Read 6422 times

  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2024

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
What I find really weird here is the silence from Dumpf's twitter account.



WOMP WOMP

For two years I've told people that Russia collusion is a bunch of bull. Now let me say...TOLD YA SO TOLD YA SO. TOLD YA TOLD YA TOLD YA SO.

You've been wrong about Trump not getting the nomination. You've been wrong about Trump losing to Clinton. You've been wrong about Trump collapsing the economy. You've been wrong about Trump starting nuclear war. You've been wrong about Trump engaging in mass deportations. You've been wrong about Muslims in concentration camps. And you've been wrong about Trump being a Russian puppet.

Time to change the filter with which you view the world.
Starting nuclear war? Collapsing the economy?  Muslims in concentration camps?

Liar much?

Also, Trump did lose to Clinton, by 2 million + votes.  And, he is in thrall to Russia--that's a SDNY investigation, though.
Mr. C is not a bad person, in fact is quite a good person here. One of the best people on this forum if you really look at it
-Mr.DeMartino


Starting nuclear war? Collapsing the economy?  Muslims in concentration camps?

Liar much?
Should have clarified in that part I was speaking using the collective "you" rather than you personally.

Quote
Also, Trump did lose to Clinton, by 2 million + votes.
Trump won the election. Clinton ran to be popular, Trump ran to win. It doesn't matter who scores more total runs in the World Series, all that matters is that you win 4 games to 3.

The 45th President of the United States: Donald J. Trump. Not Hillary Rodham Clinton.

If you guys want him gone, you're going to have to vote him out. Hopefully you'll nominate someone halfway sane like Biden (although he has serious problems in getting the nomination) or Buttigieg and maybe I and many others will consider voting Dem. Or the Dems can scream at the sky and go to the crying room with the safe space and demand more hearings and impeachment and nominate some whack-a-doodle SJW far-leftist and get 4 more years.

Quote
And, he is in thrall to Russia--that's a SDNY investigation, though.
Yeah, the evidence is there. Right next to the thermite paint and the fake moon landing set.


The 45th President of the United States: Donald J. Trump. Not Hillary Rodham Clinton.

demartian, like we said.  we're really made up for you.  well done.  the 'liar' and 'con-man' that you love so much and aspire to, was shown by last months hand-picked attorney general, in his four-page summary of a massive document, to not have colluded with Russia at the moment, but not 'exonerated' of loads of other stuff.  honestly, chum. your last two years, and 6 guzillion bazzillion posts, have been well worth it.  not one wasted minute in your life in the last two years.  you've won the internet.  as I write this, there is a tear in my eye.  truly made up for you....  really....  you really should travel and live in another country, it'll do you good.  give you some perspective.

note:  this thread will be used against demartian, when trump is proven to have done something...


  • Adel
  • Expert Waygook

    • 710

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html

Isn't it remarkable how a two year investigation can be summarized in a four page letter that took only a couple of days to compose? If you don't smell bullS**t you must be a Trump cultist.

Nevermind though, eventually a far more substantial amount of the report will be made available to  congress where the appropriate body for dealing with high crimes and misdemeanors of a president will sort through it along with public hearings.


Quote
MCCONNELL on Barr summary of Mueller conclusions: "In any sane political moment all of this would be very welcome news to all Americans, in a normal time, but we know that amazingly the reaction in some corners of the far left has seemed not to be celebration, but disappointment"

Quote
McConnell blocks Schumer measure calling for Mueller report to be made public

what a surprise!

 :rolleyes:


  • hangook77
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1700

    • September 14, 2017, 09:10:12 am
    • Near Busan
Let the leftist butthurt begin.  Oh, yeah, the creepy porn lawyer is going to jail soon too. 


  • NorthStar
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1267

    • July 05, 2017, 10:54:06 am
    • Mouseville
Once in awhile, a a gem or two is discovered in the NYT.  While Baker wrote about as much of a fair piece as he could (considering the platform), once again, his lack of questioning regarding the Obama administration, the FBI and HRC's involvement in all this (in which case, it seems the Nobabama White House was involved). 

Again, it is a fair article by Baker...I'm just so surprised the NTY let it slip through the cracks. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/trump-robert-mueller.html



Isn't it remarkable how a two year investigation can be summarized in a four page letter that took only a couple of days to compose? If you don't smell bullS**t you must be a Trump cultist.
Yes, someone, with a staff, summarized a book in 4 pages.

It's called a summary. It summarizes.


  • NorthStar
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1267

    • July 05, 2017, 10:54:06 am
    • Mouseville
More importantly, was it, or was it NOT, written in Times New Roman?!


