Some in Mueller's team see report as more damaging to Trump than Barr summary: New York Times

[thaibeachlovers]

30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

You didn't just suggest Trump is not a misogynist by equating his behaviour with the behaviour of foreigners in Thailand.....

 

Yes you did. 

 

You need to get out more.

 

Doh!

 

I also equated his behaviour to that of millions of American men over the years.

Of course some think all men are misogynysts.

[heybruce]

31 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

never mentioned Obama Bruce, but make any conclusion you need to feed your liberal bias. as usual

You definitely mentioned Obama:

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

So an Obama appointed ambassador refusing visas to the people wanting to travel to provide evidence is "lame"? interesting that you don't think that is suspicious, but you do think the DOJ not acting fast enough is suspicious. 

 

The question remains, why isn't the media on this? If it was some republican involved

you can bet they would be.

 

And do we really know to what extent the new AG is doing on this? 

or is it a matter of timing to be used when politically advantageous?

Now will you explain why, when you read an article with multiple statements and questions about the Trump administration's lack of interest in the Ukrainian investigation, your only take-away is that an Obama appointed ambassador was accused by a Ukrainian investigator of not approving a visa.

[elmrfudd]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Ah, so this post is not yours? " So an Obama appointed ambassador refusing visas to the people wanting to travel to provide evidence is "lame"? "

the implication was that I was somehow blaming Obama, which wasn't the point. the point was that she

was not a Trump appointed Ambassador, and to infer that the decision to deny visas to the Ukrainians was not done by 

a Trump appointee. even though the ridiculous assumption was that he is "afraid" or is hiding something.

 

[elmrfudd]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

You definitely mentioned Obama:

Now will you explain why, when you read an article with multiple statements and questions about the Trump administration's lack of interest in the Ukrainian investigation, your only take-away is that an Obama appointed ambassador was accused by a Ukrainian investigator of not approving a visa.

the implication was that I was somehow blaming Obama, which wasn't the point. the point was that she

was not a Trump appointed Ambassador, and to infer that the decision to deny visas to the Ukrainians was not done by 

a Trump appointee. even though the ridiculous assumption was that he is "afraid" or is hiding something.

 

have a nice day bruce

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

the implication was that I was somehow blaming Obama, which wasn't the point. the point was that she

was not a Trump appointed Ambassador, and to infer that the decision to deny visas to the Ukrainians was not done by 

a Trump appointee. even though the ridiculous assumption was that he is "afraid" or is hiding something.

 

have a nice day bruce

Actually, she's a career diplomat. Not a political appointee.

[elmrfudd]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, she's a career diplomat. Not a political appointee.

you have to be nominated to an ambassador position,

being in the foreign service as a career is irrelevant

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/18/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

 

 

[bristolboy]

Just now, elmrfudd said:

you have to be nominated to an ambassador position,

being in the foreign service as a career is irrelevant

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/18/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

 

 

Yes, but that doesn't make one a political appointee. That designation is reserved for those who lack the career qualifications to become Ambassador. She is a career diplomat and previously served as Ambassador to Armenia and as Ambassador to Kazakhstan. 

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yes, but that doesn't make one a political appointee. That designation is reserved for those who lack the career qualifications to become Ambassador. She is a career diplomat and previously served as Ambassador to Armenia and as Ambassador to Kazakhstan. 

sorry, she was appointed by the president, that makes her an appointee.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/18/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

 

 

and she was previously ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, not Kazakhstan 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

sorry, she was appointed by the president, that makes her an appointee.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/18/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

 

 

and she was previously ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, not Kazakhstan 

Yes technically any one appointed by the President is a political appointee. But in the vernacular, that designation goes to motivations. And there's absolutely nothing in her record to suggest that there were partisan reasons for appointing her. All the evidence that's available indicates otherwise. Of course, I leave it to you to assert that there could be evidence that hasn't come to light to show otherwise.

[elmrfudd]

45 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yes technically any one appointed by the President is a political appointee. But in the vernacular, that designation goes to motivations. And there's absolutely nothing in her record to suggest that there were partisan reasons for appointing her. All the evidence that's available indicates otherwise. Of course, I leave it to you to assert that there could be evidence that hasn't come to light to show otherwise.

this could be the case. however, when a vice president says he will withhold a billion dollar loan package unless a prosecutor is replaced, and she says

nothing, that can't be ignored. perhaps she protested in the obvious conflict of interest, but I can't find anything that says she did.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

this could be the case. however, when a vice president says he will withhold a billion dollar loan package unless a prosecutor is replaced, and she says

nothing, that can't be ignored. perhaps she protested in the obvious conflict of interest, but I can't find anything that says she did.

