McGee Return TD Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's nonsense. Almost every word. As has become obvious, any idea that does not recognize the "deep state" is nonsense to you. 2 1
Doc Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 13 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: i am totally lost on your argument..and i do want to understand what you believe.Transcript below from04/09 Crist: "Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?" Barr: "No, I don’t. I think, I suspect that they probably wanted more put out. But in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary — regardless of who prepares it — not only runs the risk of being underinclusive or overinclusive but also would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once." The Democratic senators quoted that exchange at several points in the May 1 hearing. Barr’s explanation for not disclosing the letter was artful — he pointed out that Crist asked him about Mueller’s team, not Mueller himself. " I mean it is black and white no? what is there to argue? It may be technical, but on 04/09, he claims to not know if Muellars team has issues, and on 05/01, he claims he believes letter on 03/27 was snitty and penned by Muellars team.. I just truly don't understand where the argument is dude lied at some point..take your pick where They're asking Barr what Mueller's team is thinking. He doesn't know. He obviously knows they have a problem. There is no lie. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said: As has become obvious, any idea that does not recognize the "deep state" is nonsense to you. That's untrue. When basic facts are ignored in order to satisfy one's pre-formed conclusions bothers me. (It was always a coup) Edited May 3, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1
McGee Return TD Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's untrue. When basic facts are ignored in order to satisfy one's pre-formed conclusions bothers me. What basic facts did Bob ignore? 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 1 minute ago, McGee Return TD said: What basic facts did Bob ignore? 42 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Like every AG ever... The best part of his testimony, the only part which mattered, was this: "We now know he was being falsely accused" Funny you don't want to talk about this, but rather focus on the parsing of the words about a summary of the report. One would think the actual report would be more interesting/important considering the past three years. He was there to talk about the report... which is out and anyone can read. It's funny you only want to focus on the summary and Mueller's complaint he didn't release enough information, when the entire report is out. It's almost like you don't want to talk about the real issues, and instead want to double down on the "BUT RUSSIA!" lie which you've bought hook line and sinker. Thinking for yourself is hard at times, but it's something you should try. It's not a narrative. It's a fact there was no collusion or conspiracy or obstruction. It's settled, over, done. More: 1
McGee Return TD Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 So you can't list out a couple basic facts he ignored?
DC Tom Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 44 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Like every AG ever... The best part of his testimony, the only part which mattered, was this: "We now know he was being falsely accused" Funny you don't want to talk about this, but rather focus on the parsing of the words about a summary of the report. One would think the actual report would be more interesting/important considering the past three years. He was there to talk about the report... which is out and anyone can read. It's funny you only want to focus on the summary and Mueller's complaint he didn't release enough information, when the entire report is out. It's almost like you don't want to talk about the real issues, and instead want to double down on the "BUT RUSSIA!" lie which you've bought hook line and sinker. Thinking for yourself is hard at times, but it's something you should try. It's not a narrative. It's a fact there was no collusion or conspiracy or obstruction. It's settled, over, done. Two important points to be stressed here: 1) The Senate Democrats stopped looking in to the "Russian collusion" accusations. They even stopped looking in to the "obstruction" accusations. They've now moved on to looking at "Barr perjury" accusations. The key here being: they're still looking for wrong-doing. 2) Barr has NO say in impeachment. That's purely a legislative function. They don't need him, at all. Or need to tear him down. So why even bother with this like of attack? (The answer being: because this isn't about impeachment.) 6
Deranged Rhino Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 Just now, McGee Return TD said: So you can't list out a couple basic facts he ignored? I did when I responded his post. It's all above. *He ignored that EVERY AG is the president's political ally. He says it as if Barr is unique in that way so he can say "Barr is BAD!". It's ludicrously naive at best, intentionally dishonest at worst. * He says Barr's intention was to mislead Congress -- which is false. He released the report in full. It's out there for all to read yet no one wants to talk about the report. They want to argue about his SUMMARY of a report, making the case he's hiding something, when the whole report is out. * He says it's "Trump's narrative" that there was no collusion or conspiracy -- that's false. That's not a narrative, those are now the proven facts. But yeah, other than that, Bob wrote a masterpiece of truthful analysis 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Two important points to be stressed here: 1) The Senate Democrats stopped looking in to the "Russian collusion" accusations. They even stopped looking in to the "obstruction" accusations. They've now moved on to looking at "Barr perjury" accusations. The key here being: they're still looking for wrong-doing. 2) Barr has NO say in impeachment. That's purely a legislative function. They don't need him, at all. Or need to tear him down. So why even bother with this like of attack? (The answer being: because this isn't about impeachment.) 100% Expounding on 2 (finishing your thought) -- it's not about impeachment, it's about trying to discredit Barr before he announces the results of his investigation(s) into the origin of the probe -- which, we know from evidence (not talking points or speculations) was highly criminal. 3
McGee Return TD Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: "Trump's narrative" that there was no collusion or conspiracy -- that's false. That's not a narrative, those are now the proven facts. Doesn't Mueller in his report specifically say they did not address collusion because it falls outside the scope of criminal liability? Edit: did not Edited May 3, 2019 by McGee Return TD
Deranged Rhino Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 Just now, McGee Return TD said: Doesn't Mueller in his report specifically say they did address collusion because it falls outside the scope of criminal liability? The probe was not started to find collusion, it was started to find out if there was a criminal conspiracy to undermine the election. Collusion was the term used by the media and the left in the early days because it's legally meaningless and allows them to cover all matter of sin. Mueller was clear -- there was no evidence of conspiracy (and by extension collusion which is meaningless). This isn't speculation. This is now proven fact. "We now know he was falsely accused." Trump has a pattern of taking buzzwords and using them to blugeon his opposition. He did it with the term Fake News (started by the WaPo) and he did it with Collusion to the point where now people on the left say "that was Trump's word!". It wasn't. It was theirs when they were trying to be cute.
