Trump tells Putin not to ‘meddle in the election,’ his tone was criticized

  
Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  131 comments

Trump tells Putin not to ‘meddle in the election,’ his tone was criticized

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


President Trump met face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 Summit in Japan and told his counterpart not to "meddle" in the 2020 elections when pressed by a reporter, but his delivery faced immediate criticism as being aloof.

Trump, who was seated next to Putin, was asked by a reporter if he would tell "the Russian president to not meddle in the election." There was some cross talk in the room at the time. Trump, without looking at Putin, responded, "Of course I will. Don't meddle in the election, president. Don't meddle in the election."


Trump's tone and delivery were immediately called out. The AP ran a headline, "Trump Jokes to Putin: Don't Meddle in the Election."


The report said his tone was "open to interpretation but would seem to do little to silence questions about Trump's relationship with Russia in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller's conclusion that his campaign did not collude with Russia in 2016."

Trump's supporters will likely say the reporter's question was awkward and the serious discussion should not play out in the public eye. Trump's critics will likely conclude that he refuses to see the seriousness of defending U.S. elections from a foreign government, hence his offhanded response.

AP19179193345626.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
President Donald Trump, right, shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Friday, June 28, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Friday’s meeting is the first between the two leaders since the Mueller Report documented the extensive ways in which Russia sought to influence the 2016 election.  The Mueller report did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump associates and the Kremlin to sway the outcome of the election. Putin has denied that Russia meddled in the American election to help Trump win.

The two are in Osaka for the summit. Before the meeting, Trump said he expected a "very good conversation" but told reporters "what I say to him is none of your business."


The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Article is Locked

Find text within the comments Find 
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Even if Trump sucker punched Putin, it wouldn't be enough for the haters!

 
 
 
katrix
1.1  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

If Obama just joked around with Putin about something like this, do you really think you'd be defending him? Especially after he invited Russia to meddle, on national television? And claiming that what he says to Putin is none of our business - when he works for us and there are very valid concerns about his relationship with Putin?

Trump has made it clear that he won't accept the fact that Russia meddled in the election, because his ego won't allow him to. 

This should not be a partisan thing. Any president who acts like this needs to be called out.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1    3 weeks ago
If Obama just joked around with Putin about something like this, do you really think you'd be defending him?

Now Trump is joking?   He is either serious or joking when the left says so. Got it!

 Especially after he invited Russia to meddle, on national television?

What is the quote, which you interpret as an "invitation to meddle"?

And claiming that what he says to Putin is none of our business - when he works for us and there are very valid concerns about his relationship with Putin?

It was none of our business when Obama was caught on an open mic telling a Russian official that he could be "more flexible with Russia" right after the election!

This should not be a partisan thing. Any president who acts like this needs to be called out.

Except that you are calling him out when he does the right thing.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  katrix @1.1    3 weeks ago
Trump has made it clear that he won't accept the fact that Russia meddled in the election,

"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me get elected."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

"WASHINGTON—Attorney General William Barr’s review of the origins of the Russia investigation is focused in part on the U.S. intelligence assessment that found Moscow intervened in the 2016 presidential election to help then-candidate Donald Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/william-barr-looking-into-u-s-finding-that-russia-wanted-trump-to-win-11561137185?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/KV8uz9wg4R

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

Paywall.

And Barr does like a cover-up, doesn't he?  Iran-Contra, Russian meddling.  He believes the President is above the law, which is why he's AG.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1.5  WallyW  replied to  katrix @1.1    3 weeks ago

Please define and describe "meddle"

Still zero evidence that any votes were changed in favor of Hillary..

It is still perfectly legal for Russia or any other country to try to "influence" any election

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

So we discredit the AG when we don't like what we hear, right?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

We discredit the AG when his own actions merit it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

You discredit anyone who threatens the false narrative or those deep state officials who have lied, leaked, committed FISA fraud and have spied on American citizens.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

From the video, Barr wanted to "get the whole report out."

So, why so many redactions, by Barr himself?

He was also called out several times for lies - blaming his mischaracterizations of Mueller's letter on the press, for example.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.10  katrix  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me get elected."

And right after that he went back to insisting that Russia didn't help get him elected. He slipped up and told the truth once, and then went back to his lies.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.8    3 weeks ago

You've yet to reveal a "deep state".

Both this seed and the WSJ article you posted actually make Trump and Barr look bad.  They don't show a "deep state"; they show Trump and his administration being called out on lies and putting personal interests (and Russian interests) above the good of their country.

Why do you have a problem with liars and cheats being held accountable?  When did that become a bad thing?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.9    3 weeks ago

By Law there must be redactions....All that Grand Jury stuff has to be redacted.  BTW Barr didn't have to show any of it, but he showed a lot of it. 

