Does the Mueller report exonerate Trump? 12 legal experts weigh in

  
Via:  john-russell  •  3 months ago  •  249 comments

 Does the Mueller report exonerate Trump?     12 legal experts weigh in
While Mueller may not have had sufficient evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy, the experts agree that plenty of evidence exists. The same is true of the obstruction question. As one expert put it, “the Mueller report provides a road map for prosecuting Trump for obstruction of justice, but stops short of this finding because of legal doubts about indicting a sitting president.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


“If this is what a complete and total exoneration looks like, I’d hate to see a damning report.”Attorney General Bill Barr finally released Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia report on Thursday, reasserting his position that the special counsel found no evidence of collusion or the basis for an obstruction of justice charge.But the actual report is quite damning. It establishes, among other things, a clear fact pattern showing repeated connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. It also outlines 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice that suggest, at the very least, that President Trump actively sought to undermine Mueller’s investigation.Despite Barr’s statements, top legal thinkers aren’t so sure that the conclusion should be so cut and dried.

I asked 12 legal experts to examine what the report had to say about collusion and obstruction of justice. Specifically, I wanted to know if Barr’s decision not to pursue obstruction charges was justified, and if the evidence of coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign amounted to criminal conspiracy.There was a near-consensus on both questions. While Mueller may not have had sufficient evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy, the experts agree that plenty of evidence exists. The same is true of the obstruction question. As one expert put it, “the Mueller report provides a road map for prosecuting Trump for obstruction of justice, but stops short of this finding because of legal doubts about indicting a sitting president.”You can read their full responses, lightly edited for clarity, below.

Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School

If we were talking about Mr. Trump, not President Trump, we’d be talking about an indictment for obstruction of justice. Today we know that Attorney General Barr put a highly positive (for Trump) gloss on the report. Today we know that Mueller found substantial wrongdoing that would plague, and perhaps end, any other presidency in American history. Today we know that perhaps the difference between a suggestion that Trump be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and a suggestion that he not be was 1) Mueller’s inability to sit down and speak with the Trump without subpoenaing him and Mueller’s decision not to subpoena Trump, and 2) actions by Trump’s staffers that may have protected the president from legal liability.The headline of the report is helpful to Trump. The actual substance of the report is damning.

Miriam Baer, law professor, Brooklyn Law School

The special counsel’s report breaks into two volumes. Whereas the first volume, which focuses on Russia’s interference in the presidential election, contains quite a few redactions, the second volume, which focuses on the obstruction of justice questions, contains very few redactions. Presumably, this was intentional on the special counsel’s part, and one cannot help but wonder whether Attorney General Barr could and should have released the second volume several weeks ago, particularly because of the damning nature of the information contained in that volume.Even if each of the events described and analyzed by the special counsel independently falls short of establishing obstruction as a legal matter (and that’s a debatable proposition), viewed in the aggregate, they indicate a stunning willingness to ignore and subvert the rule of law. President Trump’s supporters can call it an exoneration, but his opponents may well view it as a road map for impeachment.“It’s not a crime for any citizen to associate with criminals and spies, nor to enjoy their favors, but that is surely too low a standard for a president of the United States”

Stephen Legomsky, law professor, Washington University

Ever since Attorney General William Barr released his purported “summary” of the Mueller report’s conclusions, most media accounts have assumed that Mr. Mueller ultimately decided there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. We have been told that the Mueller report had thus “exonerated” President Trump of conspiracy charges, though not on charges that he obstructed justice. Some media reports went further, stating that Mr. Mueller had found “no evidence” of a conspiracy. The Democrats, some said, had now been proved wrong even for supporting the special counsel’s independent investigation into the matter.Those accounts gave the president an undeserved free pass, for even Mr. Barr’s cherry-picked quotes had made no such claims. We can now see that all Mr. Mueller decided on that issue was that “the investigation did not establish” such a conspiracy. To non-lawyers this might seem like splitting hairs, but lawyers understand how important that difference is. “Establish” is prosecutor talk that simply means “I won’t bring an indictment because I don’t think a jury would find the proof of conspiracy to be ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” — an extremely high standard of proof. As the Mueller report emphasizes in the introduction, “A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”To the contrary, we now know that Mr. Mueller found abundant evidence of precisely such a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

The section titled “Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials” was very heavily redacted, but even the non-redacted evidence of conspiracy was substantial: campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s “periodically” sharing internal polling data and other campaign updates with the Russians; the campaign’s promotion of “dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by” the Russian hacking operation; Trump publicly urging Russia to search for Hillary Clinton’s “missing” emails; the campaign’s successful effort to tone down the anti-Russian language in the Republican Party platform at the nominating convention; the president’s bizarre support for Putin, resistance to sanctions, and corresponding antagonism toward our NATO allies; the multiple meetings between top campaign officials and Russians with Kremlin ties, including their famous meeting at the New York Trump hotel for the express, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton; and the lies they were caught in when they tried to deny either the meetings themselves or their content.Whether or not that pile of evidence rises to the level of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” it is of grave concern.

There is thus ample reason for Congress — which is not subject to the same standard of proof as a criminal prosecutor — to continue investigating this issue, as well as the obstruction of justice question and all the other disturbing allegations surrounding President Trump and his associates. There are also the continuing, very legitimate investigations by various US attorneys’ offices and state attorney general offices. And, of course, there is still hope that at least Congress, and perhaps the public, will find a way to see the crucial information that Mr. Barr has redacted from the Mueller report. So there is much more to come.

Peter Margulies, law professor, Roger Williams University School of Law

The Mueller report paints a disturbing picture of President Trump trying to undermine investigations with a more reassuring portrayal of lawyers and aides seeking to preserve the rule of law. According to Mueller, ex-White House counsel Don McGahn and others “declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.” The president’s directive to FBI Director Jim Comey to go easy on National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI met the legal test for obstruction of justice. But Comey refused Trump’s request, just as McGahn shrugged off Trump’s order to fire Mueller.The Mueller report provides a road map for prosecuting Trump for obstruction of justice but stops short of this finding because of legal doubts about indicting a sitting president. Trump could be charged after he has left the White House, although Attorney General William Barr’s refusal to charge Trump now might make future prosecution seem imprudent or vindictive. In addition, Congress could start impeachment based on Mueller’s road map, although political factors might weigh against that move.The Mueller report also prompts a mixed verdict on Attorney General Barr.

Given the disturbing evidence of Trump’s obstruction in the report, both today’s Barr press conference and the letter Barr released almost four weeks ago seem like exercises in spin. But Barr also released the Mueller report with far fewer redactions than many feared. It’s up to Congress, the media, and the public to read the entire report to get a full picture of the president’s repeated efforts to undermine the justice system and the concerted attempts by government lawyers and other aides to pull him back from the precipice.Keith Whittington, politics professor, Princeton UniversityIf this is what a complete and total exoneration looks like, I’d hate to see a damning report. We have often been cautioned not to rush to judgment because we did not know what the Mueller team knows. It turns out that the broad contours of the investigation’s findings had largely found their way into the public sphere, but the report collects all that information in a single place and provides new details that do not put the president in a favorable light.The good news for the White House is that Mueller could not prove a criminal conspiracy involving the Trump campaign to have Russia influence the 2016 elections and that Mueller did not recommend obstruction of justice charges.

The bad news is that the campaign demonstrated an unseemly willingness to benefit from Russian interference and that Russia made lots of efforts to interfere in the election.Moreover, the president has behaved remarkably badly in regard to the investigation into the 2016 campaign. Mueller was appropriately cautious about reaching legal conclusions regarding obstruction of justice given the aggressive legal interpretation that would be needed to pursue a case against some of the president’s actions and given that Justice Department policies would preclude those legal conclusions from being translated into indictments of a sitting president.The president might have an innocent explanation for some of his actions, or at least a credible claim of mixed motives, but he repeatedly took actions that he was strongly advised would be highly inappropriate and was saved from more damaging consequences by the willingness of others to ignore the president’s preferences. The courtroom is probably not the right venue for calling the president to account for his actions, but the report leaves little doubt that the president does not appreciate the responsibilities of his office.

Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University

“Putin has won.” Election Day 2016, an intercepted message to Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian national “closely connected to Putin.” (On page 149 of the Mueller report.) This line says everything that the American public should remember about the Mueller investigation. Russian interference in the election has been established beyond doubt. Worse, Mueller found that the Trump campaign “expected to benefit” from criminal actions by Russians who successfully targeted the American election. It is not a crime for any citizen to associate with criminals and spies, nor to enjoy their favors, but that is surely too low a standard for a president of the United States.Viewing this case through the lens of criminal law is a mistake. The president takes an oath “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Few constitutionalists believe that the special counsel would indict a sitting president for an ordinary crime. The constitutional power to judge a president is left to Congress. Congress must determine whether there has been a constitutional offense.We now know that, contrary to his oath to “take care” that the laws be faithfully executed, the president tried to fire the special counsel, and he fired the head of the FBI, among other acts to thwart the investigation of criminal election interference by our enemies. These are not the acts of one faithful to the law. They are acts of one who would put his own election above the integrity of America’s democracy.

Ric Simmons, law professor, Ohio State University

After reading the full report, it is much harder to understand why Mueller determined that there was insufficient evidence to believe that the president was guilty of obstruction of justice. The primary reason seems to be lack of evidence that the president had a “corrupt intent.” But in reviewing the 10 episodes in which the president may have obstructed justice, the report concludes numerous times that there is “substantial evidence” that the president acted with the intent to impede ongoing criminal investigations, or that a “reasonable inference” is that the president acted with such an intent.Furthermore, the report noted that the president refused to cooperate with the investigation with regard to answering questions on potential obstruction of justice charges, and that the Mueller team declined to issue a subpoena in order to pursue the issue. But if the question of the president’s intent was unresolved, and thus the question of whether the president was guilty of obstruction remained unresolved, a subpoena of the president would be a critical next step in the investigation.While there may have been good reasons not to pursue a subpoena against the president, this omission in the investigation leaves open a very significant question regarding whether the president is guilty of obstruction charges.“If we were talking about Mr. Trump, not President Trump, we’d be talking about an indictment for obstruction of justice

”Ilya Somin, law professor, George Mason University

The redacted version of the Mueller report released today paints an unflattering picture of President Trump, particularly on the question of obstruction of justice. Although special counsel Robert Mueller did not reach any conclusion on whether the president should be prosecuted for obstruction, he did conclude that “Our investigation found multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russia-interference and obstruction investigations.”Trump’s efforts to hamstring the investigation mostly failed. But that was “largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders and accede to his requests.”

The fact that White House counsel Donald McGahn and other legally sophisticated officials refused to carry out the president’s orders is a strong sign they considered them improper and likely illegal.The report also includes a compelling response to claims that the president could not have committed obstruction of justice, if he did not commit any underlying crime related to Russia. As the report notes, “obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a grey area, or to avoid personal embarrassment.”All of these motives were very plausibly present in the case of Trump.

Trump had a strong incentive to impede the investigation in order to prevent its revelations from “calling into question the legitimacy of his election,” and because of “potential uncertainty” about whether some of the information revealed “could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.”An additional possible motive was preventing revelation of crimes by his close associates that were not directly related to “collusion.” The Mueller investigation did in fact reveal many such crimes, and several close associates of Trump’s have been convicted of various offenses.On the question of collusion, the report is largely good news for Trump. The investigation did not find enough evidence to justify filing charges. But the report documents extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. The latter sought to help the former, and the campaign hoped to benefit from Russia’s actions. The fact that a hostile authoritarian regime believed Trump’s victory would advance their interests, and made extensive efforts to secure that outcome, is highly damning, even if Trump and his associates did not commit any crimes in the process.In the short run, Trump is unlikely to face legal liability. Justice Department policy forbids prosecution of a sitting president. Impeachment is not so constrained. But successful impeachment leading to removal requires the support of numerous Republican senators, which seems unlikely. Trump does, however, face potential prosecution after he leaves office. The political impact of the report also remains to be seen.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, law professor, Stetson University

If the DOJ was a law firm, it would be the largest law firm in the world. Honorable men don’t always run the DOJ. For instance, Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell authorized the Watergate break-in when he was still at DOJ. Mitchell served 19 months in prison for his Watergate-related crimes including obstruction of justice. William Barr may be on Mitchell’s path to ignominy.Barr’s cursory four-page summary was deeply misleading compared to even the redacted version of the Mueller report that has been released to the public. The redacted Mueller report provides what will surely be a first draft of history of the Trump campaign and Trump presidency, and the report does so in damning detail that was absent from Barr’s initial memo, including the multiple contacts between the Trump 2016 campaign, the Trump Organization, and the Trump transition with various Russians.Barr’s initial characterization of Mueller’s decision not to pursue obstruction of justice seemed to indicate that there was insufficient evidence. But the actual Mueller report seems to indicate that part of why the special counsel declined to make a decision on prosecuting obstruction was because of the DOJ’s longstanding policy that a president cannot be indicted.Indeed, the report states, “given [that the President cannot be indicted under OLC policy], the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough and factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.” This seems to indicate that the special counsel was trying to preserve evidence of potential obstruction crimes for possible future prosecution when Trump was no longer president or for use by Congress.