McGee Return TD Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: there was no evidence of conspiracy (and by extension collusion which is meaningless). The law disagrees with this. Collusion can be related to a number of crimes that are not conspiracy.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 Just now, McGee Return TD said: The law disagrees with this. Collusion can be related to a number of crimes that are not conspiracy. Mueller report clearly sets out there was not any evidence to make the case for either. Now, step back and really look at how small the argument has gotten. And ask yourself why that is. This thing started by stating there was EVIDENCE, undeniable evidence that Trump not only worked with the Russians, but did so in a treasonous manner to swing the election (and after the election) and help Russia geopolitically. That's been proven untrue. Over and over again, but the Mueller report is the final nail in that coffin. Since that's been proven to be fake (after three years of lies and propaganda) the coup plotters are now hoping you'll follow them to the next hill. Which is all about how Barr lied -- not about the report, but about what Mueller said about his summary of a report which is now fully public. It should alarm anyone who is able to think for themselves that the very same people who have said for three years that the president is an agent of Russia are now solely focused on the parsing of words from the AG. It was always a coup. Still is. 2
row_33 Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 21 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said: The law disagrees with this. Collusion can be related to a number of crimes that are not conspiracy. you should email Mueller and point out what he has that is worth pursuing.
McGee Return TD Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Mueller report clearly sets out there was not any evidence to make the case for either. I guess we disagree. I take the Mueller report at it's word when it says the office did not focus on collusion... ..."collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute. For that reason, this Office's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term ‘collusion.’" If Mueller ever takes the witness stand, we'll find out for sure. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 Just now, McGee Return TD said: I guess we disagree. I take the Mueller report at it's word when it says the office did not focus on collusion... ..."collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute. For that reason, this Office's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term ‘collusion.’" If Mueller ever takes the witness stand, we'll find out for sure. You should read that section closer. Note the bolded. Conspiracy = Collusion and he didn't find evidence of either. But that's beside the point. The point is this has never been about collusion, it's always been about conspiracy. Those were the charges leveled at Trump for three years by intel heads, congresscritters, and media pundits whom claimed they had undeniable evidence that such a conspiracy took place. They've been exposed as liars, do you disagree?
McGee Return TD Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 Just now, row_33 said: you should email Mueller and point out what he has that is worth pursuing. Just got a response from Peter Carr... No comment 1
row_33 Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said: I guess we disagree. I take the Mueller report at it's word when it says the office did not focus on collusion... ..."collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute. For that reason, this Office's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term ‘collusion.’" If Mueller ever takes the witness stand, we'll find out for sure. i would agree you are totally wasting every second of your life that you spent on this crap there is nothing to pursue you have to go and get a job and live a productive life now Edited May 3, 2019 by row_33
McGee Return TD Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 Just now, row_33 said: i would agree you are totally wasting every second of your life on this crap I would agree you are adept in hyperbole and understand why many on here have you blocked.
Bob in Mich Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 Did we forget about the timeline regarding Barr and his testimonies? It was weeks ago when he wanted to maintain the Trump narrative of No Collusion, No Obstruction. That is when Trump was trying to convince the casual observers that the Mueller report totally exonerated him. Remember when he was praising Mueller there for a time? That is when Barr mislead and that was well before the report itself was out. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 3, 2019 Posted May 3, 2019 Just now, Bob in Mich said: Did we forget about the timeline regarding Barr and his testimonies? It was weeks ago when he wanted to maintain the Trump narrative of No Collusion, No Obstruction. That's not a narrative, those are the facts as laid out by Mueller: no collusion, no conspiracy -- and he punted on obstruction but Barr ruled. It's over. There's nothing left but partisan politics. 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: That is when Trump was trying to convince the casual observers that the Mueller report totally exonerated him. It did exonerate him. In full. What's funny is you're still listening to the talking points of people who have been proven to be liars and thinking they're now telling you the truth. You've been had, Bob. Bigly. 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: Remember when he was praising Mueller there for a time? That is when Barr mislead and that was well before the report itself was out. Tell me, how did Barr mislead people when not even Mueller disagreed with his conclusion: no collusion, no conspiracy, no obstruction?
Recommended Posts