is obvious that you don't know what I was talking about, best to just let it go or ask for clarification if needed.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.74  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.1.21    4 weeks ago
Because that's exactly what happened John.

Oh, yes, indeed:  In Fish's and the Rightwing Pukefunnel's "Opposite World."  

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
5  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ    one month ago

I still have hope.....but Russia.

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1  Don Overton  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @5    one month ago

Are they you second best friend?

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
5.1.1  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  Don Overton @5.1    one month ago

You are my second best friend forever.

I even spell check and help people punctuate.

 
 
 
lib50
5.1.2  lib50  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @5.1.1    one month ago

Well covfefe for you!

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
5.1.3  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  lib50 @5.1.2    one month ago

And I raise you a Big league. (pronounced bigly)

 
 
 
lib50
5.1.4  lib50  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @5.1.3    one month ago

I think we should celebrate the unpresidented success of Jared's lasting peach for Israel.

After I read the Special Councel's report.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @5.1.4    one month ago

Yeah I did too after reading the Oranges of the Species.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @5    4 weeks ago

"......if you're listening...", right Fish? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
6  It Is ME    one month ago

"Analysts are going through the now released Mueller Report."

"Analysts" (Media Talking Heads jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif) .… are doing this for "FREE" ?

SUCKERS ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

They shoulda put in their resume' to the Mueller team. Those guys got paid a bunch to do research and come up with what they did.

I know from experience...."Free" means they'll just come up with anything to make someone happy....hoping for the big bucks later. Like when a car guy tells you, you need all this work done on your car, when you really DON'T !

"AS-seen-on-TV" analysists (talking Heads) are just your average everyday hucksters ! Those same "Analysists" have been Hairball Hacking on this for the last 2 years about how they definitively knew, and had PROOF, "IT WAS TRUE". jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @6    one month ago

Gosh you sure spread a lot of fake news where do you get all that blah, blah

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Don Overton @6.1    one month ago
Gosh you sure spread a lot of fake news where do you get all that blah, blah

From actually listening to the actual Analytical? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif"Talking Heads" blah, blah, blah...."As-seen-on-TV" for the last 2 years !

Remember those folks ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

They all said ….. THEY HAD THE BEEF under that Really, Really, Really BIG BUN they laid out ! jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

I still say:

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Ummm Duhhh..

Of course the House was going to investigate no matter what the report said.

This article could have been written last week.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    one month ago

I think they should hold at least as many investigations if not more as the ones into Benghazi and also Hillary's e-mails.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    one month ago
and also Hillary's e-mails.

in progress...

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7.1.1    one month ago

Nope.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.1.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7.1.1    one month ago
in progress...

Late stages of severe, terminal HDS there. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    one month ago
Of course the House was going to investigate no matter what the report said.

But, especially since the report shows 10 areas of obstruction of justice which the SP could not exonerate your Scumbag.  Let's go back to his exact words in the report:

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mueller writes. “We are unable to reach such a judgment.”

Those are the words of a prosecutor who knows he's not permitted to indict a president but is making it clear that if it were possible to do so he would have done it.  It also reveals one of the duties of a prosecutor:  to make available any exculpatory evidence found during an investigation.  Obviously there was none to be found.  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.2.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.2    one month ago

The obstruction of justice charge is the last gasp of the anti-American left who’s hatred of Trump, conservatives, Christians, and the Constitution drive them in their destructive frenzy.

“OOJ” is a statist legal maneuver designed to destroy individuals and keep the tyrannical state in total control.

our founders would be aghast at the level of tyrannical power the state has assumed for itself

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.2  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.2    one month ago
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mueller writes. “We are unable to reach such a judgment.”

That's where Mueller went off the rails in Vol. #2, and made it an "Opinion Piece".

The way Mueller ran around convicting, before the report, Any honest person would know, Mueller had NOTHING on Trump, or damn sure he would have Trump up on charges !

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.3  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.2    one month ago
The way Mueller ran around convicting, before the report, Any honest person would know, Mueller had NOTHING on Trump, or damn sure he would have Trump up on charges !

Oh please do post links to Mueller's statements during the investigation. I'll even take Mueller's spokesman's statements. 

Any honest person would know, Mueller had NOTHING on Trump, or damn sure he would have Trump up on charges !

Any honest person would recognize that comment illustrates that you haven't read the report. I suggest you search the term 'OLC' in the report an at LEAST read those sections. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.4  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @7.2.3    one month ago
Oh please do post links to Mueller's statements during the investigation

Oh please....

going to pains to sound STUPID isn't becoming !

"Any honest person would recognize that comment illustrates that you haven't read the report."