The Mueller report in Volume I indicates that the special counsel did not decide to pursue potential campaign finance violations including the long-term ban on receipt of things of value from foreign nationals by American political campaigns because of uncertainty about information provided by members of the Trump campaign such as Don Jr. and [Jared] Kushner. In other words, they may not have known that they were breaking the law when they allegedly broke the law. And without that knowledge, it would be impossible to charge them with a knowing violation of the law.The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

At the same time, 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.” In other words, the Mueller report does not exonerate President Trump on the matter of obstruction of justice.The report also reminds the president that under the United States Constitution, he must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” And that “the concept of ‘faithful execution’ connotes the use of power in the interest of the public, not the office holder’s personal interests.” (Vol II at 177). And the report ends thusly: “the protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person — including the President — accords with the fundamental principle of our government that ‘[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law.’”This report gives Congress multiple avenues of investigation to pursue. Accusations of obstruction of justice were counts of impeachment against both Presidents Clinton and Nixon. The open question is whether the Congress will have the stomach to peruse the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice laid bare in the redacted Mueller report against President Trump now. Moreover, from the redactions that refer to “on-going matters,” clearly other legal shoes are yet to drop.“If this is what a complete and total exoneration looks like, I’d hate to see a damning report”

Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University

First, the report concludes that Trump personally exerted “undue influence” over law enforcement investigations. Whether that’s a crime or not, it’s certainly intolerable and something that the House of Representatives should take action on. There can be a debate about whether that action should be impeachment or censure, but that political debate has to happen now.Second, the Mueller report focuses almost exclusively on conspiracy law while ignoring the crime of solicitation under Florida state penal law. In his July 2016 speech in Florida, Trump requested that Russia commit computer hacking to find Clinton’s emails. That may not be a conspiracy, but it is a criminal solicitation under state penal law. It’s also wrong and unacceptable.The report concludes that Trump tried to have Mueller fired. The Nixon “precedent” is that removing a special counsel constitutes obstruction of justice. If Trump’s attempt to fire Mueller isn’t obstruction of justice, then the new “rule” will be that it’s okay to fire a special counsel investigating the president. That’s completely antithetical to the rule of law.

Frances Hill, law professor, University of Miami

The Mueller report, with redactions and without appendices, does not exonerate President Trump. Instead, it raises more questions about more forms of culpability. The one I find most concerning is the cyberwar launched by Russia against the United States around the 2016 campaign and election. These sections of the report documented the scope of the hostile activities aimed at the heart of our democracy. What was missing was a recounting of the president’s refusal to acknowledge the attack and to take reasonable steps to prevent a recurrence in 2020.If there were to be impeachment proceedings, articles of impeachments under the “take care” clause and the “commander in chief” should be included in the case against Trump, whose budget cuts and failures to act in the national interest of the United States should not be overlooked or excused. These failures need to be explained to all of us so that we can decide in the 2020 election whether Trump is acting in the interest of the United States.Finally, the analysis of obstruction of justice efficiently destroys many of the arguments made by the current attorney general in his job application memorandum of June 2018. It appears to provide sufficient evidence for a strong case that Trump obstructed justice in multiple ways. There are instances where the language of the Mueller report appears to be inconsistent with the spin offered this morning by the attorney general.The paths forward are becoming clearer. Congress should continue to investigate the financial connections between Trump and Russia. But the issue of Trump’s conduct will be in the hands of the voters. This is no time for us to become weary of the betrayals and dysfunctions of this administration. Removing Trump from our national life by defeating him at the polls in 2020 may be the best way to preserve our republic. He can always be tried for his crimes when he is out of office.

Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor, 2007 to 2016, and host of the On Topic podcast

The report indicates that there is overwhelming evidence that Trump took extraordinary efforts to try and undermine Mueller’s investigation. Just one quick example: Trump told his White House counsel to fire Mueller, then he told him to lie about it. Similarly, he tried to reverse the impact of his attorney general’s decision to recuse himself from the investigation. And on and on and on. There are just so many instances of Trump seeking to undermine the investigation.The report also indicates that Mueller did not reach an obstruction conclusion due to concerns arising from the Justice Department’s policy against indicting a sitting president. Mueller concluded that Congress could enforce the obstruction of justice statute when Trump acted corruptly to undermine an investigation. Barr’s suggestions to the contrary were false.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 months ago

No "no collusion" , and no "no obstruction". 

We may have to get rid of our trash president* through the ballot box,  but what today's revelation of the "Mueller Report" did do besides implicate the president in unethical personal behavior, was to largely vindicate the overall effort by the mainstream media to report this story. And the Mueller Report gives lie to the right wing talking point that the Russia investigation was a "hoax". 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

Trump WAS vindicated, AND exonerated in one fell swoop.

No there, there. No burger in that bun. No birdie in that tree.

Yep, absolutely NO collusion, and NO obstruction!

It's over for the Dems, time to give up and go home.

Every day the left keeps trying to "get" Trump will lessen their chances in the coming elections...

So keep after it, we're counting on ya.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 months ago
Trump WAS vindicated, AND exonerated in one fell swoop.

... remember if you lie, the boogie man will get you, and your nose is gonna grow

So remember if you lie everyone will know. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 months ago

No he wasn't, I can tell you haven't even taken a look at the Mueller report, Trump was neither vindicated nor, exonerated.

Read for yourself,

http://digg.com/2019/mueller-report-pdf

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.3    3 months ago
Trump was neither vindicated nor, exonerated.

We better have a drawn out Trial then. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

oh …. wait….we have had that drawn out trial...……... for 2 years. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

Now what do we do ?

Have another one ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.5  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.4    3 months ago
oh …. wait….we have had that drawn out trial...……... for 2 years.

When did Trump go on trial for obstruction? Oh wait, he hasn't yet. Now, if you want to be informed read the report, here let me help you,

http://digg.com/2019/mueller-report-pdf

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.5    3 months ago
When did Trump go on trial for obstruction?

Since January 20, 2017. Haven't you been watching the News ?

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.7  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 months ago

According You?  Didn't read the article did you Greg.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 months ago
Trump WAS vindicated, AND exonerated in one fell swoop.

Yes we know that NOT exonerated means exonerated on Earth 2. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.9  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.6    3 months ago
Since January 20, 2017. Haven't you been watching the News ?

What court of law was that in? I've been watching the news and, still haven't seen anything on Trump being on trial, I've seen news on his campaign and, business being investigated but, not any trials were he is the defendant.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.9    3 months ago
What court of law was that in?

Where was it said it was in an actual "Court of Law" ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Have you NEVER heard of "The Court of Public(Liberal) OPINION" ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.11  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.10    3 months ago
Have you NEVER heard of "The Court of Public(Liberal) OPINION" ?

Oh you mean like "The Court of Public (Conservative) OPINION" that has been trying Hillary Clinton and, Barack Obama of the past 10 years for imagined crimes? Yeah, I don't pay attention to those, except to call them out on their lies. In this case we have the Mueller report and, the evidence collected that show that there was Russian interference in our elections with the express purpose of electing Donald Trump and, Trumps attempts to obstruct that investigation into the Russia probe.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.12  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.10    3 months ago
Where was it said it was in an actual "Court of Law" ?

So, nothing but, hyperbole from you, got it.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.12    3 months ago
So, nothing but, hyperbole from you, got it.

Oh No....the Big words are coming out. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

Stumped ya huh !

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.14  It Is ME  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.11    3 months ago
Oh you mean like "The Court of Public (Conservative) OPINION" that has been trying Hillary Clinton and, Barack Obama of the past 10 years for imagined crimes?

And Here I thought this was about Trump. jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

Who new it wasn't ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.13    3 months ago
'Stumped ya huh !'

That'll be the day !

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.16  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    3 months ago
That'll be the day !

Today's ...... a GREAT DAY....ain't it ? jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

My choice would be the guy running who speaks like 7 languages and from all reports is a total Renascence Man.  He is well spoken, intelligent, and  knowledgeable about world affairs, Trump sorely lacking in all three arenas.  Where Trump, whose solution to the fire at Notre Dame, would have leveled what is left of this historical church, this guy spoke to the people of France fluently about the loss to them and the world.  No way will he ever pull a covfefe or forget how to spell both his wife's and his mistress's names in tweets.  Trump needs to take his "smocking gun" and just fade away.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2  Texan1211    3 months ago
No "no collusion" , and no "no obstruction".

Mueller couldn't find collusion. And he didn't say he had enough evidence to charge anyone with obstruction.

We may have to get rid of our trash president* through the ballot box, but what today's revelation of the "Mueller Report" did do besides implicate the president in unethical personal behavior, was to largely vindicate the overall effort by the mainstream media to report this story. And the Mueller Report gives lie to the right wing talking point that the Russia investigation was a "hoax".

That would be the American way, funny it took so long to realize that. get rid of him at election time. You failed last time, in case you don't remember.

The media blasted Russian/Trump collusion for well over 2 years.

The media had it wrong.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @2    3 months ago
And he didn't say he had enough evidence to charge anyone with obstruction.

Incorrect. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @2.1    3 months ago
Incorrect.

Feel free to actually post facts to back your claim up. You know, a quote from the report would go a long ways in convincing me I am wrong about it.

Do you have such a quote?

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.1    3 months ago

Word games Tex, word games and legalese.

They have to grasp at something since this report didn't give them what they've been promising it would give them for over two years

SOSDD

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.2    3 months ago
Word games Tex, word games and legalese.
They have to grasp at something since this report didn't give them what they've been promising it would give them for over two years
SOSDD

Of course it is, and didn't we know it would turn out this way?

They are like a dog gnawing on a bone long after the meat is gone.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    3 months ago

"They are like a dog gnawing on a bone long after the meat is gone."

Dog....Pork Chop....Neck.....Comes to mind. PLAY WITH ME ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    3 months ago

I think they've finally chewed through the bone and gotten a little marrow for their trouble.   But ..... there is very little marrow, it is soon gone and inconsequential.      Just like the Mueller report.

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.6  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.5    3 months ago

Nobody who cares about our Constitution, truth, integrity, and ethics could possibly view the Mueller report as inconsequential.  It's as though some people think those things are only important for the other side, and their side shouldn't be held to any standards.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @2.1.6    3 months ago

It always nice when someone doesn't know me questions my honor, integrity and love of country.

Makes me question their intelligence.

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.8  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.7    3 months ago

From what I've seen of you, you certainly seem to have honor and integrity, and I know you love your country.  That's what makes it so baffling that you can be so unconcerned with what the report shows of Trump's corruption, lies, attempts to obstruct justice, and lack of ethics.  Regardless of what party someone belongs to, when they act like Trump does, it is not OK.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  katrix @2.1.8    3 months ago

Katrix, people who are intelligent rationalize on behalf of Trump based on what they want. 

There also are those who don't care if the president is a decent human being, honest, or even intelligent. They want to use him like a hammer against their perceived enemies, both human and ideological so the only thing that matters to them is that he can attack. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.1.10  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.9    3 months ago

In war you don’t want an appeaser defending you. Trump is the kind of attacker we need because the left are relentless in their quest to destroy our country

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @2.1.8    3 months ago

I am equally baffled at how much "intelligent people" have allowed their biases to make so much of the Trump admins actions.   I make no excuses for Trump or any other politician for that matter but it's clear to me that TDS is a very real thing for some which clouds otherwise clear thinkers.  

It is highly doubtful these same people were as concerned with equally questionable actions made by the previous administrations.

So there it is.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.10    3 months ago

What about all the Christ like principles of turning the other cheek pastor?

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.9    3 months ago

John, sounds more like the tactics being used by progressives and liberals these days to me.   Of course you and i will disagree on that.

So there you go.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.10    3 months ago

Have you ever noticed how it is usually the very same people who holler and scream about the separation of church and state that are the very same ones always trying to invoke religion to tell us how to act?

Nothing hypocritical about THAT, is there?

LOL!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.10    3 months ago
the left are relentless in their quest to destroy our country

The "Left" want to protect OUR country. The "Left" want to protect it from enemy foreign governments that are attempting to hand pick our Presidents by putting their thumb on the scale in favor of the authoritarian candidate they think they can control and manipulate. The "Left" support equality and justice for all regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. The "Left" believe in government accountability, transparency, civil rights, religious freedom, the 2nd amendment, but also understand that those right's are not unlimited. The "Left" are not socialists, they embrace capitalism in all its glory, but they recognize unchecked capitalism can be just as harmful to people as unchecked socialism.

You may believe yourself at war, that's your choice. Most Americans recognize there is no war on the right, no war on Christians, no war on religious freedom, no war on guns, no war on Christmas, no war on "white culture", those are all fantasies invented by wanna-be victims and whiners.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.16  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.11    3 months ago
it's clear to me that TDS is a very real thing for some which clouds otherwise clear thinkers.  

Ridiculous. There has never been a president more unfit for the office than Trump. Never. 

There is no such thing as people putting too much emphasis on his mountain of dysfunctions. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.17  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.15    3 months ago
The "Left" want to protect OUR country.

it is not the lefts country anymore...  we took our country back and will be keeping it.

today's open border loving socialists will not be remembered as patriots. they are traitors.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.16    3 months ago

You assertions here regarding Trump have always been heavily dosed with a TDS like quality and therefore are on the extreme periphery of even being rational.   I understand that you can't see that and likely never will

Is Trump perfect?   Far from it.   Does he even approach being as bad as you try to make him look in here nearly every day?   Not even close.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.19  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.18    3 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.20  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.19    3 months ago

Ridiculous.

Less emotion John, more reason.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.21  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.20    3 months ago

Do you have a favorite harmless, unnecessary lie that Trump tells?

Yeah, the one that I cite frequently is when he was criticized for his speech at the Boy Scout Jamboree, where he was sort of bizarrely political. And he was asked about this criticism, and he said something like, “No, no, the head of the Boy Scouts called me and told me it was the greatest speech that had ever been given at the Boys Scout Jamboree.” And so I emailed the Boy Scouts, thinking they wouldn’t respond because big entities tend to not want to contradict the president, but they emailed me back and they were like, “No one ever called and no one ever said that.” I think the president might be the honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts, he’s got some role, some quasi-official role with the Boy Scouts. So to have the president lying about the Boy Scouts of America was amazing to me.