The report was released in a timely fashion. You even have Mueller coming to testify!  This is what you told us to wait for, Sandy! What's wrong, Sandy?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
those deep state officials

The fall back position. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  katrix @1.1.10    3 weeks ago

Yup.

He's too stupid to keep all of his lies straight.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
Now Trump is joking? He is either serious or joking when the left says so.

Trump smirked and Putin chuckled. Don't you believe your own eyes? 

It was none of our business when Obama was caught on an open mic telling a Russian official that he could be "more flexible with Russia" right after the election!

Whataboutism. 

Address what Trump said. Do you think that 'We the people' have a right to know about what Trump is doing in our name? Do you think that Trump should be held to his claim of being the 'most transparent ever'? 

Except that you are calling him out when he does the right thing.

So Trump delivering what should be a serious ultimatum with a smirk on his face is the 'right thing' when the right says so. Got it. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.12    3 weeks ago

Did he want the whole report released, or didn't he?  Why does he say one thing and do another, and why are you ok with that?

Did he mischaracterize Mueller's letter (yes) and then blame "the press" for his actions?  Yes, and he got called on it.  Why are you ok with lies and scapegoating?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.11    3 weeks ago

Oh, I know, Sandy, There wasn't any animosity by FBI officials, no leaking by Comey and Clapper, no agents used on Papadopolous, Andy McCabe didn't admit that without the Steele Dossier there wouldn't be a FISA warrant, McCabe dosen't have a criminal referral, It's all a "conspiracy theory".


Why do you have a problem with liars and cheats being held accountable?

To the contrary, I'm all for it and it's coming Sandy!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.18  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.16    3 weeks ago
Did he want the whole report released, or didn't he?  Why does he say one thing and do another, and why are you ok with that?

He said he would release as much as he could. Promise kept

Did he mischaracterize Mueller's letter (yes) 

What was the purpose of Mueller sending that letter, Sandy?


Take it easy on the coffee, your'e going 90 words per second. I type with one finger!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.13    3 weeks ago
those deep state officials

Don't believe in that?  There are 3 investigations going on, one via a US Attorney. Don't think they'll find anything?  I'll bet my life against yours!!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.14    3 weeks ago
Yup. He's too stupid to keep all of his lies straight.

Let's drop the insults of the President. Stick to facts, Sandy

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.21  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    3 weeks ago
He's too stupid to keep all of his lies straight.

That is a fact. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.22  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.19    3 weeks ago
I'll bet my life against yours!!

Well then, if your are making silly wagers...I'll just claim I'm a fetus and you'll be forced to protect me.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.21    3 weeks ago

He wasn't the one who lied to us for over two years about a conspiracy - that would be the people we depend on for news....and the truth!

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.24  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    3 weeks ago
Let's drop the insults of the President. Stick to facts, Sandy

It's a fact that he lied and then immediately turned around and said the exact opposite. An intelligent person would be able to keep track of their lies, one would think. As much as Trump insults everyone else - you're going to get outraged on his behalf when someone points out his stupidity?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.17    3 weeks ago

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/redacted_minority_memo_2.24.18.pdf

"Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016.  In fact, the FBI's closely-held investigative team only received Steele's reporting in mid-September - more than seven weeks later.  The FBI - and subsequently, the Special Counsel's - investigation into links between the Russian government and Trump campaign associates has been based on troubling law enforcement and intelligence information unrelated to the "dossier".

There's more there about the date on which the investigation began, and the date of the Steele dossier, if you care to read something which has facts counter to your beliefs.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.26  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    3 weeks ago

I am sticking to facts.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.22    3 weeks ago
.I'll just claim I'm a fetus and you'll be forced to protect me.

What if your'e an imaginary fetus inside Julian Castro's trans gender men? Then I'll have to pretend to protect you and the tax payers will have to pretend to pay for you!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.19    3 weeks ago

Don't believe in that?  There are 3 investigations going on, one via a US Attorney. Don't think they'll find anything?  I'll bet my life against yours!!

You will bet your life? Yikes. 

But you have a loophole in your wording. 

Don't think they'll find anything?  I'll bet my life against yours!!

Every investigation finds "something". I'll bet my life you will never see an investigator come out after spending a million dollars and say "our great team of investigators found absolutely nothing about anything" 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.18    3 weeks ago
Take it easy on the coffee, your'e going 90 words per second.

I haven't had my coffee, I'm a lousy typist, and I'm still pointing out the holes in your assertions.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.30  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1.24    3 weeks ago

Kat, neither you or anyone has demonstrated here that Barr lied.  If it's him saying he would try to get out as much as possible, as soon as possible, I'm afraid youv'e failed

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.31  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.29    3 weeks ago
I'm still pointing out the holes in your assertions.