Any honest person wouldn't bluster how "They Know", over and above what has been said ! Where is Schiffties indisputable evidence anyway.

On that note, You have something we don't know about yet ?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.5  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.4    one month ago
Oh please.... going to pains to sound STUPID isn't becoming !

Why persist then? 

You made the STUPID claim that "Mueller ran around convicting, before the report" yet can't cite even ONE statement by Mueller. Instead, as seems to be a regular practice of some conservative members of late, you made your reply personal. Well done. 

On that note, You have something we don't know about yet ?

Addressing only YOU, undoubtedly. The list of what I know that you don't is expansive. First on that list is how to debate an issue in good faith. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.6  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @7.2.5    one month ago
You made the STUPID claim that "Mueller ran around convicting, before the report"

Mueller and his team convicted NO ONE in 2 years ?

Did you skip over that tidbit of reporting noting all Muellers Convictions ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

"The list of what I know that you don't is expansive."

Now that statement is worthy of another new "Dumb and Dumber" movie. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Remind me whom it is that makes "Stupid ignorant " statements again ?

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.7  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.6    one month ago
Mueller and his team convicted NO ONE in 2 years ?

Oh now it's 'and his team'. 

512

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @7.2.7    one month ago
Oh now it's 'and his team'. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

I get it....your all bluster....and NOTHING Else.

This ain't hard.

DID

M

E

U

L

L

E

R

CONVICT

A

N

Y

O

N

E

OR NOT ?

I slowed it down for ya ! jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.2    4 weeks ago
The way Mueller ran around convicting, before the report, Any honest person would know, Mueller had NOTHING on Trump, or damn sure he would have Trump up on charges !

You mean finding the guilty parties and charging them and persuading a juries of their guilt?  What is it about our justice system that you suddenly don't like?  Seems to be who's been brought to justice makes the big difference to you.  Also, there's an old saying that "justice delayed is justice denied."  And that cuts both ways.  But, don't let any of that stop the whining. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2.10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.8    4 weeks ago

I'll make it big for "ya." 

M A N A F O R T

G A T E S

F L Y N N 

C O H E N

Now in the barrel waiting his turn is 

S T O N E

+  persons unknown in about a dozen ongoing federal investigations between the SDNY, EDV and DC jurisdictions. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.11  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.2.10    4 weeks ago

I'll make it even BIGGER for you !

NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION WHAT-SO-EVER !

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.11    4 weeks ago

Scream as loud as you like---it doesn't turn a lie into truth and never will.  

And just for the sake of accuracy (I know it's laughable to bother in your case--but for the record)  Mueller's report found plenty of collusion (the many contacts between Scumbag campaign and family members with Russians or others working on behalf of Russia) but stated that it could establish a strong case for conspiracy.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.13  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.2.12    4 weeks ago
Mueller's report found plenty of collusion

NO....IT DIDN'T !

Everyone in Politics throughout the decades, have met with "Russians …. All the Time !

Didn't you see Schumer having donuts and coffee with Putin ?

They laughed and laughed...……TOGETHER. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
8  Texan1211    one month ago

More investigations? 

What a surprise!

Why don't Democrats simply file the articles of impeachment and get on with it instead of endlessly yakking about doing it?

After all, at long last, they have the highly-vaunted Mueller Report that was going to prove collusion.

What's the hold up?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
8.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @8    one month ago
After all, at long last, they have the highly-vaunted Mueller Report that was going to prove collusion.

What constitutes "collusion" in your gifted legal mind? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @8.2    one month ago
What constitutes "collusion" in your gifted legal mind?

Doesn't matter what I think collusion is. It mattered what the legal definition is, and Mueller didn't prove it, plain and simple.

It is what so many Democrats were SURE Mueller was going to prove, and then you'd all finally GET TRUMP!!

Why aren't Dems demanding their lawmakers file the articles of impeachment?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
8.2.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.1    4 weeks ago
Doesn't matter what I think collusion is.

Wow, Tex.  That's as fast a turn about as you've ever tried to pull off.  In the matter of just two comments you go from spouting off about collusion as if you're an expert and then saying it doesn't matter what you think about it.  Here's a fact:  Mueller's report says nothing whatsoever about collusion but only that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone for conspiracy.  He does document dozens of examples of meetings between Russians and Scumbag campaign officials and cites the fact that there was exchange of information between them in some cases (see Trump Tower meeting of June 29, 2016, for example) but somehow managed not to find any evidence that there was some kind of a formal agreement (as if conspirators draw up a written contract to conspire and sign it????).  