More importantly, was it, or was it NOT, written in Times New Roman?!
Comic Sans or Papyrus


  • Adel
  • Expert Waygook

    • 710

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Isn't it remarkable how a two year investigation can be summarized in a four page letter that took only a couple of days to compose? If you don't smell bullS**t you must be a Trump cultist.
Yes, someone, with a staff, summarized a book in 4 pages.

It's called a summary. It summarizes.
Mueller wasn't without staff but it still took a couple of years but this summary was knocked up in a couple of days over the weekend.
So what was the rush?
Isn't it also odd that Barr was left to judge whether to proceed over an obstruction charge despite expressing an opinion critical of the enquiry a year earlier?
Wasn't the reasoning also odd? Namely one couldn't be guilty of obstruction of justice if there wasn't enough evidence of the original charge of collusion. If that were the case it would follow that a cover was fine as long as you are successful enough to cover up enough evidence to prevent prosecution.
Barr certainly was an excellent choice for Trump wasn't he?


Mueller wasn't without staff but it still took a couple of years but this summary was knocked up in a couple of days over the weekend.
Yes, a summary takes a fraction of the time it takes to produce something. It took Shakespeare quite some time to write Henry V. It would take me an afternoon to read it and the evening to summarize it in four pages. Same with any movie or novel or some series I binged on Netflix.

It's called summarizing.

Quote
So what was the rush?
Because everyone was frothing and foaming for it to be released and would insinuate a coverup if it took a long time.

And if his summary his garbage, why hasn't Mueller said anything?

Quote
Wasn't the reasoning also odd? Namely one couldn't be guilty of obstruction of justice if there wasn't enough evidence of the original charge of collusion. If that were the case it would follow that a cover was fine as long as you are successful enough to cover up enough evidence to prevent prosecution.
Barr certainly was an excellent choice for Trump wasn't he?
Probably because it would be REALLY hard to indict the President on obstruction charges for firing his own FBI Director, which he is allowed to do under the Constitution, when that same FBI Director apparently did not believe 100% that the President wasn't a Russian collaborator.

Think about it this way- If the Director of the FBI told Obama "I think we should let the investigation play out into whether you were really born in Kenya.", do you think that would be grounds for shitcanning him? I do.

If your FBI Director is unsure about whether a whack-a-doodle conspiracy theory about you is true and seems to think that you might be scum, that person doesn't really belong on your staff, do they?

That and Comey also apparently was a source of many leaks to the press.


  • Adel
  • Expert Waygook

    • 710

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Mueller wasn't without staff but it still took a couple of years but this summary was knocked up in a couple of days over the weekend.
Yes, a summary takes a fraction of the time it takes to produce something. It took Shakespeare quite some time to write Henry V. It would take me an afternoon to read it and the evening to summarize it in four pages. Same with any movie or novel or some series I binged on Netflix.

It's called summarizing.

Quote
So what was the rush?
Because everyone was frothing and foaming for it to be released and would insinuate a coverup if it took a long time.

And if his summary his garbage, why hasn't Mueller said anything?

Quote
Wasn't the reasoning also odd? Namely one couldn't be guilty of obstruction of justice if there wasn't enough evidence of the original charge of collusion. If that were the case it would follow that a cover was fine as long as you are successful enough to cover up enough evidence to prevent prosecution.
Barr certainly was an excellent choice for Trump wasn't he?
Probably because it would be REALLY hard to indict the President on obstruction charges for firing his own FBI Director, which he is allowed to do under the Constitution, when that same FBI Director apparently did not believe 100% that the President wasn't a Russian collaborator.

Think about it this way- If the Director of the FBI told Obama "I think we should let the investigation play out into whether you were really born in Kenya.", do you think that would be grounds for shitcanning him? I do.

If your FBI Director is unsure about whether a whack-a-doodle conspiracy theory about you is true and seems to think that you might be scum, that person doesn't really belong on your staff, do they?

That and Comey also apparently was a source of many leaks to the press.

All speculative BS without having access to the report and hence not reading any of the evidence though isn't it.


Quote
Think about it this way- If the Director of the FBI told Obama "I think we should let the investigation play out into whether you were really born in Kenya.", do you think that would be grounds for shitcanning him? I do.

This is a weird reference to make in defense of Trump.


All speculative BS without having access to the report and hence not reading any of the evidence though isn't it.

speculative BS? that is all it is at the moment, even if the Republicans do think it's premature celebration time, especially with all their bleatings about apologising to trump etc.  McConnell has already said he won't release the whole thing.  how is anyone supposed to make an 'educated' judgement, if nothing is released.

Quote
Think about it this way- If the Director of the FBI told Obama "I think we should let the investigation play out into whether you were really born in Kenya.", do you think that would be grounds for shitcanning him? I do.