I'm still waiting for that part

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.32  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.27    3 weeks ago
What if your'e an imaginary fetus inside Julian Castro's trans gender men?

That one finger is typing pretty fast and loose there, Vic. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.31    3 weeks ago

My 1.1.25 would be a good start.  I provided a link.  You'd do well to follow it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.34  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.25    3 weeks ago

The minority memo? Haha!!!!  What about Andrew McCabe's sworn testimony?

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.35  katrix  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.29    3 weeks ago
I haven't had my coffee, I'm a lousy typist, and I'm still pointing out the holes in your assertions.

My nephew told me that I text like a hyperactive woodpecker.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.36  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.30    3 weeks ago
If it's him saying he would try to get out as much as possible, as soon as possible,

Barr totally deliberately mischaracterized the Mueller report. Among other things, Barr said that Mueller did not conclude he could not indict Trump because of DOJ guidelines concerning  not indicting a sitting president. It turned out that Barr's words were in direct conflict with what Mueller thought and later expressed in public. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.37  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.33    3 weeks ago
My 1.1.25 would be a good start.  I provided a link.  You'd do well to follow it.

Your post only restates what the FBI came out with to counter McCabe's testimony. After the FBI got caught red handed using the unverified (and they knew it was BS) Steele Dossier to get FISA warrants, did the FBI put forward the narrative that the Dossier didn't start the investigation, it supposedly began with info from "foreign sources" on Papadopolous. As your linked document (which tries to back up the claim) claims - the investigation began with the Papadopolous info in late July of 2016. I think we are about to find out that was a lie too. The investigation most likely began earlier than that. As I said, we now have 3 investigations of the actions of the intelligence agencies.

As you once said - I'll stand by the findings of the investigation.  The difference is I mean it!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.38  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    3 weeks ago
'Yup. He's too stupid to keep all of his lies straight.'

'Let's drop the insults of the President. Stick to facts, Sandy'

So the truth about the 'president' are insults now?  Got it.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.39  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.36    3 weeks ago
It turned out that Barr's words were in direct conflict with what Mueller thought and later expressed in public. 

Correct!   There were other people in the room with Barr & Mueller when Mueller was supposed to have said the DOJ policy was not part of his decision. Let's ask them who is lying!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.40  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.39    3 weeks ago

Mueller has specifically said, more than once , that the DOJ guidelines did effect his decision. In fact he said that the DOJ guidelines effected him so completely that he NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED indicting Trump, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION. 

I dont know whether Barr is bored or stupid or just dishonest but he openly mischaracterized Mueller's position. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.41  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.40    3 weeks ago
Mueller has specifically said, more than once , that the DOJ guidelines did effect his decision. In fact he said that the DOJ guidelines effected him so completely that he NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED indicting Trump, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION. 

Yes he did. 

I dont know whether Barr is bored or stupid or just dishonest but he openly mischaracterized Mueller's position. 

Barr DISPUTED IT!  According to Barr, Mueller told him that the DOJ policy DID NOT play a part in Mueller's decision.

In other words Barr is a liar because YOU & OTHERS prefer to believe Mueller. I believe Barr. Why? Because Mueller investigated a false claim based on no crime for over 2 years. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.42  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.28    3 weeks ago
Every investigation finds "something".

Investigations should be narrowly defined. You don't search people for crimes. You investigate a crime!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.43  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.41    3 weeks ago
Because Mueller investigated a false claim based on no crime for over 2 years. 

Although I won't dispute that you are a fairly intelligent guy, you endlessly prove that you have blinders on the size of the Grand Canyon. 

Mueller showed the Russians interfered with the election. He showed that the Trump team appreciated the interference and never reported it. He showed that Trump encouraged it and Trump's son sought it out.  He showed that numerous trump underlings lied to or did not cooperate in the investigation. He showed that there is a viable case that Trump obstructed justice. 

Now you are going to tell us that Barr is more believable than Mueller because Mueller investigated Trump. What you are trying to tell us is laughable Vic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.44  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.43    3 weeks ago
Mueller showed the Russians interfered with the election. He showed that the Trump team appreciated the interference and never reported it. He showed that Trump encouraged it and Trump's son sought it out.  He showed that numerous trump underlings lied to or did not cooperate in the investigation. He showed that there is a viable case that Trump obstructed justice. 

John, what launched that investigation?

Now you are going to tell us that Barr is more believable than Mueller because Mueller investigated Trump

I'm telling you that Barr is eminently more believable than Mueller because there was nothing to investigate and Mueller knew it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.45  Tessylo  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.22    3 weeks ago
'I'll bet my life against yours!!'

'Well then, if your are making silly wagers...I'll just claim I'm a fetus and you'll be forced to protect me.'

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.46  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.43    3 weeks ago
Mueller showed the Russians interfered with the election.