Here's the collusion, though (and some of these examples are still being investigated, notably the fact that Erik Prince perjured himself):

RUSSIAN CONTACTS

A main focus for Mueller was a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between a Russian lawyer and members of the Trump campaign — including the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Emails leading up to the meeting promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The report details other contacts as well, including meetings between the campaign and the Russian ambassador and dealings between Kushner and a Washington-based think tank with strong Russian ties. And immediately after the November 2016 election, the report says, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began to make inroads into the new administration, and “the most senior levels of the Russian government encouraged these efforts.”

The report did not find criminality in those contacts, however. In the Trump Tower meeting, for example, the report notes that to charge Trump Jr. and Kushner, who were campaign novices, prosecutors would have to show that they had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful.* The investigation “has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar” with a ban on foreign contributions, which the information on Clinton could be considered.

___

PAUL MANAFORT

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted in Washington and Virginia of crimes related to years of Ukrainian political consulting work as part of Mueller’s investigation. But the report says that the investigation could not establish that he coordinated with the Russian government on its election interference efforts.

The report does detail that he shared Trump campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a business associate the U.S. says has ties to Russian intelligence, and that the two men met secretly during the campaign to discuss a peace plan that “Manafort acknowledged to the special counsel’s office was a ‘backdoor’ way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine.”The report said that both Manafort and Kilimnik “believed the plan would require candidate Trump’s assent to succeed,” if he were elected.

Still, prosecutors “did not identity evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election,” the report says.

___

THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR

Mueller determined interactions between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Trump campaign officials — including former Attorney General Jeff Sessions — in April 2016 and at the 2016 GOP convention were “brief, public, and non-substantive.”

Prosecutors found no evidence that Kislyak conversed with Trump or Sessions, then an Alabama senator, after a speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington or that he would have had an opportunity to do so.

At a meeting in Sessions’ office in September 2016, Sessions “recalled Kislyak saying that the Russian government was receptive to the overtures Trump had laid out during his campaign,” but none of the attendees remember discussions of election interference or a request that Sessions convey information to Trump. Kislyak invited Sessions to further discuss Russia relations over a meal at his residence, but his aide advised against it, saying she had assessed Kislyak was an “old school KGB guy.”

Sessions recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation after news became public that he had spoken with Kislyak twice during the campaign. He drew the president’s ire after removing himself from the investigation and ultimately resigned at the president’s request in November.

Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned after lying about contacts with Kislyak.

___

GOP PLATFORM

Trump campaign officials met with Kislyak during the week of the Republican National Convention but those interactions were “brief and non-substantive.”

During meetings before the convention, a senior campaign policy advisor diluted a proposal that would’ve amended the Republican Party platform about providing U.S. arms to Ukraine.

Mueller’s report said the investigation “did not establish” that the efforts to dilute the platform came “at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia.”

___

WIKILEAKS

Mueller’s report provides an in-depth look at exchanges between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks during the campaign.

In one encounter, WikiLeaks sent Trump Jr. a message on Twitter about an anti-Trump website that was about to launch and gave him the password. Several hours later, the eldest Trump son emailed campaign staffers about the message, saying he tried the password and it worked.

In others, the anti-secrecy group asked for help promoting their links and told Trump Jr. they had just released another batch of emails stolen from former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Some parts of Mueller’s 448-page report that reference WikiLeaks were blacked out in order to protect ongoing criminal investigations.

Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that any coordination between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks wouldn’t amount to a crime because WikiLeaks’ publications of stolen emails damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign wasn’t illegal as long as the group didn’t work with the Russian hackers who stole the data.

___

ERIK PRINCE AND THE SEYCHELLES

Questions have long surrounded a mysterious meeting between Blackwater USA founder Eric Prince — the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — and a Russian official in the Seychelles, islands off the coast of east Africa. The report flags discrepancies between what Prince and Trump strategist Steve Bannon said about the meeting.

Prince met with Kirill Dmitriev, who headed a Russian sovereign wealth fund, in January 2017, as Trump was preparing to take office and the Russian government was seeking contacts with the incoming administration. Dmitriev reported directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to the report.

In interviews, Prince told investigators that he had briefed Bannon on the meeting, but Bannon denied they ever discussed it. Bannon said he would have remembered such a discussion and objected to the meeting.

The report says that investigators could not iron out the “conflicting accounts” by reviewing communications, in part because text messages between them were missing. Phone provider records showed that Bannon and Prince had exchanged dozens of messages, including two that Prince sent within hours of the meetings with Dmitriev, but the investigators could not find the messages on their phones.

