The Mueller Report. BREAKING NEWS: AG’s Summary Report Released. NO COLLUSION!

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Glad to hear we are both Americans first. 

 

There was plenty of smoke around Trump and his team.  Failure to look into that smoke would have been malfeasance.  My God, you don't think there should have even been an investigation into the myriad of Russian contacts and accompanying covering lies!?  The Mueller report claims there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone.  As long as that is his conclusion, fine.  I accept that.

 

As I have said repeatedly, if there was misuse of the FISA process, let's get to the bottom of it, correct it, and if appropriate, punish any wrong doers.   

 

So what did they do to prevent Trump from getting elected?  You still did not answer my only question.

 

 

I answered the question in my first post, I think you just didn't like the answer.

 

I'll recap this way.  The record is clear, and unlike a few months back, we have closure.  You see, it would seem, the totality of what happened----the use of the intelligence agencies to investigate, the sudden dismal of Russian diplomats as Obama skulked out of office, spying on Americans, the pressuring of witnesses, the SC directive, the reliance on a disgraced foreign operative and his absurdly lurid tales of fantasy, the comey leaks--all of it as some sort of Eagle Scout investigation for the greater good.  A necessary step to safeguard Americans.  

 

That makes no sense to me, especially in light of the goose eggs they came up with.  I  ask you--these men and women of good will--how did they miss so badly?  How could the best of the best run all these issues up the flagpole, discuss options, pursue a course of action and miss so badly on the outcome?  I mean you saw it all with clarity, and you're sitting in a damn lighthouse on Lake Huron warning boats to stay off the rocks.  They--the people at the top, were so sure trump was a putinite that they pulled out every stop to save us from ruin and it turns out they just made an oopsie?  I'll acknowledge it could have played out that way if you'll acknowledge that at mid50s and a buck70 I still have a shot to get picked up as a receiver (I'd be a #3 as I lack an explosive twitch off the line, have trouble tracking the football due to issues with depth perception and my hands are suspect) by the Bills. 

 

Absent the co-conspirators admitting to wrongdoing, or Our President Trump fessing up to being a junior cosmonaut, why go around in circles on it?  The fact is given all we already know, NBC news could air a grainy videotape of all the dirty birds copping to their malfeasance and more than likely you would still maintain the position that this was the doj's finest hour--they cleared trump! 

 

So so why bother?  I think the  OJ jury analogy makes the most sense for me to try and understand you. We can write it off to my limitations as a deep thinker, unable to see the purity in the deeds of the unsung heros of fisa  abuse, beurocrats gone wild and the like. 

 

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Smoke created by the CIA, FBI, DOJ and the Clinton campaign. They created it by using undercover assets to ENTRAP Trump and his team with "Russian connections" in order to create a legal pretext for their spying. They put the cart before the horse -- that's pertinent, no? 

 

(Of course it's not to you, you keep running from this fact)

 

 

It was fake evidence, created to commit a fraud on the FISC by our intelligence agencies in order to favor one candidate over the other in a presidential election. 

 

Pertinent, no? 

 

(Of course it's not to you, you keep running from this fact)

 

 

That's not what Mueller said. He said there was no evidence and despite "opportunities to conspire/collude" the Trump team chose not to. 

 

If you accept this as fact, why did you refer to Barr's "no collusion, no conspiracy" as a narrative? It's not. It's factual. 

 

 

 If you were serious about this, you'd engage with the hundreds of pages of evidence which lays out this abuse. 

 

And I answered it for him -- even though you're asking the wrong (purposefully perhaps) question. 

 

* They committed fraud in the FISC. 

* They illegally unmasked innocent Americans for political talking points. 

* They conspired with foreign spies (from Britain, Turkey, Ukraine, and RUSSIA) to flood the American marketplace with disinformation. 

* They paid a foreign spy to create disinformation in order to help them perpetrate said fraud against the FISC. 

* They conspired with select members of the media and congress to inject bought and paid for Russian disinformation into the election cycle. 

* They lied to the public and Congress about when the CI investigation began (it did NOT begin in July 2016). 

* They purposefully kept information from the Gang of Eight in order to insulate their illegal activities. 

 

That's all before the election -- that was all done to cover up their own crimes detailed here which go back to at least 2012: 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

After the election, they took it even further. 

 

 

Trying to make a left on Olympic in rush hour... LA traffic life is sloooooow.  

Thank you sir, but I lack the patience to even copy and paste a reply. I can accept Bob feels as he does, I just don't see much value in going over things again. Plus my commute is 3 miles, two lights and I'm home.  Barely enough time for my phone to synchronize with my car let alone voice to text. 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/the-big-lie-that-barr-lied/

[Kevbeau]

8 hours ago, Nanker said:

He must be using talk-to-text. 