Of course they did.  Much like essentially every other "special interest" and foreign entity possible.   Hell, are we that special that others can't do to us what we do to them?  Obama actually sent operatives to Israel to interfere in that election against Netanyahu.  

He showed that the Trump team appreciated the interference and never reported it.

Hell, Obama KNEW it was happening and as President what the fuck did HE do about it?  The answer is NOTHING.  He never anticipated a Trump win so he didn't give a shit.

He showed that Trump encouraged it and Trump's son sought it out. 

Sought out what Hillary and the DNC paid for?  

He showed that numerous trump underlings lied to or did not cooperate in the investigation.

Who lied about it?   Who did not cooperate?  Who was charged for campaign violations?   

He showed that there is a viable case that Trump obstructed justice.

So, exactly how did President Trump "obstruct justice"?  How many more people was he to have made available to Mueller?  How many more documents was he to have permitted to be submitted?  How many more hours of his and his staffs time was to be wasted to discover essentially nothing?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.34    3 weeks ago

You are aware that Trump's campaign associates were under investigation before Trump himself was, yes?  And that plenty of them were found to have met with Russian agents (and in fact, WERE foreign agents, like Manafort and Flynn).

We know that members of Trump's campaign team met with Russian officials.  Period.

And regardless of whether Trump or his lackeys had any hand in it whatsoever (they did), Russia meddled in our elections.  They manipulated social media in Trump's favor.  They hacked into our voting rolls.

Are you ok with that?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  katrix @1.1.35    3 weeks ago

I'm an even lousier texter than I am a typist.  I miss the physical keyboard on my Blackberry.  I made a lot fewer flubs on that.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.49  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.37    3 weeks ago
I'll stand by the findings of the investigation.  The difference is I mean it!

Sure you will, Vic.  That's why you don't see that earlier beginnings to the investigations pretty much preclude their being based on the Steele dossier, because it didn't yet exist.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.50  Greg Jones  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.9    3 weeks ago

There are hardly any redactions. What would expect to find there?

A smoking gun? An unexploded bombshell?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.51  sandy-2021492  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.50    3 weeks ago
hardly any

Really?  What's your definition of "hardly any"?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.52  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.36    3 weeks ago

No, Barr's words were not in conflict, they actually supporter Mueller's conclusions.

The report is over and done, and Mueller will reveal nothing new or additional next month.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.53  Greg Jones  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.51    3 weeks ago

So how many are there? Do you have a number?

Do you realize some redactions are required by law, and what the reasons are?

What information do you think is somehow hidden in those redactions?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.54  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.44    3 weeks ago
I'm telling you that Barr is eminently more believable than Mueller because there was nothing to investigate and Mueller knew it.

You double and triple down on nonsense. Oh well, thats your choice. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.55  sandy-2021492  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.53    3 weeks ago

About 12% of the report.

Yes, I do realize some redactions are required by law.

Considering Barr's penchant for concealing presidential crimes, I don't trust him to fairly assess what should and should not be released.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.56  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.55    3 weeks ago
Considering Barr's penchant for concealing presidential crimes, I don't trust him to fairly assess what should and should not be released.

Did you believe Mueller and his report ?

He really didn't "Swing" one way or another on obstruction (which normally means "Not enough evidence"), but sure did say "No Americans" in his narrative on Collusion. Is Trump a foreigner ?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.57  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.41    3 weeks ago
According to Barr, Mueller told him that the DOJ policy DID NOT play a part in Mueller's decision.

Don't forget, Mueller issued a press release (the night of his press conference)  agreeing with Barr's statement. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.58  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.56    3 weeks ago

Beating Hillary Clinton continues to be a crime. LOL

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.59  Sean Treacy  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.50    3 weeks ago
A smoking gun? An unexploded bombshell?

It's sort of comical to believe there's redacted evidence that is relevant. Mueller put the redacted  evidence in the report, it's not going to change his conclusions. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.60  It Is ME  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.58    3 weeks ago
Beating Hillary Clinton continues to be a crime.

Yep !

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.61  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.56    3 weeks ago
He really didn't "Swing" one way or another on obstruction

Hmmmmm.

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-mueller-didnt-charge-trump-with-obstruction-of-justice-2019-4#barr-said-mueller-didnt-make-a-decision-on-obstruction-because-of-difficult-issues-of-law-and-fact-about-whether-trumps-actions-were-criminal-1

Barr said Mueller laid out evidence "on both sides" of the obstruction issue.

What the Mueller report said:Prosecutors listed 11 events that could potentially amount to obstruction of justice, outlined below:

  • "The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump."
  • "Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn."
  • "The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation."
  • "The President's termination of Comey."
  • "The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him."
  • "Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation."
  • "Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence."
  • "Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation."
  • "Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed."
  • "Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, [REDACTED]."
  • "Conduct involving Michael Cohen."

