Read 4370 times

Among other things, this clown just admitted yesterday that he hadn't actually read the report before he wrote that bulls**t memo.
He took the Mueller Team at their word and issued a statement based on those conclusions. Who gives a shit what his summary did or did not say? The report is out there. No collusion, no obstruction.

Russian meddling in US elections is not a dead horse. They're gearing up to do it all over again while the trump administration does little to nothing to stop it. Heck, he fired he Homeland security chief for saying the US needed to beef up cybersecurity to protect elections.
Yeah, a new round of facebook posts that get 85 likes and 48 shares. We definitely need to spend millions defending ourselves from that. :rolleyes:


  • Adel
  • Expert Waygook

    • 666

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Among other things, this clown just admitted yesterday that he hadn't actually read the report before he wrote that bulls**t memo.
He took the Mueller Team at their word and issued a statement based on those conclusions. Who gives a shit what his summary did or did not say? The report is out there. No collusion, no obstruction.

lol, not even Barr refers to his letter as a summary anymore, It's pretty hard to summarize something you have not read.  :laugh:
It 's as though you're about as well informed as Barr is., Ie neither of you have actually read the report.
If you did you would realize what you have just written is utter B.S.
There is no mention of collusion but rather evidence is laid out of criminal conspiracy. Insufficient to convict, but evidence nonetheless. 

Perhaps you need to re-read  and get up to speed with the ten instances of obstruction of justice that the report laid out for congress to begin the impeachment hearings, before you continue to engage in the discussion and make yourself look even more ridiculous.   :laugh:
 
« Last Edit: May 03, 2019, 01:13:20 pm by Adel »


  • Savant
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1971

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
I'll have some obstruction fries to go with the chicken Barr.


Perhaps you need to re-read  and get up to speed with the ten instances of obstruction of justice that the report laid out for congress to begin the impeachment hearings, before you continue to engage in the discussion and make yourself look even more ridiculous.   :laugh:
Trump did not obstruct justice. For goodness sakes, there isn't even an underlying crime, nor did he materially damage the investigation.


  • Adel
  • Expert Waygook

    • 666

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Perhaps you need to re-read  and get up to speed with the ten instances of obstruction of justice that the report laid out for congress to begin the impeachment hearings, before you continue to engage in the discussion and make yourself look even more ridiculous.   :laugh:
Trump did not obstruct justice. For goodness sakes, there isn't even an underlying crime, nor did he materially damage the investigation.

lol, so you still haven't read the report then ?

Here it is.    https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf   It won't cost you a penny.

Please read before you continue.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2019, 02:20:19 pm by Adel »


Perhaps you need to re-read  and get up to speed with the ten instances of obstruction of justice that the report laid out for congress to begin the impeachment hearings, before you continue to engage in the discussion and make yourself look even more ridiculous.   :laugh:
Trump did not obstruct justice. For goodness sakes, there isn't even an underlying crime, nor did he materially damage the investigation.

 :laugh:  you are like a shire horse.  you're ignoring everything everybody has said and believed trump and barr.  this is one reason why barr wrote such a rubbish 'summary'.  it's burned onto your's as well as the others who refuse to, or cannot read. 

as you love your cognitive biases, here is one about you...

Quote
Anchoring or focalism is a cognitive bias where an individual relies too heavily on an initial piece of information offered (considered to be the "anchor") when making decisions.

Anchoring occurs when, during decision making, an individual relies on an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. Those objects near the anchor tend to be assimilated toward it and those further away tend to be displaced in the other direction. Once the value of this anchor is set, all future negotiations, arguments, estimates, etc. are discussed in relation to the anchor. This bias occurs when interpreting future information using this anchor. For example, the initial price offered for a used car, set either before or at the start of negotiations, sets an arbitrary focal point for all following discussions. Prices discussed in negotiations that are lower than the anchor may seem reasonable, perhaps even cheap to the buyer, even if said prices are still relatively higher than the actual market value of the car.[1]

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

this is what trump relied on and his supporters are still doing their victory lap...


  • Mr C
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1706

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Perhaps you need to re-read  and get up to speed with the ten instances of obstruction of justice that the report laid out for congress to begin the impeachment hearings, before you continue to engage in the discussion and make yourself look even more ridiculous.   :laugh:
Trump did not obstruct justice. For goodness sakes, there isn't even an underlying crime, nor did he materially damage the investigation.

lol, so you still haven't read the report then ?

Here it is.    https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf   It won't cost you a penny.

Please read before you continue.

Nah.  He won't.  He is a troll of very small character.

So I have made my own "summary" a la Bill Barr as if Drumpf were a Democrat (and I haven't really done anything in doing that to lie, but just chosen bits that Barr ignored)--and this is just from the abstract at the front. Everything in double-quotes is really a quote.