The other one that stands out is an interview he did with The Wall Street Journal. He was boasting about the impact of his tariffs. Then, a bit later in the interview, the Journal asked him about some of the criticism of his tariffs, and he said something like, “No, no, I don’t have any tariffs. What tariffs? I’ve threatened tariffs, but I haven’t imposed any.” And so he just went from literally boasting about this policy to claiming it doesn’t exist, because, you know, those two things suited those particular moments better. And so, to me, it was just a really revealing example of how his mind works with regards to dishonesty.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/daniel-dale-president-trump-lies.html

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.22  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.17    3 months ago
we took our country back and will be keeping it.

Okay, whatever you need to believe to help you sleep at night. While you live in your fantasy realm the rest of America will be busy progressing as we have for the last 242 years. The facts show that eventually conservatives lose on everything. They lost when they fought to preserve their right to own humans, they lost when they fought to prevent women and blacks from voting, they lost when they tried to preserve segregation, they lost when they fought to preserve their bans on interracial and gay marriage. Just about the only thing conservatives seem consistent with is losing to liberals and progressives. This minor setback of a monumentally inept conservative sexual predator in the oval office won't last long, and when the pendulum swings back as it always does, it is going to decimate conservative Republicans grip on government power.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.23  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.22    3 months ago
The facts show that eventually conservatives lose on everything.

better check your facts again.

  1. the right, freed the slaves
  2. the right, killed the jim crow laws
  3. the right, gave women the right to vote
  4. the right, crushed the weatherman when they bombed courthouses
  5. the right, stomped on antifa at berkley "repeatedly"
  6. the right, trounced the entire political establishment when electing trump
  7. the right, are currently packing the courts with conservative judges at a phenomenal rate.
  8. the right, are going to bring the traitors of the last decade to their knees.

if that is losing everything?

yer too funny :)

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.24  Split Personality  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.23    3 months ago

Wowser, I thought you sometimes knew what your were talking about...

The Liberals like Lincoln and his Northern Republican party freed the slaves and later,

(much later) killed the jim crow laws and

when the Republicans came back into power in the House in 1919 they passed the women's Equal Suffrage Amendment over the objections of those stuffy conservative Southern Democrats.

You have some serious confusion about right vs left, liberal vs conservative and Democrats vs Republicans labels.

the right, are going to bring the traitors of the last decade to their knees.

and that's just downright wishful thinking.

Yew R 2 funny.jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.25  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.24    3 months ago
[deleted]

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.26  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.23    3 months ago
the right, freed the slaves

Hehe, that was a funny one. Got any more?

the right, killed the jim crow laws

Whoa now, you're killin me, too funny, go on...

the right, gave women the right to vote

Ha ha hahahahaha! Okay, more, give me more!

the right, crushed the weatherman when they bombed courthouses

Who? Who the fuck cares about some old fucking stupid tree huggers that didn't represent any majority of any Americans?

the right, stomped on antifa at berkley "repeatedly"

Okay, hahaha, you're back at the comedy I see, that one was pretty funny. I guess the more you exaggerate and lie the funnier it gets.

the right, trounced the entire political establishment when electing trump

I guess if you include Putin in "the right", then yes, an enemy foreign government pushed for and got the most incompetent President ever elected. Anyone calling that a win needs to have their heads examined for either cobwebs, overflowing shit, or a tiny version of Hitler hiding in one of the depraved corners of their mind.

the right, are currently packing the courts with conservative judges at a phenomenal rate

A very sad side effect of having put a piece of shit in charge. Put shit in charge, get shit judges, it's just a simple matter of physics.

the right, are going to bring the traitors of the last decade to their knees

Really? The right is going to prosecute the 40% of Republicans who think Russia is a friend and ally even though they attacked the integrity of our elections? Those Republicans who weren't bothered by the fact that they illegally inserted themselves in an effort to help a Republican candidate because Republicans align with their vile, murderous piece of shit authoritarian agenda? I don't care if you call my opposition to Putin and his little dick puppet Trump "treasonous". I know the truth, and the fact is, anyone supporting Trump is also supporting Putin's agenda.

“President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?”

“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.”

And do you Trump sycophants want nothing more than to lick the dew from Trumps hero Vladimir Putin's ball sack?

"Yes, yes we do, there is no better nectar in the universe..."

Ah, I guess that makes it abundantly clear who are Americans and who are just unknown Russian assets.

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
2.1.27  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.14    3 months ago
Have you ever noticed how it is usually the very same people who holler and scream about the separation of church and state that are the very same ones always trying to invoke religion to tell us how to act?

I sure have, we have an atheist on NT that says the Jesus of the Bible never existed, but doesn't hesitate to quote Jesus when it suites her purpose. I have to wonder why someone that doesn't believe in Jesus so often quotes him.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.28  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.26    3 months ago
the right, gave women the right to vote
Ha ha hahahahaha! Okay, more, give me more!

so the right to vote was introduced by democrats?  LOL yer funny.

the 19th amendment was introduced in the Senate by Republican Senator Aaron A. Sargent of California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposal_and_ratification

republican Ulysses S  Grant gave women the right to vote 50 yrs before the rest of the country in Wyoming.


a republican also signed the emancipation proclamation before kicking southern democrat ass. 

can you guess his name?   abe lincoln. the republican who freed the slaves.  (have you ever read a history book?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation


I suggest you look things up maybe once in a while.

you should also probably look things up every time you even think about questioning me.

cheers :)

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @2.1.27    3 months ago

I know that one!

it is weird the ones who holler the loudest and don't believe in God are almost always the first one to quote "What Jesus would do" or something like it.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.30  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.10    3 months ago

The only thing Cpt Bone Spurs knows about war is how to get out of serving thanks to daddy's money.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.30    3 months ago
The only thing Cpt Bone Spurs knows about war is how to get out of serving thanks to daddy's money.

There were loads of people who received deferments, among them:

Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, Bllomberg, Bill Bradley, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Daniel Ellsberg, Al Franken, Al Gore, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly.....andmany, many more.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.32  cjcold  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.4    3 months ago

Donald Trump has been a lying criminal for his whole life. That's why his parents sent him to military school in the first place. It didn't take. Trump is still a lying criminal.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.33  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.28    3 months ago
so the right to vote was introduced by democrats?  LOL yer funny.

I said nothing about party. I said "The facts show that eventually conservatives lose on everything."

Conservatives fought against women and blacks voting. I didn't think it would be that hard for you to understand considering I was very clear in my statement.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.34  It Is ME  replied to  cjcold @2.1.32    3 months ago
Donald Trump has been a lying criminal for his whole life.

He is a bitch....ain't he ? jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

Humanitarian Award by the National Jewish Health (1976)

Tree of Life Award by the Jewish National Fund (1983)

Ellis Island Medal of Honor in celebration of "patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity" (1986)

President's Medal by the Freedom Foundation (Washington) for his support of youth programs (1995)
Gaming Hall of Fame (1995)
Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (2007)
Muhammad Ali Entrepreneur Award (2007)
Unicorn Children’s Foundation Shining Star Award (2008)
Multiple AAA Five Diamond Awards for his hotels.
Palm Tree Award by the Palm Beach Police Foundation (2010)
Presidential Hero Award by the Lois Pope LIFE Foundation (2011)
WWE Hall of Fame (2013)
New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame (2015)
The Algemeiner Liberty Award for contributions to Israel–United States relations (2015)
Marine Corps–Law Enforcement Foundation Commandant's Leadership Award (2015)
Time Person of the Year (2016)
Financial Times Person of the Year (2016)
Friends of Zion Award by The Friends of Zion Museum (2017)
Sports Business Journal Most Influential Person in Sports Business (2017)
Temple Coin featuring Trump (alongside King Cyrus) from the Mikdash Educational Center in honor of Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the country's capital. (2018)
Beitar Trump Jerusalem F.C., renamed themselves, adding Trump's name for recognizing Jerusalem as country's capital. (2018)
Atlantic City Boxing Hall of Fame (2018)
2018 Wounded Warrior Project Award - commemorating Trump's support for the group during the 2018 Soldier Ride

Honorary
Doctor of Laws from Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (1988)
Doctor of Humane Letters from Wagner College in Staten Island, New York (2004)
Doctor of Business Administration from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia (2012)

Doctor of Laws from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia (2017)

State or government honors and awards
Presidential Order of Excellence from Georgia (2012)
Collar of The Order of Abdulaziz al Saud from Saudi Arabia (2017)
Medal of Bravery, from the Afghan people by Logar Province (2018)

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.35  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @2.1.8    3 months ago
Nobody who cares about our Constitution, truth, integrity, and ethics could possibly view the Mueller report as inconsequential.  It's as though some people think those things are only important for the other side, and their side shouldn't be held to any standards.
It certainly doesn't seem like the Democrats care about any of those things mentioned. All kinds of laws were broke or abridged and the notion of truth, integrity, and ethics were toss aside in this insane quest to "get" Trump
the report shows of Trump's corruption, lies, attempts to obstruct justice, and lack of ethics.  Regardless of what party someone belongs to, when they act like Trump does, it is not OK.

No, it doesn't show any of that, although you would like it to, very, very, much. But your words do describe HRC to a "T"

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.36  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.10    3 months ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.37  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.34    3 months ago

Nothing there proves isn't a criminal just proves he has the gift of fooling people every time he opens his mouth and those that listen to him have become baby lemmings for him 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.38  It Is ME  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.37    3 months ago
Nothing there proves isn't a criminal just proves he has the gift of fooling people

Or ……. maybe....It just Proves ….. People …... are Fools ?

Did you hear ?

Obama got a peace prize for Bombing Libya and making that country a total disaster area ! jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

Oh … wait....that's not why. He got it for "ALL Talk" …. before actions ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.39  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.34    3 months ago
Proves nothing it they give that stuff away just to get the press

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.40  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.38    3 months ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.41  It Is ME  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.40    3 months ago
And the  if they gave the orange lyer an award for lying and racism you would be jumping up and down

oooo, sorry….the Numbnutz award already went to Obama.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.42  It Is ME  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.39    3 months ago
Proves nothing it they give that stuff away just to get the press

I know ….right ?

Those stupid "Black" and "Jewish" people back in the day.... huh ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.43  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.11    3 months ago
I am equally baffled at how much "intelligent people" have allowed their biases to make so much of the Trump admins actions.

I'm equally disgusted by how much Trump sycophants have allowed the normalization of the actions of the Trump administration, especially those cited in the report. 

I make no excuses for Trump

You just did. 

or any other politician for that matter but it's clear to me that TDS is a very real thing for some which clouds otherwise clear thinkers.

As is the IOKIYAR syndrome. 

It is highly doubtful these same people were as concerned with equally questionable actions made by the previous administrations.

The whataboutism didn't take long...

BTFW, can you cite an 'equally questionable' action taken by Obama? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.44  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @2.1.43    3 months ago
I'm equally disgusted by how much Trump sycophants have allowed the normalization of the actions of the Trump administration, especially those cited in the report. 

I’m more appalled at the the severe level of coordination of the media and those in the the resist Trump movement from day one after he was duly elected.    A clear and present danger to our democracy 

You just did. 

 Nope, try spinning in another direction.  That one doesn’t pass even the most rudimentary sniff test

As is the IOKIYAR syndrome.

Lol, deflect, redirect and hope for the best eh?

The whataboutism didn't take long...

The truth hurts don’t it?   Deflect, redirect, obfuscate....

BTFW, can you cite an 'equally questionable' action taken by Obama?

Oooh now you’re swearing.    Classy debate technique.     

Nothing in your mind will ever be as bad as Trump     The Obama administration was clearly not clean in that regard but you didn’t admit it then, so you'll never admit it now.    So no point to this line of discussion..     You’ll just continue to deny, deflect and obfuscate.

classic resist tactic ....

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.45  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.44    3 months ago
I’m more appalled at the the severe level of coordination of the media and those in the the resist Trump movement from day one after he was duly elected.    A clear and present danger to our democracy 

Why would you be 'appalled' by that? You should be used to it after 8 years of GOP/Fox/Koch/ Army/ Breitbart/Drudge/Daily Caller/NY Post/Washington Times/WSJ et al coordination during the Obama Administration. 

As they say, turnabout is fair play. 

Nope, try spinning in another direction. That one doesn’t pass even the most rudimentary sniff test

Olfactorily challenged.

Lol, deflect, redirect and hope for the best eh?

Citing a relevant comparison is neither.

The truth hurts don’t it?

When you post some I'll tell you. 

Deflect, redirect, obfuscate....

Yes, that's what whataboutism attempts to achieve. 

Oooh now you’re swearing. Classy debate technique.

Triggered.


Nothing in your mind will ever be as bad as Trump The Obama administration was clearly not clean in that regard but you didn’t admit it then, so you'll never admit it now. So no point to this line of discussion.. You’ll just continue to deny, deflect and obfuscate.
classic resist tactic ..

In short, you can't support you statement. Got ya. 

 
 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.46  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @2.1.45    3 months ago

In short I disagree with you on all points you’ve made.

so there you are ..... still denying, deflecting, obfuscating .....

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.47  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.46    3 months ago
In short I disagree with you on all points you’ve made. so there you are

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

But hey, at least you admit that I made a point. That's more than most of your brethren do. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.48  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @2.1.47    3 months ago

There’s a big part of the problem.    Categorization of people into brethren.    