For each event, prosecutors painted a detailed picture of the president's repeated efforts to hamper the investigation through multiple avenues.

That included Trump's decision to fire Comey and the motives behind it; his attempts to engineer Mueller's ouster; his efforts to get investigators to publicly exonerate him; his attempts to conceal his financial interests in Russia while Congress was probing the issue; his anger toward Jeff Sessions for recusing himself; and his attempts to shield associates such as Flynn and Manafort from investigative scrutiny.

According to US law, in order to establish an obstruction offense, the following criteria need to be met:

  • An individual has corrupt intent.
  • They engaged in obstructive conduct.
  • That conduct was connected to a "pending or contemplated proceeding."

In several instances, prosecutors outlined conduct that appears to meet those criteria, most notably involving Trump's conversations with the former White House counsel Don McGahn and his attempts to get McGahn to remove Mueller as special counsel.

But prosecutors provided little, if any, mitigating information pointing to Trump's innocence.

In fact, they emphasized, "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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

I believe Mueller.  I distrust Barr's spin on the Mueller report, and with good reason.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.62  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.61    3 weeks ago
Prosecutors listed 11 events that could potentially amount to obstruction of justice

But …… Just couldn't come to a definitive "CONCLUSION" !

In real honest words.... "Conjecture Just wouldn't hold up in court" !

Funny …. how Ken Starr was able to "Make" a Conclusion, but Mueller just couldn't.

hmmmmmmmmm………...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.63  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.62    3 weeks ago

Yeah.  They tried to clear Trump, but couldn't.  His own words and actions kept them from doing so.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.64  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.63    3 weeks ago
They tried to clear Trump, but couldn't.

And couldn't "Conclude the opposite" either.

Weird huh ?

"Innuendo" does make for great reporting though. It's a "Money Maker" for the "Billionaire" News Mogul's.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.65  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.62    3 weeks ago
Funny …. how Ken Starr was able to "Make" a Conclusion

Yes, the double standards regarding the Clinton investigation and the Trump investigation are funny, and very revealing.  Nobody could prove Clinton had committed sexual harassment, so they decided a lie about a consensual BJ would do.

Nobody can prove, despite trying, that Trump didn't obstruct justice, and found multiple instance in which he probably did, but somehow the whole investigation is an illegal witch hunt.

Did Clinton's BJ compromise national security?  Of course not.  Did Russian meddling?  Yes, but some people don't care, so long as it was a Republican benefitting.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.66  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.65    3 weeks ago

The point IS.... a "Conclusion" was made by the "Special Council" appointed then.

Billy was Disbarred and Impeached !

Mueller could have done the same and let the chips fall where they may with congress.

Mueller chose NOT TO conclude ANYTHING !

"Innuendos" don't cut it !

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.67  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.66    3 weeks ago

Mueller's hands were tied.  That's something you'd like to ignore.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.68  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.67    3 weeks ago
Mueller's hands were tied.

Nothing tied his hands in making a definitive "CONCLUSION" in a simple "Report".

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.69  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.68    3 weeks ago

From the same source (bolding mine):

Mueller's report lays out three main reasons why prosecutors didn't indict Trump or suggest he should be charged:
    • They adhered to the OLC's 1973 decision that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
    • They believed that if their report suggested Trump could face federal charges without actually bringing them, it would not be fair because there would be no trial, and he wouldn't have an opportunity to clear himself.

Basically, Mueller's hands were tied by the fact that he's a more honorable man than Starr was, or than House Republicans were during the Clinton investigation and impeachment.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.70  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.69    3 weeks ago

Mueller could still make a conclusion without actually indicting a president himself.

The "Report" was supposed to be about "Fact", not "Could be's" !

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.71  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.70    3 weeks ago
or suggest he should be charged
 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.72  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.71    3 weeks ago

"Just the facts". 

That's all that was needed by Mueller !

He "Lacked" in actual "Facts" on obstruction !

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.73  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.72    3 weeks ago

He presented the facts.  He left to others to decide whether the facts support prosecution.  In anyone but a sitting president, they likely would.

Is it ok with you that your president is only not officially a criminal because he's president?  If so, why?  Because it's certainly not ok with me.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.74  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.73    3 weeks ago
He presented the facts.

He presented situations that occurred with no conclusion.....period !

"Is it ok with you that your president is only not officially a criminal because he's president?"

Is Trump a Criminal ?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.75  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.69    3 weeks ago
sically, Mueller's hands were tied by the fact that he's a more honorable man than Starr was, or than House Republicans were during the Clinton investigation and impeachment.

Mueller said the OLC guidelines did not stop him from charging Trump. It's simply dishonest to claim the OLc guidelines prevented him from indicting Trump. 