I'm no spring chicken, and I type >100 words a minute at a keyboard.

I do about 20 WAM chicken pecking with my thumbs on a iPhone (and I hate typing that way). 

Can’t a guy just get a weakly funny layup anymore?

[B-Man]

LINDSEY GRAHAM CALLS ROBERT MUELLER’S BLUFF:

In response to questions by Senator Blumenthal, the Attorney General testified in essence that you told him in a phone call that you did not challenge the accuracy of the Attorney General’s summary of your report’s principal conclusions, but rather you wanted more of the report, particularly the executive summaries concerning obstruction of justice, to be released promptly. In particular, Attorney General Barr testified that you believed media coverage of your investigation was unfair without the public release of those summaries.

 

Please inform the Committee if you would like to provide testimony regarding any misrepresentation by the Attorney General of the substance of that phone call.

 

 

 

Still digging Lindsey 2.0.

 

[plenzmd1]

9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/the-big-lie-that-barr-lied/

That article "supposes" a lot of things..like Mueller was pissed at the press? Where has Mueller commented anywhere? I will not srgue the lie thing anymore, but this article is opinion, and not fact.

15 hours ago, Nanker said:

I beat that shite every time. I’m a blur on the keyboard. :lol:

Thumb texting - not so much. 

I do to..is this guy that dumb he does not know how to highlight, CTRL C, CTRL V????

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, B-Man said:

LINDSEY GRAHAM CALLS ROBERT MUELLER’S BLUFF:

In response to questions by Senator Blumenthal, the Attorney General testified in essence that you told him in a phone call that you did not challenge the accuracy of the Attorney General’s summary of your report’s principal conclusions, but rather you wanted more of the report, particularly the executive summaries concerning obstruction of justice, to be released promptly. In particular, Attorney General Barr testified that you believed media coverage of your investigation was unfair without the public release of those summaries.

 

Please inform the Committee if you would like to provide testimony regarding any misrepresentation by the Attorney General of the substance of that phone call.

 

 

 

Still digging Lindsey 2.0.

 

as I stated upthread..i am too, and i absolutely loathed him prior to 2017.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

That article "supposes" a lot of things..like Mueller was pissed at the press? Where has Mueller commented anywhere? I will not srgue the lie thing anymore, but this article is opinion, and not fact.

I do to..is this guy that dumb he does not know how to highlight, CTRL C, CTRL V????

 

Because your feelings, usually guessed at by the media, are more important than facts.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Plenz- not arguing the lie thing because it's unfounded, or because you're tired of talking about it?

 

i agree with you on your characterization of the article as it relates to Mueller's alleged intent.  I try to remember that much of reporting, or even opinion-based analysis deals with characterizations, innuendo and speculation. I'm not always successful.  I enjoyed the read, it fits what seems to make sense to me.  I do find it amusing that  Mueller and his team would suddenly worry about the optics of it all given his team's world class leak machine feeding the press at every juncture.  2+ years of stony silence punctuated by leaks while the country is ripping at the seams but now we have a problem?  

 

 

 

[snafu]

19 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

To me, that's sad, and dangerous because when there are no rules, everyone figures they best get theirs in before the enemy gets there first.  We're never at the end of anything, we're just at the beginning of the next thing. 

 

Washington, D.C.  No rules, no bottom line, and no deadlines. 

 

Edit: and no accountability. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by snafu

[3rdnlng]

11 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I answered the question in my first post, I think you just didn't like the answer.

 

I'll recap this way.  The record is clear, and unlike a few months back, we have closure.  You see, it would seem, the totality of what happened----the use of the intelligence agencies to investigate, the sudden dismal of Russian diplomats as Obama skulked out of office, spying on Americans, the pressuring of witnesses, the SC directive, the reliance on a disgraced foreign operative and his absurdly lurid tales of fantasy, the comey leaks--all of it as some sort of Eagle Scout investigation for the greater good.  A necessary step to safeguard Americans.  

 

That makes no sense to me, especially in light of the goose eggs they came up with.  I  ask you--these men and women of good will--how did they miss so badly?  How could the best of the best run all these issues up the flagpole, discuss options, pursue a course of action and miss so badly on the outcome?  I mean you saw it all with clarity, and you're sitting in a damn lighthouse on Lake Huron warning boats to stay off the rocks.  They--the people at the top, were so sure trump was a putinite that they pulled out every stop to save us from ruin and it turns out they just made an oopsie?  I'll acknowledge it could have played out that way if you'll acknowledge that at mid50s and a buck70 I still have a shot to get picked up as a receiver (I'd be a #3 as I lack an explosive twitch off the line, have trouble tracking the football due to issues with depth perception and my hands are suspect) by the Bills. 