Prince denied deleting messages and Bannon said he did not know why the messages were missing.

https://www.apnews.com/b4df8af0b7ed4592b7c20c1c30ea6eb0

*who knew until now that ignorance of the law and general stupidity can be used to skate free?  It's truly the Scumbag Era then, yes?  

And I know you're going to grab on to that comment about not being able to document that Russian meddling actually changed the outcome of the election.  I'll just remind you of what warmongering Don Rumsfeld said about (and I'd bet good money you cheered loudly about) when he was trying to deflect on the absence of any WMD in Iraq:  "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."  You may continue to flounder about now. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @8.2.2    4 weeks ago

STILL WAITING FOR DEMOCRATS TO GET ON WITH IMPEACHMENT, WHAT IS THE FREAKING HOLD UP NOW?

HERE IS NANCY'S NUMBER SO YOU CAN CALL AND LET HER KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ALL THE PROOF NECESSARY AND ARE PREPARED TO HELP. SHE CAN SIMPLY HIRE YOU AND IT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF RIGHT?

402-225-4965

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
8.2.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.3    4 weeks ago
STILL WAITING FOR DEMOCRATS TO GET ON WITH IMPEACHMENT, WHAT IS THE FREAKING HOLD UP NOW?

Scumbag supporters kept saying that about the Mueller investigation and got slapped up the side of the head when it did come out and now you're doing it again.  What is that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?  But it's hilarious that you think Dems are worried about what people like you think they should be doing.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @8.2.4    4 weeks ago
Scumbag supporters kept saying that about the Mueller investigation and got slapped up the side of the head when it did come out and now you're doing it again. What is that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? But it's hilarious that you think Dems are worried about what people like you think they should be doing.

Leftist dreamers have touted the great Mueller Report for well over two years,

Well, here it isw.

Where are the articles of impeachment? What again is the hold up NOW??????

You have all the "evidence" provided by the great and wondrous Mueller, so GET ON WITH IT or STOP yakking about shit we know ain't happening.

 
 
 
lady in black
9  lady in black    one month ago

Baghad Bill Barr is full of shit and a liar just like orange conman

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9.1  livefreeordie  replied to  lady in black @9    one month ago

You Trump haters will still be creating lies and whining about our president until January 20, 2025 when He leaves office.

President Trump is the only thing standing between our liberty and the fall of our nation to the communism of the Democrats

 
 
 
lady in black
9.1.1  lady in black  replied to  livefreeordie @9.1    one month ago

You trump lovers lap up his lies daily

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  livefreeordie @9.1    one month ago

How many more times are you going to spam that line? That's twice already.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9.1.3  livefreeordie  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.2    one month ago

As often as leftists keep whining about Trump being president 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.5  Raven Wing  replied to  livefreeordie @9.1.3    one month ago
As often as leftists keep whining about Trump being president 

Be my guest. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
9.2  dennis smith  replied to  lady in black @9    one month ago

That comment sure took a lot of thought

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10  1stwarrior    one month ago

Nope - and I didn't forget that Eisenhower wanted to terminate all of us either.

 
 
 
Split Personality
10.1  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @10    one month ago

I don't know who you are 'responding' to, but termination started in 1939 resulting in the Kansas Act of 1940.

it's a great topic for a seed IMHO, but Eisenhower was just a Lt Col back then not at all interested in termination.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Split Personality @10.1    one month ago

Damn thing was "supposed" to respond to Kavika :-)

The House concurrent resolution 108 of 1953 announced the federal policy of termination and called for the immediate ending of the Federal relationship with a selected group of tribes.  Sure, termination had begun in 1801 under Washington, but Congress finally put a tag/title to it in 1953.

 
 
 
Kavika
10.1.2  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.1    one month ago
Nope - and I didn't forget that Eisenhower wanted to terminate all of us either.

Not sure what that has to do with my question to you 1st. But since you brought it up, I'm very familiar with it. In fact my family are experts on public law 280...

Minnesota was one of five original states that that public law 280 affected. More were added later. 

At that time our Tribal Chairman was Roger Jourdain,  a damn smart and savvy chairman. He saw 280 for what it really was and intervened before the bill was introduced to congress and got Red Lake exempted from the law. 

To this day we are a closed reservation and maintain our own police, court system and criminal code. The state of MN has no jurisdiction on Red Lake. 

Nixon stopped it in 1970 or 71...

So yeah, I know exactly what Eisenhower tried and lived through it...

He also did the ''Operation Wetback'' which you're well aware of. 