Look it up. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.76  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.74    3 weeks ago
He presented situations that occurred with no conclusion.....period !

Um, yes, factual situations.

And was handcuffed regarding making a conclusion.

Why do you think that Trump's case is strengthened by Mueller not "reaching conclusions" he was legally and ethically prevented from reaching?

Why do you ignore the fact that Mueller was unable to exonerate Trump of multiple instances of obstruction of justice?  Not because he didn't try to exonerate him, but because Trump repeatedly obstructed justice, even when he was aware he was under investigation for...obstructing justice, rather supporting my earlier statement about Trump's stupidity.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.77  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.76    3 weeks ago
And was handcuffed regarding making a conclusion.

What pre-tell, handcuffed him from making a conclusion ?

The definition of "Conclusion" doesn't have the word "Indict" in it.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.78  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.70    3 weeks ago
Mueller could still make a conclusion without actually indicting a president himself

If you were the CEO of a company that had an internal fraud review done by forensic accountants who had no authority to arrest or fire anyone found defrauding the company, they could only present the evidence to the board who could review it and decide what to do. Now the accountants present their findings which show numerous transfers of company money into your own personal accounts. If the accountants had concluded that you stole money and presented it to the board without you having a chance to defend yourself and explain the deposits, you could rightly proclaim that you were unjustly convicted without being given any chance to defend yourself.

Instead, the forensic accountants simply deliver the facts to the board that can then use their powers of oversight to investigate those anomalous withdrawals and deposits into your personal accounts. And during that process of determining whether you stole money or if you had a good explanation for the money transfers.

Mueller was the forensic accountant, he delivered all the facts of what appear to be intentional obstructive behavior on not one, not two, but of at least ten individual instances. He delivered his finding to the Justice department with the stated intent that it be delivered to congress so they can exercise their oversight responsibilities and determine whether none, some, or all the instances could be considered obstruction of justice and once determined, they have to decide whether it warrants impeachment, censure or doing nothing.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.79  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.78    3 weeks ago
he delivered all the facts of what appear to be intentional obstructive behavior

Appear to whom ?

I'VE sat down with a member of a competitor from another company, because he was a friend of mine. Were we "Conspiring" because we sat down and just talked ?

Nothing came of it BUT JUST TALK amongst ourselves !

Am I, or my friend, a conspirator ?

by the by....How are those "Liberal" run Congressional Committee investigations going so far ? jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.80  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.75    3 weeks ago

He said the opposite.  Volume II, page 1 of the Mueller report.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.81  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.79    3 weeks ago
because we sat down and just talked

Is firing Comey and telling Lester Holt that it was because of the Russia investigation "just talking" to a competitor?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.82  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.77    3 weeks ago
What pre-tell, handcuffed him from making a conclusion ?

Do you mean "pray tell"?

The OLC and the fact that he was employed by the DOJ.

His job was to present the facts as he found them.  That is what he did.  It was not his role to draw conclusions.  That was up to others.  Some base their conclusions on those facts.  Others base their conclusions on their own prejudices, even while acknowledging the facts.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.83  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.81    3 weeks ago
Is firing Comey

The Democrats and the ones in congress wanted Comey OUT.

Oct. 30, 2016: Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, accused the FBI director of breaking the Hatch Act, a federal law, by publicly disclosing new information about the Clinton investigation 11 days ahead of the presidential election.

Oct. 31, 2016: The next day, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, echoed concerns similar to Reid’s and called for Comey to resign his FBI post.

Nov. 2, 2016: Days later, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, told Bloomberg News that he had lost confidence in Comey for his handling of Clinton’s email investigation.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on FBI Director James Comey: "Maybe he's not in the right job"
1:41 PM - Nov 2, 2016

Jan. 13, 2017: Two months after Clinton lost to Trump, Democrats blasted Comey after a briefing on the agency’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the election.
One of them was Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, who at the time said, “My confidence in the FBI director’s ability to lead this agency has been shaken.”
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, put it more bluntly: “The FBI director has no credibility.”

Jan. 24, 2017: The fading confidence in Comey continued toward the end of January when Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-North Carolina, said “I think that James Comey needs to fade away into oblivion.”

On Oct. 30, 2016, the New York Daily News editorial board called on Comey to resign.

On Oct. 31, 2016, ThinkProgress justice editor Ian Millhiser wrote a post making “the case for firing James Comey”

On Nov. 7, 2016, Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald didn’t just call for the FBI director’s firing — he said Comey was unfit for public service

Trump Complied with their wishes.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

I just saw the video of Trump telling Putin "don't meddle" . It is quite obvious that Trump feels put upon being called to do this by the media and it is something that Trump has no heart in. Essentially his words to Putin are a charade. 

I am at a loss for words as for why Vic and the other conservatives here feel this was a good look for Trump that should be seeded. 