There you go again. To you, no evidence somehow turns into evidence. You have absolutely nothing to go on except your misunderstanding of the role of an Ambassador. They are the agents of an administration. Diplomats in the Foreign Service are all about discretion. Had she protested, we wouldn't have heard about it. And given what your boy,, Victor Shokin was like, why would she?

EU hails sacking of Ukraine’s prosecutor Viktor Shokin

"The European Union has welcomed the dismissal of Ukraine’s scandal-ridden prosecutor general and called for a crackdown on corruption, even as the country’s political crisis deepened over efforts to form a new ruling coalition and appoint a new prime minister.

Ukraine’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to fire Viktor Shokin, ridding the beleaguered prosecutor’s office of a figure who is accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and stymying moves to root out graft."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

Ukraine: Prosecutor General Fires Reformer Deputy; Hours Later, He Himself is Sacked

"Ukraine’s Parliament dismissed Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin Tuesday over allegations he had been stalling efforts to fight corruption.  Just hours earlier, Shokin had fired his reformer deputy, the Kyiv Post said...

Western leaders and reform-minded Ukrainians had been calling for Shokin’s removal for some time"

https://www.occrp.org/en/27-ccwatch/cc-watch-briefs/5105-ukraine-prosecutor-general-fires-reformer-deputy-hours-later-he-himself-is-sacked

 

And what makes this really nuts is that because Biden delivered the message, you and Fox News apparently believe that the decision was his. Maybe things work that chaotically in the Trump administration, but otherwise in previous administrations not so much the case.

 

But, you know what, the Ambassador did on the Ukraine to dismiss its prosecutor:

U.S. Calls On Ukraine to Dismiss Its Anti-Graft Prosecutor

The U.S. urged Ukraine to dismiss its anti-corruption prosecutor and revive efforts to tackle graft, signaling displeasure at the government’s current course from its biggest international backer.

The U.S. embassy in Kiev, the capital, said late Tuesday that Nazar Kholodnytskyi should be fired, legislation should be passed to replace the recent removal of punishments for illegal enrichment and 31 judges whose reputations are in question should be blocked from joining the Supreme Court.

“To ensure the integrity of anti-corruption institutions, the Special Anti-corruption Prosecutor must be replaced,” U.S. ambassador Marie Yovanovitch said in a statement.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-06/u-s-calls-on-ukraine-to-dismiss-its-anti-graft-prosecutor

 

[elmrfudd]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There you go again. To you, no evidence somehow turns into evidence. You have absolutely nothing to go on except your misunderstanding of the role of an Ambassador. They are the agents of an administration. Diplomats in the Foreign Service are all about discretion. Had she protested, we wouldn't have heard about it. And given what your boy,, Victor Shokin was like, why would she?

EU hails sacking of Ukraine’s prosecutor Viktor Shokin

"The European Union has welcomed the dismissal of Ukraine’s scandal-ridden prosecutor general and called for a crackdown on corruption, even as the country’s political crisis deepened over efforts to form a new ruling coalition and appoint a new prime minister.

Ukraine’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to fire Viktor Shokin, ridding the beleaguered prosecutor’s office of a figure who is accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and stymying moves to root out graft."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

Ukraine: Prosecutor General Fires Reformer Deputy; Hours Later, He Himself is Sacked

"Ukraine’s Parliament dismissed Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin Tuesday over allegations he had been stalling efforts to fight corruption.  Just hours earlier, Shokin had fired his reformer deputy, the Kyiv Post said...

Western leaders and reform-minded Ukrainians had been calling for Shokin’s removal for some time"

https://www.occrp.org/en/27-ccwatch/cc-watch-briefs/5105-ukraine-prosecutor-general-fires-reformer-deputy-hours-later-he-himself-is-sacked

 

And what makes this really nuts is that because Biden delivered the message, you and Fox News apparently believe that the decision was his. Maybe things work that chaotically in the Trump administration, but otherwise in previous administrations not so much the case.

 

But, you know what, the Ambassador did on the Ukraine to dismiss its prosecutor:

U.S. Calls On Ukraine to Dismiss Its Anti-Graft Prosecutor

The U.S. urged Ukraine to dismiss its anti-corruption prosecutor and revive efforts to tackle graft, signaling displeasure at the government’s current course from its biggest international backer.