 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @10.1.2    one month ago

Seriously, and why do people think that retired "General's" would make a good president????  Truly, other than playing more golf than Obama (Trump's still out of consideration at the moment), I can't think of anything Ike did that was positive.  Well, maybe the Interstate system, NASA, ending the Korean War - but helping fund military junta's to overthrow the governments of Iran and Guatemala and getting us involved in Vietnam???

Still, his termination policies as established by HR 208 and PL 280 really futched us over.

 
 
 
Split Personality
10.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.3    one month ago

Like I said, this would make a great topic and maybe educate a few non Indians,

but it has nothing to do with Mueller, Barr, Trump et al.

Nada, off topic, way off the res.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.1.5  MUVA  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.4    one month ago

You seem to only see one comment I see two yet you only tell one person they are off topic interesting.

 
 
 
Split Personality
10.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @10.1.5    one month ago

Interesting, because the conversation started out between 1st and I

or because we have had many comments in common, further up the thread?

Either way I am commenting in black, not purple, understand the difference?

 
 
 
MUVA
10.1.7  MUVA  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.6    one month ago

Yes you only commented to one person the person you probably disagree with yes I see it.

 
 
 
MUVA
12  MUVA    one month ago

Trump 100% vindicated at the same time shows some on the left for the world class ass  hats they are.Still at work at 7pm because of Trumps economy I'm starting to get a little tired of winning.Bob Barr is my new hero.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
12.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @12    one month ago

So I take it you're sticking to the 4 page Barr summary instead of reading the actual report. I must assume such since nothing you just said has any relation to the facts presented in the Mueller report. If Bob Barr is your new hero, I'd hate to see your old one...

 
 
 
livefreeordie
12.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12.1    one month ago

I don’t care what the report says.   The Russia charge was the biggest political hoax in our history. The Obstruction of Justice claims and the prosecutions for supposedly lying are simply more evidenc3 that the FBI, DOJ, mueller and his team are all part of the tyranny of government to maintain their power and control over Americans.

we don’t need the FBI, DEA, or ATF. The are the mob enforcers for the State.

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1.2  MUVA  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.1    one month ago

Some will never see this for what it was a hoax ,scam red meat for leftist morons they will believe this BS for the rest of their pathetic existence.#best day ever   

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
12.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.1    one month ago
I don’t care what the report says.

Color me surprised. Of course you don't, it doesn't align with your fantasy of Trump as a great President. It shows him for what he is, a small, shallow piece of trash who was only saved from criminal obstruction because his staff refused to follow through with many of his illegal orders. And "supposed" lying? They have them caught dead to rights, there is no "supposed" about it. Even Sarah Sanders had to admit she was pulling her false defense of Trump out of her ass.  “(Sanders) also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made 'in the heat of the moment' that was not founded on anything.”

"we don’t need the FBI, DEA, or ATF. The are the mob enforcers for the State."

One of the more ignorant points of view you've ever expressed. Do you consider yourself one of those "sovereign citizens"?

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12.1.3    one month ago

Now the lying bitch Sanders said that was all a slip of the tongue.  She's a liar just like her wolf in sheep's clothing father, the former 'Reverend' Fuckabee.  Both fat lying pieces of shit.  

Is that what your Jesus would do pastor?  Lie, lie, and then lie some more?  They're guilty of many of the 7 deadly sins including the turd of a 'president'.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.1    one month ago

The devil speaks with a forked tongue.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
12.1.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @12.1.2    one month ago
Some will never see this for what it was a hoax ,scam red meat for leftist morons they will believe this BS for the rest of their pathetic existence.#best day ever   

You mean, the "dead-ender" position.  Might as well.  Everything else you've tried has failed. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
12.1.7  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.5    one month ago

Yes he does and it’s evidenced by how willing Democrats are willing to speak for him

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
12.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @12    one month ago
Trump 100% vindicated at the same time shows some on the left for the world class ass  hats they are.Still at work at 7pm because of Trumps economy I'm starting to get a little tired of winning.Bob Barr is my new hero.

That is such a hilariously unhinged take on what we learned yesterday that I just have to thank you for giving us such comedic relief. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
13  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    one month ago

What'd I and other liberals say about how Scumbag and his NT supporters were doing their end zone victory dance from their own 20 yd line, 4th and 15?  Now what they're going to to is ramp up the screaming about "hoax" and "witch hunt," etc., etc. :jrSmiley_42_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_5_smiley_image.pngjrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_42_smiley_image.gif

As Red Sox fans used to say "you knew that was gonna happen."

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
14  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    one month ago

Scumbag answered 27 of the 36 questions sent to him by Mueller's team were answered with "I dunno" or I don't recall."   He learned his mob-boss routine very well. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @14    one month ago
Scumbag answered 27 of the 36 questions sent to him by Mueller's team were answered with "I dunno" or I don't recall." He learned his mob-boss routine very well.