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.1  lib50  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    3 weeks ago

Its obvious the Trumpers on here (even the ones who pretend not to be) don't care how low he goes or who he turns to for the 'win'.  They do not care.  Lies?  Don't care.  Ignorance? Don't care.  Making money off the office?  Don't care.  Executive time filled with Fox and Breitbart?  Don't care.  Attack allies and embrace murderous dictators and autocrats?  Don't care.  Explode the deficit?  Don't care.  Incite violence?  Don't care.  Rape/sexual abuse allegations?  Don't care.   Giving comfort to racists?  Don't care.  Inhumanity and cruelty to CHILDREN?  Don't care.  There is nothing he can do they won't defend, even if it means twisting into pretzels.  And they want to be the moral compass for everybody.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.2.2  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    3 weeks ago

Because we don’t care what the Trump haters including the media draw as conclusions about Trump.  Haters are going to hate, and you John are obsessed with hating both Trump and those of us who support our president

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

We don't hate the 'president'.  We find him deplorable.  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.2.4  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.3    3 weeks ago

John and many others on the left have openly stated their hatred of both Trump and those of us who support him. 

Honest dialogue here and elsewhere would acknowledge the very real cultural and political civil war we are already engaged in.

this divide will only grow worse as evidenced by the views and proposals put forward by the Democrats running for president.  Not one of them actually believes this country can be re-unified which only serves to prove my point that all politicians are pathological liars.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @1.2.4    3 weeks ago

I dont hate Trump or his supporters. I can analyze stupidity without becoming emotional. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  lib50 @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

Good rant. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

I havent seen the clip yet, but if Putin was sitting next to Trump and Trump didnt look at Putin when he said "don't meddle" then Trump was clowning. 

Not sure why you wanted to seed this Vic, as it does not make your boy look good. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

He looks good from where I'm sitting.

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.1  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 weeks ago
He looks good from where I'm sitting.

That's truly a shame. I don't understand how any American can see this crap without being bothered by it. Trump prefers dictators to democracy and supports Putin over our own people, and I find that truly disgusting.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
This should not be a partisan thing. Any president who acts like this needs to be called out.

  And I can make outrageous claims too! It's rather easy

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
And I can make outrageous claims too! It's rather easy

And you have.  Multitudes of them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

So many that can't name one

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.5  WallyW  replied to  katrix @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

There is not a shred of evidence that Trump prefers dictators or supports Putin.

Such statements are products of a wacky imagination, and are stupid and absurd.

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.6  katrix  replied to  WallyW @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

Clearly you don't ever bother listening to what Trump says, or reading about it. Or even reading what his own officials say.

[Removed.]

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.7  katrix  replied to  WallyW @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

For crying out loud, haven't you even heard of things like the Helsinki summit? Does your support for Trump over your country have no bounds?

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.8  WallyW  replied to  katrix @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    3 weeks ago

'So many that can't name one'

Well the 'deep state' whoever they are, would be one.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.9    3 weeks ago

It's outrageous?

Andrew McCabe !

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.9    3 weeks ago
Well the 'deep state' whoever they are, would be one. 

We are definitely dealing with a "deep state", the deep state of denial among Trump supporters who refuse to accept facts, make excuses for this Presidents disgusting behavior and reject western democracy that they now see as a threat to "white culture" because it embraces diversity and immigrants of every faith and color. It's why both Trump and his followers have such a connection to the white nationalists in Russia that Putin controls and manipulates just like he does our feckless moron commander incompetent.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.11    3 weeks ago

Once the term "white culture" enters the conversation, Victory is near!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

The 'president' would never punch little putin.

'The two are in Osaka for the summit. Before the meeting, Trump said he expected a "very good conversation" but told reporters "what I say to him is none of your business."

I'm sure he brought his 'presidential' knee pads for his one on one meeting while the 'president' thanked little putin for his assistance.

 
 
 
lib50
3.1  lib50  replied to  Tessylo @3    3 weeks ago

65640903_10205721777360575_5005532019799

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @3.1    3 weeks ago
Where can I buy one of those?

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.2  lib50  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

I don't know, I saw this on Facebook and thought of you calling out the turd in chief and had to show you!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

So many mock me for calling a spade a spade but I guess I'm not the only one.  Thanks hon!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  lib50 @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Suddenly the woke crowd has awoken!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    3 weeks ago

Trump says something stupid or damaging 50 times and the right sees nothing. Obama says one thing to the Russians and the right brings it up very time. 

Strange and ineffectual. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    3 weeks ago

Because one thing really happened and the others are part of a narrative. And every time you claim that this President is cozy with Putin, you'll be lookin right at that tape of radical Obama and Medvedev

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.1    3 weeks ago
And every time you claim that this President is cozy with Putin, you'll be lookin right at that tape of radical Obama and Medvedev

Thats your problem. I deal with reality. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
I deal with reality. 