The U.S. embassy in Kiev, the capital, said late Tuesday that Nazar Kholodnytskyi should be fired, legislation should be passed to replace the recent removal of punishments for illegal enrichment and 31 judges whose reputations are in question should be blocked from joining the Supreme Court.

“To ensure the integrity of anti-corruption institutions, the Special Anti-corruption Prosecutor must be replaced,” U.S. ambassador Marie Yovanovitch said in a statement.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-06/u-s-calls-on-ukraine-to-dismiss-its-anti-graft-prosecutor

 

there it is again, more self righteous preaching.

 

I'm not sure what the "your boy Victor Shokin" reference is all about, but I am sure there is another assumption in it.

 

The Ukraine is rife with corruption, 

Hunter has taken home $3 million from Burisma, despite having ‘no background’ in Ukraine or in energy policy. ‘There’s really no legitimate explanation as to why he got this deal…other than the fact his father was responsible for doling out money in Ukraine.’ especially as Burisma’s founder was part of the old, pro-Russian (and obscenely corrupt) government in Ukraine.

 

your assumptions hold no more value than anyone else, 

 

if you want to go back to the fox news excuse and ignore the obvious

conflict of interest in his sons Burisma payouts, ok, do that.

 

there can only be an orange man bad scenario for you, this is obvious.

 

 

[xylophone]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump is NOT, IMO, a misogynyst, by any stretch of the imagination and what he does is nothing that hasn't been done by many thousands of male farangs in LOS, and by millions of men in the US over the years. Seems that many overlook the fact that the woman in question was apparently a groupie, and that is pretty normal behaviour with groupies.

I give the rest of your "list" of accusations as much credence as your misuse, IMO, of misogyny.

Only quoting what the dictionary says tbl...........and his remark about "pussy grabbing" was not related to a "groupie" as you say.

 

Of course my accusations about him being a compulsive liar are beyond doubt/question; about being dumb....well enough of his remarks on record to show that he is certainly not the "sharpest knife in the drawer" ("we need Global warming" when a cold spell hit the US.........doh!) and "beautiful clean coal" and '"I am a very stable genius'" and of course his rallying cry, "covfefe'".

 

And this is about a man who holds the highest office in the US and nothing to do with mongers in Thailand!!

 

PS. OOPS, more chaos from the clown in charge...............

Trump's increasingly erratic behaviour over the past 12 days - since he first threatened to seal the border in a series of tweets on March 29 - has alarmed top Republicans, business officials and foreign leaders who fear that his emotional response might exacerbate problems at the border, harm the U.S. economy and degrade national security.

Trump soured again on Nielsen over her opposition to his demands that DHS reinstate the family separation policy that the president had reversed last summer after a political backlash.

[elmrfudd]

9 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Only quoting what the dictionary says tbl...........and his remark about "pussy grabbing" was not related to a "groupie" as you say.

 

Of course my accusations about him being a compulsive liar are beyond doubt/question; about being dumb....well enough of his remarks on record to show that he is certainly not the "sharpest knife in the drawer" ("we need Global warming" when a cold spell hit the US.........doh!) and "beautiful clean coal" and '"I am a very stable genius'" and of course his rallying cry, "covfefe'".

 

And this is about a man who holds the highest office in the US and nothing to do with mongers in Thailand!!

it is amazing the level of self righteous preening you seem to be stuck on.

 

 

taking every piss take as a literal truth is just another sign

[xylophone]

14 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

it is amazing the level of self righteous preening you seem to be stuck on.

No self-righteous preening (you do seem to like that phrase) on my behalf because I am not taking any moral high ground on this clown (not that it would be hard at all), just stating what he says and does as I couldn't believe someone would sink as low as he has, and as for the lies and stupidity, well they have made him the laughing stock of just about every country in the world.

 

I'm not a Republican or Democrat supporter, nor far right or far left, but somewhere in the middle, and I don't care too much what each of the parties stand for, but what I do believe is that someone who is a low intelligent, poor excuse for a human being, certainly should never be in a position to be the POTUS.

 

And as for him being intelligent enough to "take the piss"...........well that's a first-class joke in itself, and perhaps that's how you have to justify his lack of grey matter, to keep down the level of embarrassment you feel, but just don't ask him where his father was born, or indeed where Obama was born, or what covfefe means, or indeed how global warming works, or indeed how increased tariffs really do not make another country pay for their exports................

