Dante Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: It depends on how much is handled in military tribunals rather than civilian courts. I don’t at all disagree about assassination attempts, however. If all else fails. Evil gonna be evil to get what it wants.
B-Man Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 Quote Eric HolderVerified account @EricHolder FollowFollow @EricHolder The conduct of AG Barr over the last few weeks and in the hearing today has been shown to be unacceptable. I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people. I was very wrong. He is protecting the President. 2
Koko78 Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: Well, as many of the commenters on his tweet pointed out, that is one 'fast and furious' comment from President Obama's 'wingman'. 2
row_33 Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 22 minutes ago, B-Man said: his best work was on Cheech and Chong cinematic productions
Foxx Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I tell you this not to convince you, as you’ve demonstrated an inability to absorb new information, and reform your positions based on it. I tell you this so that as the reckoning is proceeding (it’s just starting to move now), you’ll understand what is going on around you. As an aside, when it does begin, and the indictments start to flow, what will you do?
transplantbillsfan Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: You laugh -- but I've yet to see you add anything of substance to this topic or discussion. Almost as if you're unaware of the facts... They're going to surprise you. So a stupid twitter argument by a couple of idiots is somehow substantive? Seriously? First of all, there's plenty of evidence, set forth by Mueller in his report, of collusion. But as he said in the report himself, he wasn't investigating collusion, he was investigating criminal conspiracy. And he couldn't "establish" criminal conspiracy--interesting wording in the context of a report that weaves a web of a campaign in contact with Russia at varying points and with knowledge that Russia's interference in the election would actually help Trump win. And that leaves aside the entirety of the evidence laid out in the report of obstruction of justice, which is readily apparent. Along with all the other ongoing investigations. But yeah... send me another twitter argument of 2 nobodies saying "look at the collusion!" / "only a conspiracy theorist could call this collusion"... might be slightly more substantive than a gif, but not much.
njbuff Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 Why aren't FISA judges outraged by the frauds committed right in front of their faces? Are they in on the FISA frauds as well? 1
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 8 minutes ago, njbuff said: Why aren't FISA judges outraged by the frauds committed right in front of their faces? Are they in on the FISA frauds as well? You can probably make a case for them being "accessories after the fact," if you wanted to flip them. 1
daz28 Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 Did anyone notice the very, very clear smirk come over Bill Barr's face when Lindsay Graham said, "we might do that" after Dick Durbin made a comment about looking into Hillary Clinton's e-mails?? It was at 11:32 am if you didn't happen to see it. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, daz28 said: Did anyone notice the very, very clear smirk come over Bill Barr's face when Lindsay Graham said, "we might do that" after Dick Durbin made a comment about looking into Hillary Clinton's e-mails?? It was at 11:32 am if you didn't happen to see it. I called it a grin. ? 1
daz28 Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I called it a grin. ? Well, it appeared he tried to suppress it. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 37 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: So a stupid twitter argument by a couple of idiots is somehow substantive? Seriously? One of them is a pretty darn good (and left leaning) reporter whose broken story after story on this subject. Unlike most of his peers, he got (most of) it right from the start. 39 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: First of all, there's plenty of evidence, set forth by Mueller in his report, of collusion. But as he said in the report himself, he wasn't investigating collusion, he was investigating criminal conspiracy. And he couldn't "establish" criminal conspiracy--interesting wording in the context of a report that weaves a web of a campaign in contact with Russia at varying points and with knowledge that Russia's interference in the election would actually help Trump win. He's a prosecutor. Saying he could not "establish" a criminal-conspiracy while running an investigation explicitly into said criminal-conspiracy is saying it did not happen, it's not him playing word games. It's very specific language used in a legal context by a highly competent federal prosecutor. That's always been the charge from the start: he was a traitor who conspired with Russia to steal an election. More than a charge, that's what many in the media told us happened while citing anonymous sources and methods. That started election night and carried over for three years. It was always a lie. Mueller's own report confirms this was untrue. Barr today confirmed it in his testimony, Trump was falsely accused of crimes he did not commit. Put your partisanship down for a moment (if you can), put your opinion of Trump down for a moment (if you can) and really think through what that means and implies. The person who won an election, legally, was accused of being a traitor (a capitol offense) by the heads of the intelligence community with an assist from almost every MSM outlet/paper without any evidence to support such an accusation. This was done not because those intel officials were trying to protect the country from a foreign threat, but because they disagreed with who the American voters legally chose to be president. If they can do that to Trump, a person you clearly do not like and you let them -- what's to stop the same thing from being done to a president you do like? You've been lied to. Overtly. By members of the media who pushed lie after lie because they think you're too stupid to think for yourself. They've all been exposed as liars now. Mueller's words do that -- the only question is will you continue to listen to proven liars and deceivers because it suits your partisanship? 49 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: And that leaves aside the entirety of the evidence laid out in the report of obstruction of justice, which is readily apparent. Obstruction is purely political now. The DOJ ruled on it, it's settled. As is conspiracy/collusion. The political optics of trying to impeach on the grounds of obstructing a crime he was falsely accused of doing is going to be a tough sell for a lot of Americans. They're welcome to it, but it's not going to go the way the DNC wants if they really pursue it. 50 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Along with all the other ongoing investigations. The SDNY answers to Barr. Nothing is going to come from the known investigations. ...Now the unknown ones, well, be careful what you wish for there 2 1
Koko78 Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 47 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: First of all, there's plenty of evidence, set forth by Mueller in his report, of collusion. Quote The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law--including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws... Quote The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials---or between officials and Russia-linked individuals---to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period. Both quotes on page 181 of the Mueller report. You, sir, are either lying or too stupid to research the truth for yourself.