I feel like i’m back in jr high .... jocks, greasers and nerds .... oh my!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.49  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.48    3 months ago
There’s a big part of the problem.    Categorization of people into brethren.     I feel like i’m back in jr high .... jocks, greasers and nerds .... oh my!

So 'brethren' bad, ' those in the resist Trump movement' good. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.50  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.48    3 months ago
I feel like i’m back in jr high .... jocks, greasers and nerds .... oh my!

I would have bet good money that some here would simply choose not to get that.

And I see I would have won that bet!

Good post!!

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.51  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @2.1.49    3 months ago

Yep ... just about right ..... jr high level discussion.

Good talk!

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.52  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.50    3 months ago

Any reason to argue for that one .... i suspect Trump is just the topic du jour in this case.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.53  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.51    3 months ago
Yep ... just about right ..... jr high level discussion. Good talk!

After a review of your comments, I'd say elementary level. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.54  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @2.1.53    3 months ago

Lol .... then i must be worse than you.  

Congrats!

Good job!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.55  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.54    3 months ago
Lol .... then i must be worse than you.  

Congrats!

Good job!

Self awareness is good for you. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.56  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @2.1.55    3 months ago

I know.  

You should try it some time.  

It will set you free

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.57  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.1.53    3 months ago
'After a review of your comments, I'd say elementary level.'

My thought exactly but you beat me to it.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.58  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.56    3 months ago
I know.  

You comments refute that. 

You should try it some time.  

Been there, done that. 

It will set you free

What makes you think I'm not free? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.59  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @2.1.58    3 months ago
You comments refute that. 

No, no they do not.

Been there, done that. 

Debatable ..... very debatable

What makes you think I'm not free?

Empirical evidence.    

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.60  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.59    3 months ago
No, no they do not.

I disagree. 

Debatable ..... very debatable

Really? Please proceed. 

Empirical evidence.   

Cite it. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.61  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @2.1.60    3 months ago

Now there’s a shocker on all accounts.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @2    3 months ago
Mueller couldn't find collusion. And he didn't say he had enough evidence to charge anyone with obstruction.

Wrong again Texan, first, Mueller at the beginning of his report says he was never looking for collusion since it isn't a part of the legal language, what he was looking for was a conspiracy and, according to the laws governing conspiracy couldn't say definitely that anyone in the Trumps orbit conspired with Russia even though both benefited from what Russia did. Now, on the obstruction part of the report Mueller said that he found ample evidence of obstruction by the president but, because of the OLC's rule on not indicting the president he wouldn't do it, he would leave that up to Congress to do.

http://digg.com/2019/mueller-report-pdf

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.2    3 months ago

Okay, I'll play along and pretend that Democrats largely have not claimed collusion for over 2 years.

What else are we going to pretend today?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.2.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.1    3 months ago

Collusion no, that would be some reporters who don't know the difference between collusion and, conspiracy and, no one but, Donald Trump has used the word collusion any time he talks about the Mueller report. Manafort was proven to have given polling information to the Russians concerning four battle ground states, while he was Trumps campaign manager, that shows evidence of conspiracy. Trump, according the the Mueller report tried to obstruct the investigation 11 times, that is against the law so, trying to say that Trump was exonerated is a flat out lie. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @2    3 months ago
Mueller couldn't find collusion. And he didn't say he had enough evidence to charge anyone with obstruction.

According to Mueller that is not what he wrote, he never looked for collusion since that isn't in the laws of the land and, as far as obstruction he said he would leave that up to Congress to decide, it was Barr who intercepted it and, made his own decision on obstruction.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.3    3 months ago

Barr didn't intercept a damn thing. As AG, the rep[ort was supposed to be sent to him.

In ANY case, Congress has the full report.

When will Democrats file the articles of impeachment?

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.3.2  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.1    3 months ago
When will Democrats file the articles of impeachment?

NEVER !

They think just the "Threat" will garner them some votes !

Like Candice Owens Notes - Liberals/Lefty/Socialists think "Minorities" are Stupid !

https://www.worldtribune.com/candace-owens-left-thinks-minorities-are-stupid/

On April 28 in Dallas, Owens noted that “A big thesis that I have is that the Left thinks that minorities are stupid, they genuinely believe that we are stupid, that we do not do research, that we do not think, and all they have to do is plug into our emotions to inspire a reaction and to create division, and to create hate in America.”

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    3 months ago

Better  title:

Far left website asks  trump critics to criticize trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 months ago
Trump told his White House counsel to fire Mueller, then he told him to lie about it. Similarly, he tried to reverse the impact of his attorney general’s decision to recuse himself from the investigation. And on and on and on. There are just so many instances of Trump seeking to undermine the investigation.The report also indicates that Mueller did not reach an obstruction conclusion due to concerns arising from the Justice Department’s policy against indicting a sitting president.

No witch hunt, no hoax.  Trump needs to either resign or announce he is not running for re-election. We cannot have someone with this sort of cloud hanging over him run in the next presidential election. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 months ago
Trump needs to either resign or announce he is not running for re-election. We cannot have someone with this sort of cloud hanging over him run in the next presidential election.

Well, well, well. You think it is going to happen because you say that is what you want?

Not a chance.

The cloud you speak of will be dealt with by the voters. 

It's the American way!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 months ago

You're kidding of course.  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

For Trump, from here on, there's nothing but blue skies, calm seas, and following winds....

Good luck to those Democrat fools continuing this farce.

Why should we win elections, when can overturn one....

Oh wait!jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.3  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 months ago

I told Hillary the same thing. Even though I think she would make a fine president, there is just too much republican generated baggage that she will never be able to shed.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 months ago

We have to first question the concept in that title. 

ex·on·er·ate

/iɡˈzänəˌrāt/

verb

  • 1.(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case


I think Mueller is a little confused about American law. Everyone is regarded as innocent until proven otherwise. That also applies to Donald Trump.

Why would Mueller even say Trump is not exonerated if he wasn't ever even charged with anything?

What Mueller has done here is to have others continue investigating Trump. He can't bring a charge, but instead smears the President as someone who is not entitled to the presumption of innocence.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2    3 months ago
Why would Mueller even say Trump is not exonerated if he wasn't ever even charged with anything?

That is the whole reason he used that phrase, Mueller concluded he wasn't allowed to charge the President with obstruction even though there was clear evidence of it, not just once but at least 10 clearly defined times the President obstructed or attempted to obstruct. Mueller lays out the case for each one but decided that since a sitting President can't be indicted, he would not charge the President with any crime but refer it to Congress and the AG to decide how to proceed.

Yes, in our system of justice you are innocent until proven guilty. In this case the Mueller report is simply laying out the facts of the case, not coming to a conclusion on criminality. From what I've read so far, there is clearly enough evidence to warrant at minimum a censure by the congress if not full impeachment proceedings. The report shows an unhinged narcissist who was only saved from criminal conspiracy and criminal obstruction because those around him refused to follow through on his orders. The report clearly shows Trump to be an ignorant mob boss constantly trying to cover his own ass by throwing other people under the bus. Trump is the largest, fattest, greasiest turd we've ever had in our political punch bowl, bigger even than Nixon, and should be kicked out of office as soon as possible, whether by the vast majority of voters who despise the piece of trash embarrassment or by congress starting impeachment and Republicans in the Senate waking up to reality.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.1    3 months ago
That is the whole reason he used that phrase, Mueller concluded he wasn't allowed to charge the President with obstruction even though there was clear evidence of it, not just once but at least 10 clearly defined times the President obstructed or attempted to obstruct. Mueller lays out the case for each one but decided that since a sitting President can't be indicted, he would not charge the President with any crime but refer it to Congress and the AG to decide how to proceed.

Aside from all the progressive talking points, it is the AG's decision whether to indict etc and that also goes for allowing the entire report to be read. Under the old law such a report went directly to congress, now it must go to the AG. Redactions have to be made.  

Why, you ask?

"Mr. Starr in his transmittal letter to the speaker and the minority leader made it clear that much of this material is Federal Rule 6(e) material, that is material that by law unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept secret. It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release. So, I assume what’s going to have to happen before anything else happens is that somebody — the staff of the Judiciary Committee, perhaps the chairman and ranking minority member — is going to have to go over this material, at least the 400 or 500 pages in the report to determine what is fit for release and what is, as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all."...Jerrold Nadler

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.1    3 months ago
Yes, in our system of justice you are innocent until proven guilty. In this case the Mueller report is simply laying out the facts of the case

Why?  He didn't recommend charges?

there is clearly enough evidence to warrant at minimum a censure by the congress if not full impeachment proceedings. 

If that is so, there will be bipartisan support for impeachment. If it's only democrats calling for impeachment, it will be seen for what it is. I hope democrats pull that trigger. There will be a major fight between democratic leaders and some of the extremist members first. The consequences will be come in 2020.

As for the usual vindictive Trump rant, I will write that off for what it is

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.4  cjcold  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.1    3 months ago
Yes, in our system of justice you are innocent until proven guilty

In my system of justice you are guilty until proven innocent (Nobody is innocent).

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.2.5  Don Overton  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2    3 months ago

Never happened Vic.  Read all 400 pages, would you like a link to it

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.3  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 months ago

Spot on ...

 
 
 
bbl-1
4  bbl-1    3 months ago

Trump is 'exonerated'.  He's in Mar a Largo on our dime.  Again.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5  Buzz of the Orient    3 months ago

I have no idea who the chosen 12 law experts are. what their politics is, or their leanings.  I would like to know what Alan Dershowitz would opine - I trust his judgment.

In fact what he has said is to wait for the response from the Trump legal team, rather than a rush to judgment on seeing only one side of a story, which is an opinion one would expect from an unbiased brilliant jurist.

 
 
 
bbl-1
5.1  bbl-1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    3 months ago

Me too.  I always defer to those who've ridden on that Lysergic Acid Diethylamide train.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1    3 months ago

Well, you want to know something?  Back in the late 60s and early 70s I did a few rides on that train myself, and it didn't turn me into a looney-toon.  It's so easy to be ignorant about something yet critical of it if you've never been there.

 
 
 
bbl-1
5.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.1    3 months ago

Of course. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    3 months ago

Did you even glance at the article Buzz?   The names and positions of the 12 "experts" are given. 

I guess they are not Dershowitz, but that doesnt make their opinions invalid.

Many people disagree with Dershowitz. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    3 months ago

Don't put words in my mouth - I never said their opinions were invalid. 

Well, I know you disagree with him because he had the incredible and unforgivable chutzpah to defend Trump on something where he was legally correct NOTWITHSTANDING that Dershowitz is an avowed liberal Democrat who never voted for Trump.  I would say he follows the biblical saying "Justice, justice shall you pursue" and put partisan politics elsewhere than in the courts of law.

 
 
 
lib50
5.2.2  lib50  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.1    3 months ago

Whatever Dershowitz is, I rarely agree with him.  He  has been all over the place and I haven't respected his opinions for a very long time.  That's why I don't belong to any party, easier to stay focused on the message and behavior.  The Dersh ain't all that.

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
5.2.3  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  lib50 @5.2.2    3 months ago
That's why I don't belong to any party. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif
 I use the s/n LIB and just happen to vote Democrat in every election

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.2.4  Don Overton  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    3 months ago

Doubtful

 
 
 
lib50
5.2.5  lib50  replied to  BeastOfTheEast @5.2.3    3 months ago

I don't, or didn't until the gop went batshit extreme.  You really should try not belonging to a party and see how freeing it is to look at the issues and proposed solutions instead of blindly following naked emperors and liars and Russian trolls.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.2.6  KDMichigan  replied to  lib50 @5.2.5    3 months ago
You really should try not belonging to a party and see how freeing it is to look at the issues

LMAO everything you post is a leftwing talking point.

No collusion, period.

Winning.

 
 
 
katrix
5.2.7  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @5.2.6    3 months ago
LMAO everything you post is a leftwing talking point.

So you're saying the left has a better relationship with actual facts?  Got it.

Mueller made it perfectly clear why he never even addressed collusion, btw.  And made it clear that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice.  Why do you refuse to accept that Trump did something wrong?  Why do you only care about lack of ethics or truth when it's someone on the left who's doing things they shouldn't?  That's the very definition of hypocrisy.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.2.8  KDMichigan  replied to  katrix @5.2.7    3 months ago
So you're saying the left has a better relationship with actual facts?  Got it.

I never said that. 

Mueller made it perfectly clear why he never even addressed collusion, btw.

He didn't? WTF was the whole investigation about then?

Are you telling me that they spent multi millions of dollars on the collusion investigation and never addressed it? Well that explains why I am anti big government.

And made it clear that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice.

Just because President Trump floated out a idea without the understanding that he can't do that I am okay with that. that is what he has advisers for.

The rest of your rambling is a bunch of "you's". You sound like the lady that got kicked off the plane harassing a passenger over President Trump.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  KDMichigan @5.2.8    3 months ago
re you telling me that they spent multi millions of dollars on the collusion investigation and never addressed it?

They come from the Stalinist school of historical interpretation....They just pretend inconvenient facts never existed. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.3  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    3 months ago
I would like to know what Alan Dershowitz would opine

He will, just stay tuned.

And i agree.   He a reasonable legal voice is a sea of biased legal voices.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    3 months ago

Screw the experts, they need to talk to the people, and the people are becoming more disgusted with the Democrats as the sage goes on.

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.4.1  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @5.4    3 months ago

you should read more and stay off fox

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.5  Don Overton  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    3 months ago

That's what google is for look them up

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6  seeder  JohnRussell    3 months ago

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484965/mueller-report-trump-no-collusion

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Donald Trump and Russia establishes a damning series of facts about the Trump campaign’s connections to the Kremlin.