Maybe he learned it from Hillary. She didn't recall many things in her interview with the FBI.

I don't remember Democrats complaining and whining then.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
14.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1    one month ago
She didn't recall many things in her interview with the FBI.

Really?  Cite them. 

 
 
 
MUVA
14.1.2  MUVA  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @14.1.1    one month ago

If you want to act informed you should actually try to become informed she was questioned 2 years ago everyone but you knows what she remembered or in her case didn't recall.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
14.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @14.1.1    one month ago
Really?  Cite them. 

From left-wing Mediaite:

Sep 2nd, 2016, 7:39 pm

Here’s All 40 Times Hillary Clinton Told the FBI She Couldn’t Remember Something

All of the below quotes are taken verbatim from the FBI notes of their interview ofHillary Clinton released this Friday:

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/heres-all-40-times-hillary-clinton-told-the-fbi-she-couldnt-remember-something/

Here are other examples:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hillary+doesn%27t+recall+or+remember&ia=web

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @14.1.3    one month ago

Question #1 is about an event that happened at OVER 15 years before the interview. Many of the others were for events that happened at LEAST 5 years before the interview. 

Trump can't remember shit that happened LAST YEAR. 

But hey Jasper, you go right ahead with your false equivalencies...

 
 
 
Jasper2529
14.1.5  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @14.1.4    one month ago
Question #1 is about an event that happened at OVER 15 years before the interview. Many of the others were for events that happened at LEAST 5 years before the interview. 

Thanks for confirming that you believe that Hillary had a serious problem remembering government protocol. 

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @14.1.5    one month ago
Thanks for confirming that you believe that Hillary had a serious problem remembering government protocol. 

Please refrain from trying to put words in my mouth. I believe no such thing. 

BTFW, which of those 40 answers states that she couldn't remember protocol? Copy and paste it please. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @14.1.6    one month ago

“Clinton did not recall receiving guidance from State regarding email policies outlined in the Foreign Affairs Manual.”

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @14.1.6    one month ago

“Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.”
3.
“Clinton was aware she was an Original Classification Authority (OCA) at State. Clinton could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by State.”
4.
“Clinton recalled being briefed on special access program (SAP) information but could not recall any specific briefing on how to handle information associated with SAP’s.”

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @14.1.6    one month ago

27.
“Clinton did not recall a State policy on confirming classified information and media reports.”

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @14.1.3    one month ago

Some people will simply refuse to read the lnks.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
14.1.12  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.11    one month ago

Thanks for answering Dulay's question while I was offline, Texan. Much appreciated!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14.1.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.7    one month ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.9    one month ago

jrSmiley_34_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14.1.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.9    one month ago

jrSmiley_41_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
14.1.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.11    one month ago

jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.7    one month ago
“Clinton did not recall receiving guidance from State regarding email policies outlined in the Foreign Affairs Manual.”

So she wasn't asked if she KNEW what the policy was. 

Fail.

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.9    one month ago

Three more that prove that she wasn't asked if KNEW the policy. Well done. 

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.10    one month ago
27. “Clinton did not recall a State policy on confirming classified information and media reports.”

There you go. It only took you 4 tries. 

Or course, all it proves is that y'all intentionally hold her to standards that you don't hold Trump's to. Thanks for playing. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @14.1.17    one month ago
So she wasn't asked if she KNEW what the policy was.
Fail.

Are you saying she just "magically" KNEW what the protocols were?

Laughable at best, disingenuous at worst. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @14.1.12    one month ago
Thanks for answering Dulay's question while I was offline, Texan. Much appreciated!

Actually, you answered. I merely provided the direct quotes that were asked for. 

I guess reading links is too difficult for some, so they demand specific quotes.

Notice that it was totally glossed over by the requester?

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @14.1.19    one month ago
There you go. It only took you 4 tries.
Or course, all it proves is that y'all intentionally hold her to standards that you don't hold Trump's to. Thanks for playing. 

Each one proved it. I can't help it if you refuse to recognize the facts.

Why didn't you simply read the link for yourself and do your OWN research? Why were you demanding something already given to you?

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.20    one month ago
Are you saying she just "magically" KNEW what the protocols were?

No. What part of my statement confused you? 

Laughable at best, disingenuous at worst. 

Yes, the baiting in your comment most certainly is.

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.22    one month ago
Each one proved it.

Yes, each one proved that y'all hold Clinton to standards that you don't hold Trump to. 

Why didn't you simply read the link for yourself and do your OWN research?

You assume I didn't. Well done. 