 

He has no idea! Just admit it and get onto another thread somewhere and go bother someone else. Or indeed take time to read his thousands of lies – – did you do that? 

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, xylophone said:

No self-righteous preening (you do seem to like that phrase) on my behalf because I am not taking any moral high ground on this clown (not that it would be hard at all), just stating what he says and does as I couldn't believe someone would sink as low as he has, and as for the lies and stupidity, well they have made him the laughing stock of just about every country in the world.

 

I'm not a Republican or Democrat supporter, nor far right or far left, but somewhere in the middle, and I don't care too much what each of the parties stand for, but what I do believe is that someone who is a low intelligent, poor excuse for a human being, certainly should never be in a position to be the POTUS.

 

And as for him being intelligent enough to "take the piss"...........well that's a first-class joke in itself, and perhaps that's how you have to justify his lack of grey matter, to keep down the level of embarrassment you feel, but just don't ask him where his father was born, or indeed where Obama was born, or what covfefe means, or indeed how global warming works, or indeed how increased tariffs really do not make another country pay for their exports................

 

He has no idea! Just admit it and get onto another thread somewhere and go bother someone else. Or indeed take time to read his thousands of lies – – did you do that? 

sorry, your reply is full of self righteous indignation. somehow your

emotional reactions can't get through it.

 

your opinion of the POTUS is merely that, it has no other value.

 

as far as the ignorant "how global warming works" blather, well that is

hilarious. as there is no such explanation for the industry invented term.

 

but keep up the outrage and indignation from your lofty perch.

it is hilarious

[riclag]

Something worth mentioning that hasn't been touched.

So Mueller was doing a 2-1/2 year stretch , suddenly one month into his new post as  AG, Mr, Barr with the help of Mr. Mueller concluded  that the investigation is over! Man that was fast!

 

I'm so happy for those who where subjected to that nonsense,are going to be able to go on with their lives (Carter Page)! This must not ever happen again

[Tug]

46 minutes ago, riclag said:

Something worth mentioning that hasn't been touched.

So Mueller was doing a 2-1/2 year stretch , suddenly one month into his new post as  AG, Mr, Barr with the help of Mr. Mueller concluded  that the investigation is over! Man that was fast!

 

I'm so happy for those who where subjected to that nonsense,are going to be able to go on with their lives (Carter Page)! This must not ever happen again

Translation now the efforts to suppress the findings of mullers investigation (the cover up)

[riclag]

13 minutes ago, Tug said:

Translation now the efforts to suppress the findings of mullers investigation (the cover up)

 Ok, I Got Cha! but it was astonishing how quick it was for them to come to a conclusion which is the Mueller Inv is or has finished! And those poor innocent people like (Carter Page) . Quick wasn't it

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

there it is again, more self righteous preaching.

 

I'm not sure what the "your boy Victor Shokin" reference is all about, but I am sure there is another assumption in it.

 

The Ukraine is rife with corruption, 

Hunter has taken home $3 million from Burisma, despite having ‘no background’ in Ukraine or in energy policy. ‘There’s really no legitimate explanation as to why he got this deal…other than the fact his father was responsible for doling out money in Ukraine.’ especially as Burisma’s founder was part of the old, pro-Russian (and obscenely corrupt) government in Ukraine.

 

your assumptions hold no more value than anyone else, 

 

if you want to go back to the fox news excuse and ignore the obvious

conflict of interest in his sons Burisma payouts, ok, do that.

 

there can only be an orange man bad scenario for you, this is obvious.

 

 

Whatever Biden's role may have been, there is absolutely no evidence to show that this has anything to do with the Ambassador at all. And, as a link showed, she is now faithfully and publicly executing the policies of the Trump administration.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

the implication was that I was somehow blaming Obama, which wasn't the point. the point was that she

was not a Trump appointed Ambassador, and to infer that the decision to deny visas to the Ukrainians was not done by 

a Trump appointee. even though the ridiculous assumption was that he is "afraid" or is hiding something.

 

have a nice day bruce

"and to infer that the decision to deny visas to the Ukrainians was not done by 

a Trump appointee. even though the ridiculous assumption was that he is "afraid" or is hiding something."

 

What do you think I inferred, and why?  What were you inferring by pointing out that the ambassador was appointed by Obama?  Do you have evidence the visa denial, if it actually happened, was done improperly?  And why do you state the ambassador definitely denied the visa, when all the article states is that one Ukrainian investigator said so without providing details? 