We learned that two Trump campaign officials, campaign manager Paul Manafort and Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, were regularly providing polling information to a Russian national whom Gates believed to be a “spy.”

We learned that, after Trump publicly called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s emails, he privately ordered future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to find them. Flynn reached out to a man named Peter Smith who (apparently falsely) told a number of people that he was in contact with Russian agents.

We learned that Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos attempted to arrange meetings between Trump and Putin, and that Trump personally approved Papadopoulos’s work on this front.

The report is very clear that Mueller’s investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign criminally conspired on illegal Russian election interference, or that it coordinated with Russia through either an active or tacit agreement.

But the report, combined with other publicly known facts — that Donald Trump Jr. arranged a meeting with the express purpose of obtaining Russian “dirt” on Clinton, and that Papadopoulos was offered similar dirt from a Russian agent, among others — paints a damning picture of the campaign. It was both actively seeking to cultivate a relationship with the Russian government and willing to work with it to acquire damaging information about its political opponents. That willingness included explicitly sharing information with or soliciting information from Russian operatives.

As the report takes pains to point out, “collusion” has no legal definition and is not a federal crime. So while the report did not establish conspiracy or coordination, it does not make a determination on “collusion” — and in fact, it strongly suggests that there was at least an attempt to collude by Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government.

The fact that it did not rise to the level of criminal activity does not mean it was not a serious breach of trust and a damning indictment of the president’s commitment to the health of the American legal and political system. The section of the report focusing on Russian interference in the election is not an exoneration of Trump’s innocence. It’s a devastating portrayal of his approach to politics.

The strong evidence of (something like) collusion

Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was “no collusion” in his press conference before the report’s release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of “collusion.” This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation.

“Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” Mueller writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”

So when Mueller concludes that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.

But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes.

First, Russia repeatedly reached out to the Trump campaign to establish a connection to the Kremlin. “The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations,” Mueller writes.

Second, the Trump campaign was receptive — sometimes going beyond what was on offer from the Kremlin. Some of the examples of this are egregious.

Take Manafort’s meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian political consultant with a history of connections to the GRU intelligence agency. The FBI believed had links to the Kremlin, a view shared by Manafort’s right-hand man Gates. “Gates suspected that Kilimnik was a ‘spy,’ a view that he shared with Manafort,” Mueller writes.

Yet despite Gates’s suspicions, Manafort repeatedly met with Kilimnik, worked with him to develop a pro-Russian Ukraine policy that Trump could implement if elected, and regularly shared polling data with him:

On August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a “backdoor” way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump’s assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.

It’s possible Paul Manafort was acting without the candidate’s knowledge, and you could argue that this shouldn’t really reflect on Trump. But it’s clear from the report that the president openly encouraged his campaign to reach out to Russians and work with them.

During a late March meeting of Trump’s foreign policy advisers, Papadopoulos told Trump about his attempts to set up a meeting with Putin. This, per Mueller, went over quite well.

“Papadopoulos and Campaign advisor J.D. Gordon — who told investigators in an interview that he had a ‘crystal clear’ recollection of the meeting — have stated that Trump was interested in and receptive to the idea of a meeting with Putin,” per the report. Papadopoulos worked diligently afterwards to try to set up such a meeting, but was foiled largely by scheduling issues.

At times, Trump was clear about his interest in Russian electoral involvement. This passage about email hacking, for example, in which Trump calls on Russia to get Clinton’s emails, then tells his campaign to acquire them.

After candidate Trump stated on July 27, 2016, that he hoped Russia would ‘find the 30,000 emails that are missing,’ Trump asked individuals affiliated with his Campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails. Michael Flynn — who would later serve as National Security Advisor in the Trump Administration — recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails.

Russia had, in fact, already stolen the text of many Clinton campaign private emails by then — so Trump couldn’t be involved in that particular criminal conspiracy. But the fact that Trump signaled that he was open to working with the Russians is nonetheless telling.

What “no collusion” gets wrong

The report is littered with evidence Trump and his staff were open to Russian interference in the election. Mueller explicitly concludes that “the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian effort.”

And there may very well be more evidence in the sections that are redacted.

For example, Gates told Mueller about a conversation with Trump during a late summer 2016 car ride to LaGuardia in which “candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming” from WikiLeaks.

Was Trump speculating? Or did he know that for sure, because of some kind of coordination with WikiLeaks (who was working with Russian agents to disseminate hacked Clinton material)? The section is heavily redacted, making it difficult to assess what’s actually going on.

I want to be clear: I am not disputing Mueller’s conclusions on whether a crime was committed. Criminal conspiracy has a very particular legal definition, and Mueller is persuasive on why none of the activities detailed in the report constituted illegal “coordination” in a way that would run afoul of the statute.

81708297.jpg.jpg Robert Mueller.Alex Wong/Getty Images

“We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests,” Mueller writes. “We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

What the report finds is not clear-cut evidence of a quid-pro-quo. Instead, what we see is a series of bungled and abortive attempts to create ties between the two sides, a situation in which the Trump team and Russia worked to reach out to each other (and vice versa) without ever developing a formal arrangement to coordinate.

Does that rise to the level of “collusion?” It’s a slippery term. But if “collusion” refers to a willingness to cooperate with Russian interference in the 2016 US election and actively taking steps to abet it, it seems to me that the Mueller report does in fact establish that it took place.

But even if you find that definition too loose, the report’s message is not that there was nothing to worry about on the Trump-Russia front in 2016. Instead, it confirms that there were multiple shady connections between Trump and Russia, and that the president’s “no collusion” line is quite misleading. And at worst, the way it’s been presented suggests that the president and his attorney general are still actively trying to deceive the American people about what happened in 2016.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 months ago

Simply more spin and deflection.   

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  dennis smith @6.1    3 months ago

Do you know another song?  Your record is broken. 

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.2  JBB  replied to  dennis smith @6.1    3 months ago

The lies and spin are coming from Trump, Barr and the goddamn gop.

The Mueller Report is a powerful indictment of Trump and Company...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 months ago

There were even shadier contacts and collusion between Obama's Democrats and the Russians, the likes of which are going to be investigated.

 
 
 
lib50
6.2.1  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    3 months ago

Yeah, right.  You need to read the report, not the spin.   We know who the Russians worked against, with the cooperation of Trump.  It's in the report, unredacted.    Also need to find out why Trump changed the party platform to benefit Putin over Ukraine.   But Hilary!  But Obama!  No, its Trump and we are focused on his corruption and lies and strange relationship with Putin and other autocrats.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-trump-directed-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support

 
 
 
JBB
6.2.2  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    3 months ago

No, Putin only helped Trump. Hillary Clinton and The DNC were victim of Putin's Hackers and Putin's Troll Army. It is all in the report...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @6.2.2    3 months ago

The report clearly states that the Obama administration was in contact with the Russians even before Trump was elected. And the evidence shows that Obama knew the Russians were trying to influence the elections and did nothing about t.

 
 
 
JBB
6.2.4  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.3    3 months ago

Except that Obama was President then and Trump was just a candidate.,.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.2.5  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    3 months ago

Fairy tales again and again, ho humm

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 months ago
“the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian effort.”

So what? It says right there that it's the Russians making the effort. That doesn't make anything Trump did a criminal act, or even unethical. If the Russians stole information and Wikileaks published it to the whole world, are we all just supposed to ignore the content?

Access Hollywood recorded Trump without his knowledge and the recording was released to the public. I would say that was unfair to Trump (and maybe even illegal), but Hillary Clinton, Democrats and the media had no qualms at all about trying to "benefit" from that information.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.3    3 months ago

The whole flap over stolen Democratic emails is just because the truth seems to have hurt Hillary--or at least that is one in a litany of excuses as to why she lost.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.1    3 months ago
The whole flap over stolen Democratic emails is just because the truth seems to have hurt Hillary--or at least that is one in a litany of excuses as to why she lost.

The whole "flap" over stolen Democrat emails is BECAUSE THEY WERE STOLEN BY AN ENEMY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND SELECTIVELY RELEASED IN THE MIDDLE OF A US ELECTION IN AN EFFORT TO AID ONE OF THE CANDIDATES! It was a crime to steal them, it was a crime to release them. It was the SAME crime as occurred in Watergate where Republican operatives hired by Nixon broke in and stole DNC correspondence (equivalent of emails back then if some are too dense to understand this) in an effort to find dirt on Democrats that could help Nixon in an election. The only difference today is that it was an enemy foreign government who broke in and stole the documents to help the Republican candidate. How Republicans reason that somehow makes it okay is mind boggling.

Why so many conservatives seem unbothered by this is truly amazing to me. I know they would be screaming in rage and foaming at the mouth if they had been the victims of the same. If the Russians had hacked GOP emails (actually they did) and released them during the campaign (which they intentionally didn't do because of their evil agenda) with the specific intent of helping Hillary win the election Republicans would have gone nuclear. Instead, they passively sit by as our election process, free and fair election, and Democracy itself is threatened by an enemy foreign government who, from all indications, wants to completely annihilate western Democracy and American freedoms.

If any one of Trumps supporters had even an ounce of integrity they would admit that if they read this report and replaced every time it says "Trump" with "Clinton" and "Republican" with "Democrat", they would be demanding their immediate impeachment. Sadly, honesty and integrity don't seem to be something conservative Republicans cherish any longer.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.3  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.2    3 months ago

Lol, yeah and the 30,000+ emails she deleted were all only personal emails right?

If you believe that nonsense i've got a slightly used bridge i can sell you that connects our two peninsula's here in Michigan.  

It's a beauty!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.2    3 months ago
The whole "flap" over stolen Democrat emails is BECAUSE THEY WERE STOLEN BY AN ENEMY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND SELECTIVELY RELEASED IN THE MIDDLE OF A US ELECTION IN AN EFFORT TO AID ONE OF THE CANDIDATES! It was a crime to steal them, it was a crime to release them.

I have never claimed otherwise. But even you must admit that the excuse for Hillary losing (or at least one of them) was the fact that they were released publicly, and apparently, the truth in them hurt Hillary.

Nothing else is worth responding to.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.4    3 months ago
apparently, the truth in them hurt Hillary. Nothing else is worth responding to.

So if there was some embarrassing correspondence in the stolen Watergate documents, that should be all that matters? If there was truth in them then it's okay to steal and release them during an election? If you were running for local election, it would be okay to hack your phone and steal the dick pics and send them to all the networks? I mean, they would contain "the truth" would they not?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.5    3 months ago
So if there was some embarrassing correspondence in the stolen Watergate documents, that should be all that matters? If there was truth in them then it's okay to steal and release them during an election? If you were running for local election, it would be okay to hack your phone and steal the dick pics and send them to all the networks? I mean, they would contain "the truth" would they not?

Don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Russians--the ones responsible for stealing the emails--should be prosecuted. isn't that what Mueller was supposed to do?

But if you think that Democrats are only mad because the emails were stolen, you are simply wrong. If that were the case, then it wouldn't have been offered up as another  excuse for Clinton.

I just wonder why Democrats always seem to be able to gloss over the fact that Hillary was hurt by those in her own party. it is rather senseless, especially when the DNC sold itself to Hillary.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.5    3 months ago
If you were running for local election, it would be okay to hack your phone and steal the dick pics and send them to all the networks? I mean, they would contain "the truth" would they not?

I have never taken a dick pic and don't talk about childish things like that. Maybe you can find someone willing to talk dick pics with you.

It won't be me.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.7    3 months ago
don't talk about childish things like that

I don't even have a cell phone so I wouldn't know, but obviously you missed the point. Whether "dick" pics or some other sensitive, personal information or correspondence that could be used by an opponent to embarrass you, stealing it and then releasing it is a crime regardless of whether the embarrassing things are "true" or not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.8    3 months ago

Oh, FFS.

I have never disputed the fact that it is illegal to steal.

Which is why I wrote this EARLIER:

Russians--the ones responsible for stealing the emails--should be prosecuted.

if you chose to ignore the point, so be it.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.9    3 months ago
if you chose to ignore the point, so be it.

It seems like most conservative Republicans would rather reward the Russians than prosecute them. Congratulations for not being like that and at least accepting the fact that the Russians did illegally interfere with our elections which were far from free and fair in 2016, they were sabotaged by an enemy with an agenda and the more we dismiss and obfuscate that fact the more likely it is to happen again.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
6.3.11  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.10    3 months ago

You leftists have obviously conviced yourselves that this ridiculous charge is truth.

it assumes that the 30 states Trump carried prefer the Democrat ideology of taxpayer funding of abortions, increased taxation and control over our lives, more regulations over every aspect of our lives (except for sex), more leftist justices on the courts, and the rest of the leftist ideology.

the next election will be the judgment of the American people on this contrast. I believe 2020 may be the last election to preserve our Constitutional Republic.  The ignorance of Americans about the Constitution and the willingness of young people to embrace enslavement to the state, will likely prevail in the not distant future.  I weep for my children and grandchildren who will have to try and survive in that environment. But fortunately for myself I can survive outside of society in an isolated rural environment for the time remaining in my life where totalitarian government is less likely to impact me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.10    3 months ago
t seems like most conservative Republicans would rather reward the Russians than prosecute them.

Your opinion is duly noted. Is that why Mueller handed down indictments on Russians--because he didn't want to prosecute them? That is weird.

Take steps to prevent it from happening again.

But don;t use it as an excuse as to  why Hillary lost.

 
 
 
lib50
6.3.13  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.9    3 months ago

Receiving stolen property is a crime as well.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.14  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @6.3.11    3 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.15  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @6.3.13    3 months ago
Receiving stolen property is a crime as well.

Yes it is.

I am sure Assange will be charged with that, right?