Why were you demanding something already given to you?

It would behoove you to review the difference between a demand and a request. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @14.1.24    one month ago
Yes, each one proved that y'all hold Clinton to standards that you don't hold Trump to.

Sure wish you could stay on topic. One minute you are asking for proof about Clinton, and the next you twist it into something about Trump. Are we now onto Trump?

You assume I didn't. Well done.

Safe assumption since the link was right there. You could have read it and maybe you did and simply didn't recognize what you were asking for was in the link.

It would behoove you to review the difference between a demand and a request.

Why would someone request something they already had been provided? That is illogical.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @14.1.23    one month ago
No. What part of my statement confused you? 

The only things that ever confuses me about your posts are why you didn't research it yourself in the link provided to you and why you ignore facts.

Yes, the baiting in your comment most certainly is.

Your misperception.

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.25    one month ago
Sure wish you could stay on topic.

Actually, the topic of THIS thread is the number of times that Trump answered Mueller's questions with 'I don't recall'. Try to keep up. 

Safe assumption since the link was right there.

No 'assumption' is safe when it's based on bias. 

Why would someone request something they already had been provided? That is illogical.

Perhaps to get the poster to recognize that the VAST MAJORITY of the questions and answers were NOT about whether she KNEW a policy. Thank you for proving that point. 

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.28  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.26    one month ago
The only things that ever confuses me about your posts are why you didn't research it yourself in the link provided to you and why you ignore facts.

Your misperception.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.29  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @14.1.27    one month ago
Actually, the topic of THIS thread is the number of times that Trump answered Mueller's questions with 'I don't recall'.

If it was acceptable for "Comey", it should be "Accepted" for "Trump" ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.30  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @14.1.29    one month ago
If it was acceptable for "Comey", it should be "Accepted" for "Trump" !

Please do post a link to Comey telling the FBI that he didn't recall his own actions. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.31  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @14.1.30    one month ago
Please do post a link to Comey telling the FBI that he didn't recall his own actions. 

You really do shelter yourself ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

https://www.bostonherald.com/2018/12/09/comey-cant-recall-squat/

"In his Congressional testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees last week, fired FBI Director James Comey claimed he “can’t remember,” “can’t recall” and “doesn’t know” — 245 times — when asked key questions involving two of the biggest FBI cases in American history he oversaw while running the agency."

You know the REALLY IMPORTANT FOLKS..... CONGRESS....Don't you ?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
14.1.32  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.21    one month ago
Actually, you answered. I merely provided the direct quotes that were asked for.  I guess reading links is too difficult for some, so they demand specific quotes.
Notice that it was totally glossed over by the requester?

Even specific quotes from my link didn't satisfy. I even provided an entire DuckDuckGo web search that listed links about the demand. This wasn't the first time, and it won't be the last.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @14.1.27    one month ago
Actually, the topic of THIS thread is the number of times that Trump answered Mueller's questions with 'I don't recall'. Try to keep up.

So why your wild tangent into Hillary--especially when the link had already been given to you? Do try to make up your mind.

No 'assumption' is safe when it's based on bias.

If "bias" is asking why you can't read the link given to you, guilty as charged.

If you did read it, then your questions were irrelevant.

Perhaps to get the poster to recognize that the VAST MAJORITY of the questions and answers were NOT about whether she KNEW a policy. Thank you for proving that point.

Sorry, but many mere mortals won't accept the bullshit theory that she knew the protocols but couldn't remember receiving training in them. Thanks for advancing bullshit theories.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.34  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.33    one month ago
So why your wild tangent into Hillary

"Deflection Syndrome" ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.35  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @14.1.31    one month ago
You really do shelter yourself !

If not reading crap like that article is what you consider to be 'sheltered', I plead guilty. 

BTFW, did you miss the predicate in my comment about 'his own actions'? Your link doesn't give any information about that at all. Try harder...

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.21    one month ago
Thanks for answering Dulay's question while I was offline, Texan.

See there, Jasper didn't see it as a demand either...and now even you do too. Progress.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.37  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @14.1.35    one month ago
If not reading crap like that article is what you consider to be 'sheltered', I plead guilty. 

So you don't "Read" , but your willing to spout CRAP on something you won't read anyway !

Got it ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

[Removed]

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.38  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @14.1.37    one month ago
IGNORANCE is BLISS !

Of the crap in your posts, absolutely. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.39  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @14.1.38    one month ago
Of the crap in your posts, absolutely. 

Still waiting for YOUR Clear explanation ! jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

Too HARD to explain YOUR own debilitating words ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.40  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @14.1.37    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.41  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @14.1.39    one month ago
Too HARD to explain YOUR own debilitating words ?