Quote
"[T]he investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian effort" It is clearly essential to stop any Democratic campaign (and possibly Republican ones, too, I guess) from benefitting from intervention in our elections by antagonistic foreign powers.  However, this can only be ascertained in the case of Republican campaigns if the bad guys are wearing tee-shirts that say, 'I am a Russian spy.  No, really.  Kompromat, anyone?'

"Candidate Trump signed a Letter of lntent for Trump Tower Moscow by November 2015, and in January 2016 Trump Organization executive Michael Cohen emailed and spoke about the project with the office of Russian government press secretary Dmitry Peskov. The Trump Organization pursued the project through at least June 2016, including by considering travel to Russia by Cohen and candidate Trump." During this time, candidate Trump repeatedly denied he had business with Russia, or knew anything about business with Russia.

"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."

"President Trump reacted negatively to the Special Counsel's appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counsel removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses." These are all attempts to obstruct justice, even if they mostly didn't succeed.

"...the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was ... sufficient to support criminal charges." (OK, I cheated here, like Barr, in omitting the "not".)

"[T]he Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications..."

Curiously, not a whiff of outcry or 10 Senate investigations do we hear for DELETED RELEVANT COMMUNICATIONS!!!! Odd, isn't it?


  • Mr C
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1706

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Perhaps you need to re-read  and get up to speed with the ten instances of obstruction of justice that the report laid out for congress to begin the impeachment hearings, before you continue to engage in the discussion and make yourself look even more ridiculous.   :laugh:
Trump did not obstruct justice. For goodness sakes, there isn't even an underlying crime, nor did he materially damage the investigation.

lol, so you still haven't read the report then ?

Here it is.    https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf   It won't cost you a penny.

Please read before you continue.
Also, he knows:
1) There is no need for an underlying crime to be proved before obstruction is a crime!
2) Trump did attempt to obstruct justice, and the attempt is a crime equal to succeeding!
3) Appointing Matthew whatsisname and Bill Barrwhatsisname materially damaged the DOJ and therefore any investigation.


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 3762

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Among other things, this clown just admitted yesterday that he hadn't actually read the report before he wrote that bulls**t memo.
He took the Mueller Team at their word and issued a statement based on those conclusions. Who gives a shit what his summary did or did not say? The report is out there. No collusion, no obstruction.

Russian meddling in US elections is not a dead horse. They're gearing up to do it all over again while the trump administration does little to nothing to stop it. Heck, he fired he Homeland security chief for saying the US needed to beef up cybersecurity to protect elections.
Yeah, a new round of facebook posts that get 85 likes and 48 shares. We definitely need to spend millions defending ourselves from that. :rolleyes:
Is your ignorance willful, in service of a cause you have somehow adopted as your own because you and it take such pleasure in spitting in the eyes of those with more intelligence and  knowledge, or it just your natural state?

From last July: "Facebook said the recently purged accounts eight Facebook pages, 17 Facebook profiles and seven Instagram accounts were created between March 2017 and May 2018 and were first discovered two weeks ago. More than 290,000 accounts followed at least one of the suspect pages, which had names like Aztlan Warriors, Black Elevation, Mindful Being and Resisters, the company said."

290,000 accounts, bro. Maybe your numbers are so far off because you can;t count that high.


  • Adel
  • Expert Waygook

    • 666

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
'NO CO-ORDINATION'
« Reply #129 on: May 04, 2019, 05:23:20 am »
Regarding the 'NO COLLUSION' nonsense!

In fairness to both Trump and the Mueller Report, it did conclude that their was a lack of co-ordination  between the Trump campaign and the Russians that would be sufficient for a charge of a criminal conspiracy.  Not so much that there weren't 'actions that were informed by or responsive to other's action or interests'  but rather that the  efforts  of both parties were uncoordinated in that the report didn't establish evidence of an agreement between the two parties over Russian election interference that warrant a conspiracy.
(See page 2 of the Introduction)

Hence Martini should really drop the 'NO COLLUSION' mantra and replace it with 'NO CO-ORDINATION'.  At the least that would be plausible and much more in line with the  general level of incompetence of the Trump administration.  I mean there is ample evidence everyday of that.

Nonetheless, as others have pointed out, that doesn't let Trump off the hook in terms of obstruction.  Incompetence, in terms of his obstruction, is not a legitimate defense.  Not to mention the role that Barr and others may have had in interfering in the report.  Eventually though Mueller and others will testify before congress  so this matter ain't done with yet!
« Last Edit: May 04, 2019, 05:43:20 am by Adel »