Just curious though--if someone had emailed copies of the emails to the Washington Post or New York Times, do you believe they would have hesitated to print them?

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
6.3.16  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  livefreeordie @6.3.11    3 months ago
I believe 2020 may be the last election to preserve our Constitutional Republic.

We are witnessing the Democrat party actively engaged in a coup to overthrow the President of the United States in an attempt to dismantle our Constitutional Republic. If they succeed or win the presidency in 2020 the United States will become the Socialist/Communist States.

Democrat voters, wake up, this is not the Democratic party of your  grandparents and great grand parents, it's a party bend on the destruction of the United States.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.3.17  Don Overton  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.3    3 months ago

Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting a subpoena

By Lauren Carroll on Sunday, October 9th, 2016 at 11:14 p.m.

At the second presidential debate, Trump claims that Clinton" received a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails." Half True.

The FBI concluded that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted over her decision to conduct State Department business exclusively over a private email server, but Donald Trump pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the matter if he becomes president.

At the second debate between the two presidential nominees, Trump criticized Clinton for turning over half her emails held on her server to the State Department and deleting the rest. He said Clinton should be "ashamed" of herself for deleting 33,000 emails.

"There has never been anything like this," Trump said at the Oct. 9 event in St. Louis. "You get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails."

Clinton and her campaign don’t dispute that she deleted these 33,000 emails. They argue that these were personal in nature, rather than work-related, and therefore were not necessary to turn over.

However, they have denied that they deleted the emails after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi on March 4, 2015. But an August 2016 FBI report on its investigation shows that Trump’s claim has some merit.

Let’s take a look at the timeline of relevant events, according to the FBI report. (The most pertinent information is on pages 15-19 of this document.)

Feb. 1, 2013: Clinton serves her last day as secretary of state.

July 23, 2014: The State Department reaches an agreement with the Benghazi committee about producing records for its investigation into the 2012 attack on a U.S. embassy in the Libyan city.

Oct. 28, 2014: The State Department sends an official letter to Clinton’s staff requesting "emails related to their government work." Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, and aide Cheryl Mills oversaw the review of Clinton’s email archives to produce work-related documents to the department.

Dec. 5, 2014: Clinton’s team provides 55,000 pages of emails, or about 30,000 individual emails, to the State Department. Mills tells an employee at Platte River Networks, which managed the server, that Clinton does not need to retain any emails older than 60 days.

March 2, 2015: The New York Times breaks the story that Clinton used a personal email account while secretary of state.

March 4, 2015: The Benghazi committee issues a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over all emails from her private server related to the incident in Libya.

Between March 25-31, 2015: The Platte River Networks employee has what he calls an "oh s---" moment, realizing he did not delete Clinton’s email archive, per Mills’ December 2014 request. The employee deletes the email archive using a software called BleachBit.

March 27, 2015: Clinton’s lawyers send a letter to the Benghazi committee saying that the State Department already has the relevant emails, as they were included in the Dec. 5, 2014, turnover.

Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.

However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.

The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own.

Clinton told the FBI that she did was not involved in deciding whether individual emails should be sent to State Department, nor "did she instruct anyone to delete her emails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information."

Our ruling

Trump said, "You (Hillary Clinton) get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails."

Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later.

The FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid the subpoena or other requests. Clinton’s team requested for the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena came. They also argued that all the emails that would be relevant to the subpoena had already been turned over to the State Department.

We rate Trump’s claim Half True.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.3.18  It Is ME  replied to  Don Overton @6.3.17    3 months ago

The "Special Council" investigation was intense too ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
6.4  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 months ago

John

This remark may be a bit off topic, but after taking a quick look at comment #6, (which is extremely long for a comment on a social media site) I would like to point out that the vast majority of people in these discussions will not read a comment of that length. 

In my experience its more effective to post shorter comments. (In fact many people won't even read a one paragraph comment).

(And this coming from me-- someone who is usually excessively wordy! :-)

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Krishna @6.4    3 months ago

You got that right...scroll right past them.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    3 months ago

I wonder if these experts were chosen at random.

One thing I know for sure: If you're hell bent on finding wrongdoing, you'll find it - whether it's really there or not.

 
 
 
evilgenius
7.1  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @7    3 months ago
One thing I know for sure: If you're hell bent on finding wrongdoing, you'll find it - whether it's really there or not.

So true... righties are still asking for more investigations on Clinton even though she's been the most investigated politician so far this century.

To the subject of the seed - It's telling that some people under Trump quit rather than follow unethical and illegal orders. It's also telling that many people in the Trump campaign did talk to Russian officials hoping for an edge. I think Jr should be charged for lying to Congress about the Trump Tower meeting. I also believe, as Trumps attorneys probably do, that if Trump actually talked to the Special Council he too would have perjured himself. He can't help not lying. I'm 80% sure once Trump leaves office the 2nd District of NY will indict him as Co-conspirator #1 on criminal campaign fraud charges.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @7.1    3 months ago
campaign fraud charges

There's no need to wait if that's true. The FEC could pursue that right now. They did it with the Obama campaign while he was president. Most of the time, these things are resolved with a fine. And from what I have seen with Trump, the amount in question is so petty as to warrant nothing more than that.

It's time to admit that the main concern everyone had - that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the election - just didn't happen. Why can't you be happy about that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    3 months ago

That was not the main concern.  IT WAS ONE OF MANY

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    3 months ago
Why can't you be happy about that?

For some, the hatred of Trump is greater than love of country,

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.2    3 months ago
That was not the main concern.

Yes it was. The special counsel was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the election (he found some) and with determining if anyone in the Trump campaign was working with them (he found that no one was).

So, you should be pissed at Russia and glad that Trump and his people had no part in it.

 
 
 
lib50
7.1.5  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.3    3 months ago

I don't support a lying con who cares more about his personal gain and life than that of the country.  One who tries to get others to break the law.  One who uses hate to keep his base happy.   They love the hate the most, listen to the reaction of the crowds at his rallies.  The worse he acts the more they like it.  That is not loving country.  That is wanting to win and keep power no matter what gets sacrificed. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @7.1.5    3 months ago

Rump shits all over everything.   He doesn't give a shit about anything or anyone except his self or Ivanka. 

Rump cares nothing for anything except that what benefits himself 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.1.7  Greg Jones  replied to  evilgenius @7.1    3 months ago
. I'm 80% sure once Trump leaves office the 2nd District of NY will indict him as Co-conspirator #1 on criminal campaign fraud charges.

Yeah, but that's years away....and nothing incriminating seems to have been uncovered.

 
 
 
Don Overton
7.1.8  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.3    3 months ago

The dislike of the orange lier are for reasons like:

Editorial: Mueller report shows Trump’s contempt for truth and law

Chronicle Editorial Board April 18, 2019 Updated: April 18, 2019 2:31 p.m.
940x0.jpg
President Trump and Attorney General William Barr portrayed the special counsel’s report as exponeration. Robert Mueller offered a different story.
Photo: Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images

The long-awaited release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report thoroughly debunked President Trump’s claim of “complete and total exoneration” by the two-year investigation. Attorney General William Barr’s ludicrously rose-colored and misleading characterization of the Mueller report, from his initial four-page summary to his Thursday news conference, seriously undermined his stature as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

While Mueller did not conclude Trump committed a crime, the special counsel’s 448-page report laid out a detailed, damning portrayal of a truth-challenged president with open contempt for the American ideal that law enforcement should be free to do its work without political interference.

If justice was not obstructed, the report showed beyond a doubt, it was not for lack of trying by Donald J. Trump.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @7.1.8    3 months ago

So nothing in your post refutes what I stated.

Good job!

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7    3 months ago

Riiiiiiggghhhhhttttt . . . . there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SEE HERE.  PLEASE DISPERSE

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @7.2    3 months ago

Oh well, [delete.] The report says pretty clearly that no American colluded with the Russians, so just what else is there that you think you need to see?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.1    3 months ago

"The Mueller report lays out not only how Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but also related activities carried out by Trump campaign officials," Feinstein tweeted.

"It also details many instances where President Trump tried to obstruct or stop the investigation."

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.2    3 months ago

Oh how shocking! You mean to tell me that a newly elected president was pissed off because a politically motivated witch hunt was under way to undermine his administration?

Democrats and the media were talking about impeaching Trump before Election Day, after Election Day, before the Electoral College voted, and even on Inauguration Day. I have never seen such a corrupt and dishonest attack on a president in my life. There has been nothing like it in the history of the republic.

Now do you really mean to tell me if all that bullshit happened to a Democratic president they wouldn't have been screaming and bitching every single day until it was resolved? Like Hell!

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2.5  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.4    3 months ago
I have never seen such a corrupt and dishonest attack on a president in my life. There has been nothing like it in the history of the republic.

Were you asleep for the 8 years of trying to tear down Obama's reputation?

Give it a rest.  Republicans were talking about impeaching Obama and making him ineffectual from the day he was elected also.

The GOP did worse to Obama and while he and the nation were celebrating his first inauguration, Mitch McConnell and the GOP  were at a dinner pledging complete obstruction, investigations and a goal to make him a one term POTUS.

In the 230-year period between the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and Barack Obama’s election, opposition parties blocked a grand total of 68 presidential nominees. In the three years and 10 months between Obama’s inauguration and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s move to eliminate the filibuster for lower court nominees, Republicans had blocked 79 of them – that’s 54 percent of the historic total in just under four years.

Last week, the current Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, moved to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees after the Democrats filibustered Donald Trump’s pick, Neil Gorsuch, who had come off as aloof and unresponsive during his confirmation hearings and offered no reason for refusing to meet with two (women) Democratic senators. But as Media Matters noted, the political press largely portrayed the Republicans’ choice to do away with the filibuster as the fault of Democrats – they said the Democrats forced McConnell’s hand, and in some cases blamed both sides for generic “dysfunction.” This followed weeks of stories about how the party’s “liberal base” was forcing Democrats to block Gorsuch, and wondering if Dems would have the courage to stand up to their constituents.

Obama’s nominee for the seat, Merrick Garland, is the only candidate in the history of the United States to be denied a hearing by the opposition. As one might expect, Democrats and progressives are outraged that Republicans effectively stole a seat that might have shifted the Court’s ideological balance to the left for the first time since 1971. But the both-sides-do-it reporting we’ve seen makes their fury seem illogical, a simple case of sour grapes.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/why-opposing-trump-isnt-like-the-gop-obstructing-obama-118956/

Trump brought all of this baggage with him and  as long as he keeps Tweeting, he'll never measure up to the character of the office.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.5    3 months ago
he GOP did worse to Obama and while he and the nation were celebrating his first inauguration, Mitch McConnell and the GOP  were at a dinner pledging complete obstruction, investigations and a goal to make him a one term POTUS.

Now that's comedy!  Political opposition to Obama is somehow worse than political opposition plus falsely accusing the President of  being  a traitor. Is it bizarro day?

But for fun, let's see proof of McConell's plan of complete obstruction while Obama was still celebrating his inauguration.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.5    3 months ago
Republicans were talking about impeaching Obama and making him ineffectual from the day he was elected also.

Please provide any links you have proving what you claim--that the GOP talked of impeaching Obama on day one.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.7    3 months ago

Some guy in a garage said Obama should be impeached, therefore there was a national Republican plot...

 
 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.9    3 months ago

And which specific link tells us that the GOP was talking about impeaching Obama on day one, as you claim?

Every link you just provided says a lot about obstruction, but I didn't see the word impeachment in any of them.

You didn;t claim something completely untrue, did you?

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2.11  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.7    3 months ago

Oh be realistic Tex. It started before day one or they would not be professional politicians especially McConnell.

Impeachment is one of the two tools the Constitution affords Congress for reining in a president’s conduct. The other, because Congress at least supposedly holds the purse strings, is that it can deny a president funding for any action that Congress disagrees with. Obama has, by uncompromising political maneuvers — aided and abetted by Republican leaders who are more afraid of Obama than of any president in living memory — neutered that congressional tool. The only thing left is impeachment.

https://londoncenter.org/case-obamas-impeachment/

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594037760/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i6

https://gai.georgetown.edu/obama-a-republican-congress-and-impeachment/

https://larouchepac.com/policy/impeach

https://www.huffpost.com/topic/impeach-obama

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/a-brief-history-of-gop-calls-for-obamas-impeachment-from-benghazi-to-bergdahl/455544/

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/all-the-times-fox-news-called-to-impeach-obama

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama
 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2.12  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.10    3 months ago
Every link you just provided says a lot about obstruction, but I didn't see the word impeachment in any of them.

Sean asked for links about obstruction.......that's what I provided.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.11    3 months ago

Wow. Lots and lots of links to attempt to wade through.

Funny, not one single one addresses what I asked for:

Prove that the GOP talked of impeachment on day one, as you have claimed.

just one single quote from a link proving that would be swell.

Please don't list a bunch of different links that don't prove it, you have done that twice now.

Either you can prove it by simply providing a single source or quote, or you can't.

It really is just that simple.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.4    3 months ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifUnreal.  

 
 
 
ArkansasHermit-too
7.2.15  ArkansasHermit-too  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.13    3 months ago
GOP talked of impeachment on day one,

.

A Brief History of GOP Calls for Obama's Impeachment, From Benghazi to Bergdahl

Here's a short rundown of other White House scandals (or "scandals") that have led Republicans to call for Obama's impeachment (and for the full list, Wikipedia has you covered):
  • In 2010, Rep. Darrell Issa said Obama could face impeachment after Rep. Joe Sestak claimed the White House offered him a job to prevent him from challenging Arlen Specter in a primary.
  • In 2011, Rep. Michael Burgess told a local Tea Party group that Obama's impeachment "needs to happen," without specifying why.