SoCal Deek Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 And to think we could’ve saved all this nonsense had Hilary just gotten off her backside and visited Wisconsin! ? 1 2
transplantbillsfan Posted May 2, 2019 Posted May 2, 2019 4 hours ago, Koko78 said: Both quotes on page 181 of the Mueller report. You, sir, are either lying or too stupid to research the truth for yourself. The report and that passage itself establishes Mueller didn't find criminal conspiracy. It says nothing about collusion. That report is such an indictment on Trump that if this were a few decades ago, we'd have begun the impeachment process already. But this is the whole point, isn't it? Trump and Faux News have brilliantly twisted the narrative around over the last couple years or so. So much so that no one really knows their position on anything. Trump really has one news station that spins a yarn so often of an alternative universe along with a bunch of feeble minded Republican Senators for being able to serve out the full 4 years he'll get. Doesn't matter to me though. So many atrocious precedents have been set by Republicans over the last 8 years... none of this is surprising. Just gotta endure just 19+ more months of Trump. 1
Taro T Posted May 2, 2019 Posted May 2, 2019 14 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: The report and that passage itself establishes Mueller didn't find criminal conspiracy. It says nothing about collusion. That report is such an indictment on Trump that if this were a few decades ago, we'd have begun the impeachment process already. But this is the whole point, isn't it? Trump and Faux News have brilliantly twisted the narrative around over the last couple years or so. So much so that no one really knows their position on anything. Trump really has one news station that spins a yarn so often of an alternative universe along with a bunch of feeble minded Republican Senators for being able to serve out the full 4 years he'll get. Doesn't matter to me though. So many atrocious precedents have been set by Republicans over the last 8 years... none of this is surprising. Just gotta endure just 19+ more months of Trump. Should any of the "least scandalous administration everTM" members start to get indicted, will you look at the evidence before shouting "witch hunt" or just go there directly? 2
Koko78 Posted May 2, 2019 Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: The report and that passage itself establishes Mueller didn't find criminal conspiracy. It says nothing about collusion. That report is such an indictment on Trump that if this were a few decades ago, we'd have begun the impeachment process already. But this is the whole point, isn't it? Trump and Faux News have brilliantly twisted the narrative around over the last couple years or so. So much so that no one really knows their position on anything. Trump really has one news station that spins a yarn so often of an alternative universe along with a bunch of feeble minded Republican Senators for being able to serve out the full 4 years he'll get. Doesn't matter to me though. So many atrocious precedents have been set by Republicans over the last 8 years... none of this is surprising. Just gotta endure just 19+ more months of Trump. Oh for *****'s sake. "Collusion" isn't a legal thing, there is only conspiracy. Read the report, he explicitly explains this right above the quoted portions. As for the rest of the report being an "indictment", legally dubious novel prosecution theories are not anything. I suggest that you actually try reading. 10 hours ago, Taro T said: Should any of the "least scandalous administration everTM" members start to get indicted, will you look at the evidence before shouting "witch hunt" or just go there directly? Good little liberal NPCs will want to wait for all of the "facts" to come out and be spun by the media before dismissing any Democrat wrongdoing out of hand. Edited May 2, 2019 by Koko78 2 1
row_33 Posted May 2, 2019 Posted May 2, 2019 16 hours ago, daz28 said: Well, it appeared he tried to suppress it. he might have disappeared if that grin got too large
Recommended Posts