 

Absent the co-conspirators admitting to wrongdoing, or Our President Trump fessing up to being a junior cosmonaut, why go around in circles on it?  The fact is given all we already know, NBC news could air a grainy videotape of all the dirty birds copping to their malfeasance and more than likely you would still maintain the position that this was the doj's finest hour--they cleared trump! 

 

So so why bother?  I think the  OJ jury analogy makes the most sense for me to try and understand you. We can write it off to my limitations as a deep thinker, unable to see the purity in the deeds of the unsung heros of fisa  abuse, beurocrats gone wild and the like. 

 

Thank you sir, but I lack the patience to even copy and paste a reply. I can accept Bob feels as he does, I just don't see much value in going over things again. Plus my commute is 3 miles, two lights and I'm home.  Barely enough time for my phone to synchronize with my car let alone voice to text. 

 

You need to move to LA so you can post here more.

[Foxx]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Plenz- not arguing the lie thing because it's unfounded, or because you're tired of talking about it?

 

i agree with you on your characterization of the article as it relates to Mueller's alleged intent.  I try to remember that much of reporting, or even opinion-based analysis deals with characterizations, innuendo and speculation. I'm not always successful.  I enjoyed the read, it fits what seems to make sense to me.  I do find it amusing that  Mueller and his team would suddenly worry about the optics of it all given his team's world class leak machine feeding the press at every juncture.  2+ years of stony silence punctuated by leaks while the country is ripping at the seams but now we have a problem?  

 

 

 

just thinking out loud here... what was to stop Mueller or his team from leaking those summaries?

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

just thinking out loud here... what was to stop Mueller or his team from leaking those summaries?

Democrats say they want something concrete but what they really want is the issue of not getting it. They want to be able to paint the opposition in a light of their own choosing. A prime example of this is the Dreamer situation. When offered a solution they won't take it because they out and out lie so much that they can blame the issue on the republicans. Dems can only be competitive when they lie. If you understand that then you'll understand dems.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

13 minutes ago, Foxx said:

just thinking out loud here... what was to stop Mueller or his team from leaking those summaries?

Excellent point Mr. Foxx. 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

That article "supposes" a lot of things..like Mueller was pissed at the press? Where has Mueller commented anywhere? I will not srgue the lie thing anymore, but this article is opinion, and not fact.

 

The DOJ and Barr testified that's what Mueller said, it was a part of the hearing. 

 

Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement Tuesday that Mueller did not tell Barr that anything in the letter was factually wrong.

 

"In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General's March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel's obstruction analysis," Kupec said.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/mueller-barr-complained-russia-probe/index.html

 

This article is not opinion on the legal definition of perjury. McCarthy is one of the best out there on these matters. 

[Foxx]

7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Democrats say they want something concrete but what they really want is the issue of not getting it. They want to be able to paint the opposition in a light of their own choosing. A prime example of this is the Dreamer situation. When offered a solution they won't take it because they out and out lie so much that they can blame the issue on the republicans. Dems can only be competitive when they lie. If you understand that then you'll understand dems.

well... both parties can be obstructionist, it mainly depends on who id holding the reins at a particular point. i will grant however that the left wing of the bird seems to be unhinged currently.

[3rdnlng]

29 minutes ago, Foxx said:

well... both parties can be obstructionist, it mainly depends on who id holding the reins at a particular point. i will grant however that the left wing of the bird seems to be unhinged currently.

Senate Leader Harry Reid basically said that it was ok to lie because "it worked". Not a peep condemning it from his party. Schumer is worse. Pelosi is worse yet. Find anyone in the republican party who can lie as often and as well as:

 

Schiff

Swallwell

Watters

Johnson

Hirono

Blumenthal

Harris

Warren

Booker

Etc.

 

They have no shame.

[keepthefaith]

10 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Senate Leader Harry Reid basically said that it was ok to lie because "it worked". Not a peep condemning it from his party. Schumer is worse. Pelosi is worse yet. Find anyone in the republican party who can lie as often and as well as:

 

Schiff

Swallwell

Watters

Johnson

Hirono

Blumenthal

Harris

Warren

Booker

Etc.

 

They have no shame.

 

Don't forget Debbie Wasswerman-Schultz.  She's been quiet of late but she can lie and push a lie with the best of them. 

Edited May 5, 2019 by keepthefaith

[B-Man]

 

JACK GOLDSMITH: “Sometimes Justice Department independence means standing up to the president. And sometimes it means taking unpopular positions in defense of the presidency. I am pretty confident that the latter is what Barr is up to.”

 

 

 

 

.

[row_33]

the position is a political appointment of the President, I would be extremely surprised if the AG took an extremely defiant stance over nothing

 

 

 

sometimes you can appoint your severely underqualified and underaccomplished brother to the posting

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]