  • In 2012, Sen. Jon Kyl said "impeachment is always a possibility" over Obama's immigration policies.
    Last May, Rep. Jason Chaffetz said he was not pushing for impeachment, but didn't rule out that Obama could be kicked out of office over the Benghazi affair.

  • In 2013, Sen. Tom Coburn told the audience at a town-hall meeting that Obama was getting "perilously close" to qualifying for impeachment. Coburn's fellow Oklahoma senator, James Inhofe, agreed.

  • In 2013, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio said his legislative dream would be to impeach Obama.

  • During the debt-ceiling crisis, Rep. Louie Gohmert told an interviewer that defaulting on the U.S. government's debt would be an "impeachable offense."
  • While Sen. Ted Cruz has demurred on calls for Obama's impeachment in the past, but has called it "a good question" and "a question for the House to assess."

.........

By Jonathan Chait   October 5, 2010
The coming impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama.56220bc61367c8fd75cacbbd1d8723a87c04599e
Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama.

They won’t do it right away. And they won’t succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office.

Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over?

You can always find something.

Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington.

Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak.

On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense.
 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  ArkansasHermit-too @7.2.15    3 months ago

Very well and good, but still doesn't provide proof of what was claimed.

Good try, though!

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2.17  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.16    3 months ago

You are guilty of what you accuse others of every day.

I said

Republicans were talking about impeaching Obama and making him ineffectual from the day he was elected also.

You responded

And which specific link tells us that the GOP was talking about impeaching Obama on day one, as you claim?

What do you say to everyone who tries to talk to you?

Shall we go with

"Don't put words in my mouth"

or

"I mean what I say & say what I mean"

When I mean the GOP, that's what I will type, Tex.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.17    3 months ago

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I got it from this:

Republicans were talking about impeaching Obama and making him ineffectual from the day he was elected also.

I simply asked for a link proving that the GOP talked about impeaching Obama from day one, as you claimed.

If you are now claiming that the GOP didn't talk about impeaching Obama from Day One, then just say so.

I can't help it if you type something and I respond appropriately to it.

When I mean the GOP, that's what i will type, Tex.

Of course, I, for one, would never consider the GOP to NOT be Republicans. That is ridiculous.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.19  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.5    3 months ago
Were you asleep for the 8 years of trying to tear down Obama's reputation?

No, and I would say he was treated unfairly at times, too. I would say that's true of all presidents. What I am saying here is that what has gone on with Trump exceeds anything we have seen before.

The GOP did worse to Obama

I disagree. As I just said, the GOP were often unfair or unreasonable with Obama, to be sure. However, Democrats and news pundits were talking about impeaching Trump before he was even nominated for the general election. I'm talking about Spring of 2016. Furthermore, Obama never had to endure the daily scrutiny and accusations related to a special counsel investigation. Objective analysis of news media coverage reveals that Obama was very well treated in the press, while the level of negative coverage of Trump is unprecedented.

figure-4.png?w=960&ssl=1

 
 
 
Don Overton
7.2.20  Don Overton  replied to  Tessylo @7.2    3 months ago

Must be why they keep shooting holes in the republican bullshit

 
 
 
Don Overton
7.2.21  Don Overton  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.1    3 months ago

Show me tacos

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.2.22  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Don Overton @7.2.21    3 months ago

384

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.23  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.19    3 months ago

Trump lies to the people every day. He should have 100% negative coverage, not 80%.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.2.22    3 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_4_smiley_image.pngjrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2.25  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.19    3 months ago

And I will tell you from personal experience with family members, NBC members, Newsvine members, Redit members, WordPress members,

life time elementary  school and high school friends and yes even current company, here on this website,

that the racial enmity, the conspiracy theories, the calls for assassination, arrest or impeachment started within minutes of  his election in November of 2008

all across the internet, especially on FB & Twitter.

And this pure hatred and animus was for a clean cut couple with no criminal experience, no bankruptcies who was vilified as a community organizer,

pot smoker whose legal expertise, teaching credentials, experience as a State Senator and US Senator were ignored and derided by his political and racial opponents.

 
 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.27  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.19    3 months ago

No wonder the shitstain's coverage is negative - what is there positive to report regarding the shitstain?  Like John said, it should be 100% negative.  Nothing good to report about the turd.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2.28  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.18    3 months ago

There you go again

Every time I say Republicans, you hear GOP,

Ain't that crazy?

Are the Democrats the DNC?

Of course not.

 
 
 
katrix
7.2.29  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.19    3 months ago
Objective analysis of news media coverage reveals that Obama was very well treated in the press, while the level of negative coverage of Trump is unprecedented

Trump brought that on himself.  He has always had a lot of negative media coverage because he's always been a lying POS.  He actually enjoyed the negative coverage because to him, not being talked about is a fate worse than death.  Just like a toddler, negative attention is better than no attention.  That's why he always whines, like a toddler, "it's so unfair!"

If he wants decent coverage, he needs to stop lying, stop pretending he's a dictator, stop acting like a toddler having a tantrum, grow the fuck up, park his ego, and learn how to govern.  His negative coverage exceeds that which we've seen before because his flaws far exceed what we've seen before. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.28    3 months ago
Are the Democrats the DNC?
Of course not.

Well, they DAMN sure ain;t Republicans.

Don't be obtuse.

It is childish.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.31  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @7.2.29    3 months ago
Trump brought that on himself . . . If he wants decent coverage, he needs to

Do you really believe this is the cause and effect situation? Do you really have so much faith in the press that you don't think they lie? You don't think bias infects their reporting? You really just think they're objective and fair all the time?

 
 
 
katrix
7.2.32  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.31    3 months ago
You really just think they're objective and fair all the time?

Not all the time, no.  And some sources are clearly more objective and fair than others, although you and I probably disagree on which those are.  In the case of Trump, though, I do think the negative coverage of Trump is brought on by himself - it is cause and effect.  I have far more faith in the press being honest and fair than I do in Trump, that's for sure.  When they publish provable facts and he screeches that they're lying and are "fake news" - he has no credibility.  Hell, he lies about where his father was born.  He simply cannot tell the truth and sees no value in the truth.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2.33  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.30    3 months ago
Don't be obtuse.

After reading too many of your exchanges about being painfully literal over semantics with other members,

I can only say, "how ironic...".

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.34  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @7.2.32    3 months ago
I do think the negative coverage of Trump is brought on by himself

I'll say this: If you want to run stories that Trump is rude and boorish, uninformed and rash on many issues, then I'm right there with you. That is stuff he brings on himself. But he didn't do anything to deserve what has happened with the Russia investigation.

When they publish provable facts and he screeches that they're lying and are "fake news" - he has no credibility.

Except that for two years, they have been publishing - as facts - things that weren't provable. That is the finding of the Mueller report. That report serves to enhance Trump's credibility and exposes the media and several current and former government officials as a bunch of rapid, partisan liars. Regarding the latter group, people like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and John Brennan have made several very serious accusations that Trump is a traitor - an agent of the Russian government - bent on destroying American democracy and they have urged people to believe them based on their access to special knowledge that they ultimately never produced. They owe America an apology and Schiff and Swalwell should resign.

And regarding the media who put these liars on the air and let them spew their lies almost totally unchallenged, they have zero credibility as far as I am concerned.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.35  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.33    3 months ago
'Don't be obtuse.'

'After reading too many of your exchanges about being painfully literal over semantics with other members,

I can only say, "how ironic...".'

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
8  It Is ME    3 months ago

For supposed SMART "Law" people, they sure had a hard time sighting "ACTUAL LAW" to back up their "Opinions" !

In "FACT", they didn't sight "ONE LAW" Trump Broke !

NOT ONE !

Are they actually "Dentists" ?

 
 
 
lib50
8.1  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @8    3 months ago

If you read the report you will know that Mueller didn't move forward under the presumption you don't indict a sitting president.  He laid it out as a job for congress to carry on, not Barr, by the way.  Barr LIED about that at his little presser.   I personally find it really telling that the party of anti-everything-illegal has no standard for themselves or their leaders.  No standards for character and ethics.  No standards for truth.  No standards for a leader that thinks he is above the law and a party that agrees and goes balls to the wall to protect and lie for him, not caring what laws were flaunted and broken.  That is still not facing the Russian involvement in our election, past and future. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @8.1    3 months ago
If you read the report you will know that Mueller didn't move forward under the presumption you don't indict a sitting president.

Muellers report said that ?

 
 
 
JBB
8.1.2  JBB  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.1    3 months ago

Yes...

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  JBB @8.1.2    3 months ago
Yes...

Where ?

Are you doing the "Innuendo and Conjecture" thingy again ?

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @8.1    3 months ago
Mueller didn't move forward under the presumption you don't indict a sitting president

I haven't read it (I have a life, after all) but my understanding is that it wasn't that specific, but rather more vague - something about matters of fact and law. I don't recall hearing that Mueller thought he had a strong case for obstruction but refused to say so because you don't indict a president. That's what you're implying.

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.5  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.1    3 months ago

I'm a little surprised you are defending Trump and commenting if you haven't read enough to know what is in the report.  For this purpose lets look at a section of the intro to Vol II.   It also states implicitly that it is congresses job to further investigate because it is part of their constitutional duty.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries#Volume%20II

STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES

The President's counsel raised statutory and constitutional defenses to a possible obstruction-of-justice analysis of the conduct we investigated. We concluded that none of those legal defenses provided a basis for declining to investigate the facts.

Statutory defenses. Consistent with precedent and the Department of Justice's general approach to interpreting obstruction statutes, we concluded that several statutes could apply here. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(b)(3), 1512(c)(2). Section 1512(c)(2) is an omnibus obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or contemplated official proceedings. No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing the provision to cover only conduct that impairs the integrity or availability of evidence. Sections 1503 and 1505 also offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury, judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings, and they are supplemented by a provision

in Section 1512(b) aimed specifically at conduct intended to prevent or hinder the communication to law enforcement of information related to a federal crime.

Constitutional defenses. As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues. We therefore examined those issues through the framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The Department of Justice and the President's personal counsel have recognized that the President is subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.

Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term "corruptly" sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of "corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article Il powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.6  katrix  replied to  lib50 @8.1.5    3 months ago

Nobody could possibly read that report and think it exonerates Trump - Mueller specifically states that it doesn't.  This willful ignorance of Trump supporters is astonishing.  And it's very disappointing that a large segment of our citizens don't give a crap that our corrupt President is spitting on the Constitution, has no ethics, and constantly lies.  He and his toadies think they own the country, rather than working for us. 

No facts can intrude on minds that are determined to continue worshiping their corrupt hero.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @8.1.5    3 months ago

Funny.... Mueller was able to prosecute EVERYONE but Trump.

Nothing to see, even in your little paste…...at all !

Did Mueller hold back ?

Was Mueller in cahoots with Trump ?

Was Barr in cahoots with mueller ?

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.8  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.7    3 months ago

Evidently still not willing to read what the report does say.  Here's a hint:  Relying on the Barrspin means you don't know what you are talking about, he is working for Trump, not the USA.  I made it so easy to read why Mueller didn't indict Trump.  We've even told you why in plain English, yet you still don't understand.  Try again.  And go over Trump's behavior while your at it,  Mueller gives examples.   He did NOT exhonorate Trump and put the ball in congresses court, as their constitutional job to oversee the executive branch.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.9  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @8.1.8    3 months ago
Evidently still not willing to read what the report does say.

And your interpretation of the report is ?

Funny word ...……. Interpretation !

You can make "Anything" be whatever one wants it to be. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

In my realm of "Interpreting", your comment was a bit biased......just a bit though ! jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif 

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.2  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @8    3 months ago

Didn't read it did ya it

 
 
 
MUVA
9  MUVA    3 months ago

Trump 100,000,000,000 vindicated it is time to move along get to legislating and stop some leftist from continuing this dumb fuckery.

 
 
 
lib50
9.1  lib50  replied to  MUVA @9    3 months ago

Someone hasn't read the damn report.

 
 
 
katrix
9.1.1  katrix  replied to  lib50 @9.1    3 months ago

Why would they read it?  They have Fox News and Barr to lie to them about it, rather than subjecting themselves to very unpleasant facts.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  lib50 @9.1    3 months ago
Someone hasn't read the damn report.

They never will because they simply don't want to see the truth. They made up their minds long ago, they'd support this piece of garbage even if he shot someone in the street. Most have abandoned their honor and integrity all for the false promises of a con artist telling them all what they wanted to hear. Now they are too invested to turn back. They have now fallen victim to the sunk cost fallacy where decisions are tainted by the emotional investment they have accumulated, and the more they invest in something the harder it becomes to abandon it. We'll all get to watch in horror as their investments turn to dust as the only one who ever profits by investing in Donald Trump is Donald Trump. He has screwed over countless investors and contractors as he ran half a dozen businesses into the ground, and he's clearly on track to do the same with our nation.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9.1.3  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.2    3 months ago

We continue to support President Trump because he’s the only one standing to prevent the Democrats completing their destruction of our Constitutional Republic 

from their proposals to eliminate the electoral college, nationalizing healthcare, packing the Supreme Court, to their Godless values of taxpayer funded abortions and celebrating sexual perversions as good, they are a threat to our continued existence as our founders established

This writer outlines perfectly why we must support and re-elect President Trump

“every time one of these newly minted Democratic “stars” opens their mouth, the same thought goes through my mind: Thank God for Trump. Trump is my last line of defense. Trump is the only thing that stands between me and these hallucinogenic socialist nut jobs. Trump is what’s keeping chaos and left-wing insanity at bay.”