Thanks for finally admitting that none of your bullshit has anything to do with your interest in my interpretation of the report. 

BTFW, I had no idea that the word 'clearly' would be such a trigger and so 'debilitating'.

Tissue? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
14.1.42  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @14.1.2    one month ago
If you want to act informed you should actually try to become informed she was questioned 2 years ago everyone but you knows what she remembered or in her case didn't recall.

Cite the exact times or admit you're lying.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
14.1.43  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @14.1.31    one month ago

You really think liberals are going to come to Comey's defense?  Where is your cave?  

 
 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.45  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @14.1.41    one month ago
Thanks for finally admitting that none of your bullshit has anything to do with your interest in my interpretation of the report.

You've said NOTHING to date !

Good job ! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.46  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @14.1.45    one month ago
You've said NOTHING to date !

Then what have you been replying to all of this time? 

Good job !

Thanks. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
14.1.48  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @14.1.44    4 weeks ago
Information is your friend. 

But, again, not yours"

"Clinton stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or production of records from [the] State [Department] during the transition out of her role as secretary of state in 2013," the report says. "However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot. Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received." The language doesn't make clear whether Clinton was blaming her concussion for being unable to recall specific briefings and, if so, during which specific time period. The concussion and blood clot were well-publicized at the time.

Once again, I have to thank you (and all your buddies) for never actually reading the articles that you think give you the "gotcha."  So, what's your Scumbag's excuse for all the memory loss?  And, did you know that he's bragged about his memory:

384

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.49  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @14.1.46    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
14.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @14    one month ago

Boo Hoo.  Did you stomp your feet when you typed that?  

You know damn well that the whole thing was a set up from the start.  There was no evidence then and there is no evidence now.  The whole collusion thing started when Clinton mumbled about it after having her ass handed to her.  The idiot democrats saw it as a chance to oust Trump and it failed miserably.  Just like every other attempt.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
14.3.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.3    one month ago
You know damn well that the whole thing was a set up from the start. 

I know that you and those like you long ago showed your cards as never being willing or able to look at the facts and admit what a Scumbag you support.  Fortunately for the country it doesn't matter whether you accept them or not.  You're a small and dwindling group of dead-enders.  No one ever expected anything but the cement to get even harder. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
14.3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @14.3.1    one month ago

You're correct.  I showed my cards and won't deny that I support Trump.  Far better than supporting the candidate with 40 years of being the problem in Washington that EVERYBODY has complained about.  At least I'm willing to say I voted for a change, and that change has worked wonders for the country.  

But, you on the other hand, still throwing a tantrum because you lost don't see it.  It must suck when you can't accept reality.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
14.3.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.3.2    4 weeks ago
But, you on the other hand, still throwing a tantrum because you lost don't see it.  It must suck when you can't accept reality.

But you, on the other hand, helped put a psychopathic liar and criminal into the highest office of the land and stand-by watching (enjoying?) him trample all over anything and everything that should be the dignity, not to mention the responsibility, of that office and will not see it.  It must suck to know you're an accomplice to this disaster and refuse to take your share of the responsibility for that. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
14.3.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @14.3.3    4 weeks ago

Clinton lost.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
14.3.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.3.4    4 weeks ago
Clinton lost.  

"...But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes..."

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
14.3.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.3.2    4 weeks ago
Far better than supporting the candidate with 40 years of being the problem in Washington that EVERYBODY has complained about. 

Far better to support a deranged malignant pathologically lying narcissist who's subverting and undermining every aspect of our system of government and who shows more allegiance and deference to our foreign antagnoists just because your personal bitterness at not getting your way every with every election?  Is that what passes for "patriotism" with you, Jer?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
14.3.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @14.3.6    3 weeks ago

Funny.  Nobody ever claimed that until he beat Clinton.  Take your tantrum someplace else.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
14.3.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.3.7    3 weeks ago
Funny.  Nobody ever claimed that until he beat Clinton. 

More like well-known moral phonies  who voted for Scumbag decided to ignore what a lying POS he is and finally gave up that pretense of having a speck of morality.  It was something obvious all along but that act made it clear to us all. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
14.3.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @14.3.8    3 weeks ago
More like everybody who voted for Scumbag...

Are having at temper tantrum because they lost.

And BTW, you didn't do anything to disprove my statement.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
15  dave-2693993    one month ago
There is more than enough in there to trigger investigations in Congress.  

...and the band played on...

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Greg Jones
Kavika
Texan1211
Bob Nelson
Dulay
Freefaller
Freedom Warrior


45 visitors