 

Most important, why is the only part of the article that registers on you the one about the visa, when the article, from start to finish, questions why the Trump administration isn't looking into the evidence?

 

I've asked that last question repeatedly.  For some reason you don't want to answer it.

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"and to infer that the decision to deny visas to the Ukrainians was not done by 

a Trump appointee. even though the ridiculous assumption was that he is "afraid" or is hiding something."

 

What do you think I inferred, and why?  What were you inferring by pointing out that the ambassador was appointed by Obama?  Do you have evidence the visa denial, if it actually happened, was done improperly?  And why do you state the ambassador definitely denied the visa, when all the article states is that one Ukrainian investigator said so without providing details? 

 

Most important, why is the only part of the article that registers on you the one about the visa, when the article, from start to finish, questions why the Trump administration isn't looking into the evidence?

 

I've asked that last question repeatedly.  For some reason you don't want to answer it.

I think his answer would be that most likely the Trump administration is looking into it because there's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

[elmrfudd]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Whatever Biden's role may have been, there is absolutely no evidence to show that this has anything to do with the Ambassador at all. And, as a link showed, she is now faithfully and publicly executing the policies of the Trump administration.

i hope she is.

that we can agree on

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

i hope she is.

that we can agree on

Such nonsense. Of what person in the diplomatic corps can't that be said? Yours is just a backhanded and dishonest way of casting doubt on someone with absolutely no evidence to support your doubt.

[elmrfudd]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

"and to infer that the decision to deny visas to the Ukrainians was not done by 

a Trump appointee. even though the ridiculous assumption was that he is "afraid" or is hiding something."

 

What do you think I inferred, and why?  What were you inferring by pointing out that the ambassador was appointed by Obama?  Do you have evidence the visa denial, if it actually happened, was done improperly?  And why do you state the ambassador definitely denied the visa, when all the article states is that one Ukrainian investigator said so without providing details? 

 

Most important, why is the only part of the article that registers on you the one about the visa, when the article, from start to finish, questions why the Trump administration isn't looking into the evidence?

 

I've asked that last question repeatedly.  For some reason you don't want to answer it.

the visas were not approved, if you think that there was a good reason for not wanting information, or perhaps suspected the information was not 

valid, then perhaps there is information out there that proves that. the article states they were going to share information. 

 

Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.

“We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”

[elmrfudd]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Such nonsense. Of what person in the diplomatic corps can't that be said? Yours is just a backhanded and dishonest way of casting doubt on someone with absolutely no evidence to support your doubt.

 

if you think the state dept isn't full of career left wing biased people, there is really nothing else to discuss.

 

[bristolboy]

Just now, elmrfudd said:

 

if you think the state dept isn't full of career left wing biased people, there is really nothing else to discuss.

 

There's about as much truth in this as your claim that Bill Adair is a Democrat. But I do give you full marks for acknowledging that you had no evidence to support that claim. Oh wait....And once again, based on no evidence, you try to cast  doubt on the performance on a whole class of public servants.

[Tug]

mr Barr just proved beyond doubt he is Donald’s attorney general not the attorney general for the United States they must be in need of a new big shiney distraction and cast doubt on any interference being performed on the muller report by mr Barr 

[elmrfudd]

24 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There's about as much truth in this as your claim that Bill Adair is a Democrat. But I do give you full marks for acknowledging that you had no evidence to support that claim. Oh wait....And once again, based on no evidence, you try to cast  doubt on the performance on a whole class of public servants.

I don't cast doubt on a whole class of govt bureaucrats, I have no doubt most of them are useless,

as is the system behind them with zero accountability.

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

the visas were not approved, if you think that there was a good reason for not wanting information, or perhaps suspected the information was not 

valid, then perhaps there is information out there that proves that. the article states they were going to share information. 

 

Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.

“We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”

Once again, in an article questioning the Trump administration's lack of interest in the Ukraine investigation throughout. and all you can focus on is the denial of a visa. 

 

Ukraine is a corrupt place with a lot of criminals, many of them in government.  There are many reasons why the visa might have been denied.  You have no evidence that it was done in an attempt to suppress information.  Besides, there are many ways to convey information beyond hand-carrying it.

 

However I appreciate you directing me and others to the article.  It does create further questions about the integrity and/or competence of the Trump administration.