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/13/every-time-democrats-talk-want-vote-trump-twice/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @9.1.3    3 months ago
Trump is my last line of defense. Trump is the only thing that stands between me and these hallucinogenic socialist nut jobs.

Sounds nutty as hell. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9.1.5  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.4    3 months ago

deleted

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.6  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @9.1    3 months ago

I would be willing to bet you haven't read the whole thing but are merely parroting what you have seen on CNN or mother Jones.I may read it this weekend  [delete]

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.4    3 months ago

'Sounds nutty as hell'

Nuttier than a fruit cake 

 
 
 
lib50
9.1.8  lib50  replied to  MUVA @9.1.6    3 months ago

No, I haven't read the entire report nor have I ever said I did.  I do know how to read the parts that pertain to what I'm talking about.  And find the parts.  And read other reports and then go confirm them as true or not.   Feel free to find your own way through it, but best come back with something besides Barrspin,   misinformation or whining about something you don't want to take the time to do yourself.  This report is not good for Trump, deal with it head on.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.9  Raven Wing  replied to  lib50 @9.1.8    3 months ago

It would seem that, based upon their own comments, some of the Trump supporters here have not read the full report, choosing instead to simply believe whatever Barr decides to tell is in it. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.2  Raven Wing  replied to  MUVA @9    3 months ago
Trump 100,000,000,000 vindicated it is time to move along get to legislating and stop some leftist from continuing this dumb fuckery.

No......according to the words written in the report itself,  Trump has not been totally vindicated or exonerated. Try fully reading the report yourself before making such statements, otherwise, you may wind up making more of a fool of yourself while trying to make a full of others.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.2.1  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Raven Wing @9.2    3 months ago

The bottom line is that any attempt at impeachment will be a 100% partisan democrat event.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.2.2  Raven Wing  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.2.1    3 months ago
The bottom line is that any attempt at impeachment will be a 100% partisan democrat event.

And? That is a forgone conclusion. But, if sufficient evidence can be determined to justify it is not simply a matter of interpretation. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
10  livefreeordie    3 months ago

I acknowledge honest journalism even from the left when it occurs.  Glenn Greenwood is certainly someone with solid leftist credentials. But he has been at the vanguard of honest commentary on this Russian hoax of a charge against President Trump and those around him. Greenwood again castigated the dishonest Democrats and media for perpetuating this Russia hoax which Mueller found baseless

“Robert Mueller Did Not Merely Reject the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theories. He Obliterated Them.

Glenn Greenwald

April 18 2019, 2:01 p.m.

Mueller completely debunked the leftist hoax of Trump and his people conspiring with the Russians

Several of the media’s most breathless and hyped “bombshells” were dismissed completely by Mueller. Regarding various Trump officials’ 2016 meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Mueller said they were “brief, public and nonsubstantive.” Concerning the much-hyped change to GOP platform regarding Ukraine, Mueller wrote that the “evidence does not establish that one campaign official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican platform was undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia,” and further noted that such a change was consistent with Trump’s publicly stated foreign policy view (one shared by Obama) to avoid provoking gratuitous conflict with the Kremlin over arming Ukrainians. Mueller also characterized a widely hyped “meeting” between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and Kislyak as one that did not “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.”

Regarding one of the most-cited pieces of evidence by Trump/Russia conspiracists – that Russia tried once Trump was nominated to shape his foreign policy posture toward Russia – Mueller concluded that there is simply no evidence to support it:

original

And Mueller’s examination of all the so-called “links” between Trump campaign officials and Russia that the U.S. media has spent almost three years depicting as “bombshell” evidence of criminality met the same fate: the evidence could not, and did not, establish that any such links constituted “coordination” or “conspiracy” between Trump and Russia:

original

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @10    3 months ago
Glenn Greenwood

lol. You dont even know your new hero's name. 

Glenn Greenwald is a pal of Assange. It is no surprise whatsoever that he would take this position. I don't know any liberals who approve of Greenwald. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    3 months ago

It was thanks to autocorrect that I didn’t notice. I’ve read Greenwood who used to be highly quoted by the left until the Trump  haters suddenly no longer respected his honesty.

your ad hominem attack on Greenwald was your weak attempt to ignore his honestly reporting the facts of the Mueller report that completely refute the conspiracy or collusion with Russia hoax.

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.2  lib50  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.1    3 months ago

If you see the report, Trump and his team were more than willing to get as much benefit from Russia as they could.  The report basically showed lots of Russian outreach to the Trump team, and both worked it without ever coming to criminal conspiracy, but Trump worked with Russia and Russians worked with Trump.  So to say there was nothing there would be untrue.  Plenty of Russian connections that didn't meet that criminal standard.  There are just so many ways this report shows the disgrace of Trump and how he conducts himself. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    3 months ago

Glenn Greenwald is one of the few people in the media who has always had an open and skeptical mind on this issue. Here is an interview he did on CNN back when it was still just President-Elect Trump. He said then that people should neither blindly accept nor reflexively reject what the intelligence agencies were claiming about Russia and Trump. That's how journalism should be done.

 
 
 
Krishna
11  Krishna    3 months ago

Does The Mueller Report Exonerate Trump? 12 Legal Experts Weigh In

You don't have to be a legal expert to know which way the wind blows!

The Mueller report did not exonerate Trump-- nor did it find him guilty. 

Because that was not the purpose of the investigation.

(Rather, the purpose was merely to uncover the facts-- is was not Mueller's job to determine whether to indict or not)

 
 
 
Greg Jones
11.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Krishna @11    3 months ago

It showed that he committed no crimes, and that the public is getting weary of witch hunts for political purposes.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @11    3 months ago
"The Mueller report did not exonerate Trump-- nor did it find him guilty."

nor did it find him guilty

Oh, Krishna, now you did it. For making that remark the progressive "geniuses" on this site are now going to declare you to be a Trump toady, a lover of the worst man to ever walk the Earth, a defender of criminals.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.2    3 months ago

Key words 

did not exonerate rump

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
12  Buzz of the Orient    3 months ago

The comments on this article have made it pretty clear to me that the attitude of a lot of members here is that they do not believe in the rule of law, and anyone who even suggests that the rule of law should prevail is the scum of the earth.  However, a caveat to that is that I'm sure they support the SPLC lawyers, otherwise they would have been in absolute agreement with Shakespeare, when he wrote: "The first thing we do - let's kill all the lawyers."  I sure as hell am a target for having the fucking gall to say that a person is not guilty of a crime until they have been convicted of it in a court of law, and believe that trial by newspaper is similar to the Salem witch drownings (or was that burnings?).

I have a lot of nerve to question the attitude of members who have not only made themselves the "unbiased" judges of something, but have chosen their jury of 12 who are committed to the same bias as they are, no opportunity for anyone to question the "jurors" about their personal bias. 

Let me TRY (in the face of their pre-judgment) to make myself clear.  I am not defending Trump. I am defending the Rule of Law that my critics on this article have disparaged.  Of course we should ignore that fact that they have never studied law or graduated as lawyers. so I guess that ignorance of the law is understandable. 

 
 
 
lib50
12.1  lib50  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12    3 months ago
I am defending the Rule of Law

Horseshit.  The report didn't clear Trump of misdeeds, and Trump has broken more than one law and probably more financial laws that one can imagine.  Everything he does, conservatives HERE defend, you are currently part of that.  Now you can ignore Trump's actual behavior and pretend to believe the Barrspin, but I won't and most people won't.  Pretend to care about law and order and question those who don't keep their head up Trump's ass?  I think not.  You are defending Trump and you do it pretty regularly these days, and his supporters make it very clear there is no limit to their support, no matter how low he goes or how many laws he breaks. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
12.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  lib50 @12.1    3 months ago

I never said the report cleared Trump of misdeeds.  I said he wasn't convicted of them in a court of law, and there's no way you can prove me wrong in that so your "horseshit" comment is your OWN horseshit comment.

Your comments smearing me are fucking filthy lies - I've described people who make those kind of comments pretty accurately.  So at what university did you get YOUR law degree?

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.2  lib50  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12.1.1    3 months ago

My apologies for insulting you, but I haven't lied at all and conservatives believe a liar, so there's that.  Maybe your comments show something different than you intend, I don't know.  But its telling that suddenly we hear 'innocent until proven guilty' when that has not been conservative MO for decades now.  Innocent until proven guilty in a legal case.  Mueller said up front he was not going there and confronting the possibility of indicting a sitting president.  That doesn't mean Trump is free from judgement from Americans, his behavior is laid out in the report and its not that of a patriotic American and we can judge him on his words and actions outside legal confines.  Next time conservatives want to use 'rule of law' as a reason, it would help to really care, as opposed to current hypocrisy of 'only the other side'.    Not being charged and innocent are not the same.

 
 
 
katrix
12.1.3  katrix  replied to  lib50 @12.1.2    3 months ago
But its telling that suddenly we hear 'innocent until proven guilty' when that has not been conservative MO for decades now.

On the contrary, it's "lock her up" - the hypocrisy is disgusting.  Extreme partisanship clearly destroys brain cells.

It's a shame that so many people only care about ethics and honesty when it's the other party, and they'll accept anything from their orange hero.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
12.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  lib50 @12.1.2    3 months ago

Let me make this perfectly clear.  The only thing about Trump that I support, the only thing I have said that I support, is HIS support of Israel, and it should be pretty obvious to anyone why I do.  He is not MY President for an equally obvious reason, and I would not have voted for him even if I could because what is negative about him representing America IMO does outweigh the positive.  However, just as Dershowitz, an avowed liberal Democrat, who never would have voted for Trump defends the legal rights he has because of his being POTUS, I would do the same because that's what the law requires and what I was trained to do.  I cannot blame you for feeling as you do, but do not label me a Trump toady for my attitude.  When you agree with that, I will accept your apology. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
12.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  katrix @12.1.3    3 months ago

My attitude about the "Lock her up" catcalls from Republicans/conservatives is no different than it is for Trump.  I am not a hypocrite.  IMO it's a carryover with Americans from the days they were hanging innocent African-Americans from trees. Even Adolph Eichmann was tried and found guilty in a proper court of law.  

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.6  lib50  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12.1.4    3 months ago

I don't really care what Dershowitz is or isn't politically, I never agree with him and haven't for decades.  I'm liberal, not democrat, but he is no liberal in my book.  I will take back a portion of the Trump toady.  You aren't as bad as most of his defenders, but you certainly don't bring out that other side of yourself very often.   That's why you get lumped in.   But I'll be more discerning next time, and sorry for previous lumping.

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @12.1.6    3 months ago
That's why you get lumped in.

And there is a big part of your problem ..... an apparent need to lump people on a very narrow viewpoint.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
12.1.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  lib50 @12.1.6    3 months ago

Yeah, you can kick me in the ass because I even respect your flag and your anthem, even though I'm not an American, and I favour stringent gun controls and universal health care and women's rights to abortion, and I even spell words like "favour" with a "u". Besides, I'm so RACIST I married a Chinese Buddhist. So I DESERVE to be "lumped in" eh?

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.9  lib50  replied to  Sparty On @12.1.7    3 months ago

When it comes to support for Trump, that's what you get.  He is absolutely the worst example of humanity to lead this country.  This goes beyond tax cuts and appointing judges.  And the racism goes with him too.  When someone defends his behavior consistently,  you are lumped in because of your own words and actions.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @12.1.9    3 months ago

Nah, when it comes to your actions, put the reasons right where they belong.   Squarely on your own shoulders

Accountability .... just do it!

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.11  lib50  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12.1.8    3 months ago

Ok this is going to sound crazy.  I explained to Sparty how lumping occurs.  I admit I tend to do it on this site (I don't in my real life because I know too many people with various (strong) opinions.  But here certain folk always defend the indefensible.  Things that they couldn't stand yesterday are great today because....trump...winning...all about get the liberals/gays/blacks/immigrants( from the south).    I'm surprised you can tolerate the racism because Trump's deplorable character and racism is a reason he is unacceptable as a leader.  There is nothing he does good for this country, and when you said he was better than the alternative it was a lump moment. (I've lived overseas where they spell favour with a u and know people from all over the world.  Not many share your acceptance of Trump.)  But you are off my lump list now.  (You thought I kicked your ass?)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
12.1.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  lib50 @12.1.11    3 months ago
"...when you said he was better than the alternative..."

I did?  Please show me where.  The only possibility I can think of is if I were comparing his support for Israel as compared to any other POTUS or candidate for 2020. And I don't deny that.  Even Harry Truman, who supported Partition and I think was the first to vote in favour then declared an embargo on weapons to Israel when it was under attack by all the Arab armies.

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.13  lib50  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12.1.12    3 months ago

Honestly too tired to look for it, but I do remember it had to do with Israel now that you mention it.  I don't like Bibi so we probably disagree on a lot there, but that is another subject worthy of its own seed.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
12.1.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  lib50 @12.1.13    3 months ago

Maybe your memory is confusing Trump with Bibi.  I do consider Bibi to be the best PM for Israel because he is a strong leader who is not going to get bamboozled by the forces that want to destroy Israel, but that doesn't mean that I, too, realize that there are a lot of negatives about him as well.  For that reason I consider him better than the alternatives that were running against him - to me, the security of Israel is more important than the corruption charges brought against him and his relying on the Haradim to make up his coalition.  I have no love for the ultra-Orthodox.  However, he is NOT a warmonger - unless you can tell me what war he has started.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
13  Tessylo    3 months ago

We're supposed to be impressed that you have a law degree?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
13.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @13    3 months ago

Where did I say I had a law degree on this article?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

lib50
tomwcraig
devangelical
ArkansasHermit-too


48 visitors