Don't think so !

Obama promised Russia better times after his election.

The "Reporting" on what those "Good Times" actually were...… not much.

That's "Reality" !

 
 
 
JBB
6  JBB    3 weeks ago

"Please Please Please, Putin My Dearest Friend, whatever you do, Please Please Please, do not meddle in the 2020 US elections. Wink Wink Wink, Please Please Please, do not hack the Democrats and their nominee. Wink Wink Wink! Please Please Please, do not mess with all the state's voter rolls and data systems. Wink Wink Wink! We would not want a repeat of 2016. Would we? Wink Wink Wink"... 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6    3 weeks ago

Ya, Please don't....That's the job of the American biased media!

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
WallyW
7  WallyW    3 weeks ago

Stupid left wingers want Trump to LOUDLY and PUBLICLY denounce these thugs, dictators, and other assorted bad actors.

In the real and practical world, that's not how things are done.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1  katrix  replied to  WallyW @7    3 weeks ago

Ah, so in your world, it's perfectly normal for the President of the United States to tell the entire world that he'll take the word of Putin over the analysis of our own intelligence community?  To tell the entire world that he's in love with the murderous dictator of North Korea, while constantly insulting his own officials and our allies?

Just .... wow. That is disgusting.

 
 
 
WallyW
7.1.1  WallyW  replied to  katrix @7.1    3 weeks ago

He's never said or done any such things.   jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

Feel free to provide some sources and quotes.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.2  katrix  replied to  WallyW @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

Go google the Helsinki summit - do you truly never read any actual news? 

He's never said or done any such things

That comment is truly delusional. There are real places to get news which aren't Breitbart and InfoWars, you know.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @7.1.2    3 weeks ago
Go google the Helsinki summit

Lol,...and?


There are real places to get news which aren't Breitbart and InfoWars, you know.

Be a nice Kitty

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @7.1.2    3 weeks ago

And........

what happened in Helsinki?

What was said and done?

Any recordings or videos???

 
 
 
lib50
7.1.5  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1.4    3 weeks ago

That's the freaking POINT, Greg!   The effer made sure nobody but he and his handler Putin were there.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

This is an open conversation and I see we do have moderation, so I'll be back in a few

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9  Dismayed Patriot    3 weeks ago
Trump, without looking at Putin, responded, "Of course I will. Don't meddle in the election, president. Don't meddle in the election."

So Br’er Fox had caught Br’er Rabbit and this time Br’er Fox said he was going to cook Br’er Rabbit and eat him up for good! Br’er Rabbit was mighty scared. He begged, “Oh, Br’er Fox, I don’t care what you do with me, so long as you just don’t throw me in that briar patch over there. Go on and barbecue me up, Br’er Fox, but please don’t throw me in that briar patch.”

Br’er Fox said he was going to roast him anyhow, but when he went to hang Br’er Rabbit up over the fire, he found he didn’t have any string to tie him up with. “Well, I guess I can’t roast you,” Br’er Fox said. “I guess I’ll have to drown you instead.” Br’er Rabbit pleaded, “Oh, Br’er Fox, go ahead and drown me then, just so long as you don’t throw me into that briar patch!”

“Well,” said Br’er Fox, “it looks like there’s no water around here to drown you in. I guess I’ll skin you instead.” “Okay, Br’er Fox, no problem,” chattered Br’er Rabbit, “Go ahead and skin me, cut out my eyes, cut off my legs, just don’t throw me into that briar patch!”

By this time, Br’er Fox had gotten the idea that Br’er Rabbit really, really didn’t want to get anywhere near that briar patch. Br’er Fox wanted to hurt Br’er Rabbit as bad as he could, so he took Br’er Rabbit by the legs and threw him right smack into the middle of that briar patch. He heard a lot of rustling and crackling when Br’er Rabbit landed, and he waited around to see what terrible thing was going to happen.

But a few minutes later, he hears somebody calling, “Oh, yoo-hoo, Br’er Fox! Over here!” and he looks – and he sees Br’er Rabbit, sitting on a rock, combing the tar out of his fur with a stick. “Didn’t you know, Br’er Fox,” called Br’er Rabbit. “I was bred and born in the briar patch! Bred and born!” And he hopped away.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
10  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Let me end this by stating the obvious. An issue like Russian interference is dealt with behind the scenes by the various agencies of government, not by a reporter wager her finger, every time the President sits down with the Russian leader, demanding that the President tell Putin in front of everybody to knock it off!

The President responded to such theatrics as was appropriate!  He demonstrated how idiotic that would look!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Texan1211
Dignitatem Societatis
igknorantzrulz
ArkansasHermit-too
Bob Nelson
Drakkonis


39 visitors