This is a weird reference to make in defense of Trump.

there is no 'think about it this way' equivalent here.  that birtherism nonsense is not even comparable with the Mueller report.   :rolleyes: and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 12:02:13 pm by Ronnie Omelettes »


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2272

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
It was about Russian adoption.

Doesn't everyone know that?


This is a weird reference to make in defense of Trump.
That's why I chose it. It's to put the worst of the other side into a situation and reverse the roles to have you consider whether the principles should still apply. Birtherism was a nonsense conspiracy theory. Same with Russia Collusion.

If one of your officials isn't certain you aren't part of some lunatic conspiracy, then you have every right to sack them.


speculative BS? that is all it is at the moment, even if the Republicans do think it's premature celebration time, especially with all their bleatings about apologising to trump etc.  McConnell has already said he won't release the whole thing.  how is anyone supposed to make an 'educated' judgement, if nothing is released.
It's clear that no matter what is released, some people will refuse to accept it because they're so invested in this idea that Trump is some sort of Russian colluder.

Quote
there is no 'think about it this way' equivalent here.  that birtherism nonsense is not even comparable with the Mueller report.   :rolleyes: and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
Yes, the two are not directly comparable. But both are conspiracy theories and a Chief Executive should be able to fire any subordinate who isn't convinced he isn't part of some outlandish conspiracy theory.

Trump did not obstruct justice, and you wanting it to be so does not make it true.

Remember the saying "Facts have a liberal bias". What we're seeing here is the bias part is true, but not the facts. No matter how many facts are given and what is determined, some people will just stick with their bias.


I agree with Ronnie Omlettes. I don't think these things are comparable. Russia did interfere in the election, and the FBI was tipped off to possible Trump team involvement as a result of the activities of George Papadopoulos, who was basically a bag man for various interest groups, some of them foreign, many connected to oil and gas. He told an Australian diplomat about Russia's possession of e-mails relating to Hillary Clinton in May, 2016, two months before the DNC hacking was revealed. By this time, he had already met with Trump, in person, about national security issues, where he suggested brokering a meeting between Trump and Putin. He then lied to the FBI about some of this, and got caught.

Add to this the fact that Paul Manafort had openly worked on behalf of pro-Putin Ukranian factions and concealed much of his activities from federal authorities, including the fact that he continued taking money from these sources while involved with the Trump campaign.

Those two factors alone are enough to warrant further investigation. Not even remotely similar to the "lunatic conspiracy" of birtherism peddled by none other than Donald J. Trump.


I agree with Ronnie Omlettes. I don't think these things are comparable. Russia did interfere in the election, and the FBI was tipped off to possible Trump team involvement as a result of the activities of George Papadopoulos, who was basically a bag man for various interest groups, some of them foreign, many connected to oil and gas. He told an Australian diplomat about Russia's possession of e-mails relating to Hillary Clinton in May, 2016, two months before the DNC hacking was revealed. By this time, he had already met with Trump, in person, about national security issues, where he suggested brokering a meeting between Trump and Putin. He then lied to the FBI about some of this, and got caught.

Add to this the fact that Paul Manafort had openly worked on behalf of pro-Putin Ukranian factions and concealed much of his activities from federal authorities, including the fact that he continued taking money from these sources while involved with the Trump campaign.

Those two factors alone are enough to warrant further investigation. Not even remotely similar to the "lunatic conspiracy" of birtherism peddled by none other than Donald J. Trump.

Fine, come up with whatever comparable situation you think applies. Say, Hillary Clinton having too many ties to the Chinese and some FBI guy saying "He isn't sure that she isn't inappropriately trading favors with the Chinese and compromising interests." Clinton would have every right to sack them. The fact is that the Chief Executive has to be able to trust her/his subordinates and s/he has to have their trust that s/he's not corrupt. If that doesn't exist, then they can dismiss them.

And there's still the question of whether they identified Comey as a source of leaks. If this was revealed to Mueller, then it would certainly be cause for dismissal and not obstruction, no matter what Trump said publicly.

If you look at this with the "neutral standards" filter, then you can arrive at the proper conclusion and understand why things are the way they are. If you apply the "Trump is evil and any justification, no matter how flimsy, should get him thrown out" filter, then you will have problems. This filter is why I don't put stock in BENGHAZI!!!!! and EMAILS!!!!!! like some RW partisans who post here. It's why I can say Obama was generally a positive president for this country. It's why I can go on the threads about cop shootings or anti-Muslim bias and be like "I'm not sure on this one, but this one definitely" while others reflexively go only one way or the other.

The TDS filter has one criticizing a summary for...summarizing.