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

[elmrfudd]

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps accusations against Clinton’s belong in a ‘Clinton’ thread?!

yes, they do.

 

amazingly they never seem to appear on tvf, neither do avenatti threads.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

yes, they do.

 

amazingly they never seem to appear on tvf, neither do avenatti threads.

Do you think maybe that's because the Clintons aren't making much news nowadays so it's kind of unreasonable to expect anyone to cater to obsessions of yours and of Fox News.

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Do you think maybe that's because the Clintons aren't making much news nowadays so it's kind of unreasonable to expect anyone to cater to obsessions of yours and of Fox News.

well perhaps something will happen shortly to change that..like avenatti being arrested

[albertik]

So you are saying that some of Muellers team leaked info from the report? That's illegal. I call New  York Times" fake news"

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, albertik said:

So you are saying that some of Muellers team leaked info from the report? That's illegal. I call New  York Times" fake news"

Well if the NYT is publishing real leaks, the news is not fake is it?!

 

 

Doh!

[heybruce]

42 minutes ago, albertik said:

So you are saying that some of Muellers team leaked info from the report? That's illegal. I call New  York Times" fake news"

Who said Mueller's team leaked info, what is illegal, and why would that be fake news?

 

Also, why is someone new to TV posting completely unsubstantiated BS?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

yes, it will be hilarious

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/07/politics/devin-nunes-justice-department/index.html

Wow!  Nunes is making noise and offering nothing again.

 

"California Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday he was planning to send eight criminal referrals to Attorney General William Barr as soon as this week."

"Nunes, who investigated accusations of FBI and Department of Justice abuse while he was previously chairman of the intelligence panel, did not say who he would be referring in a Fox News interview on Sunday."

[EVENKEEL]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Who said Mueller's team leaked info, what is illegal, and why would that be fake news?

 

Also, why is someone new to TV posting completely unsubstantiated BS?

Who says he's new to TV? Ever hear of reincarnation.

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Wow!  Nunes is making noise and offering nothing again.

 

"California Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday he was planning to send eight criminal referrals to Attorney General William Barr as soon as this week."

"Nunes, who investigated accusations of FBI and Department of Justice abuse while he was previously chairman of the intelligence panel, did not say who he would be referring in a Fox News interview on Sunday."

please treat this as nothing. ignore it and forget about it.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

or this

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437719-ukrainian-to-us-prosecutors-why-dont-you-want-our-evidence-on-democrats

Yeah, what is the Trump administration covering up?

 

" Ukrainian law enforcement officials believe they have evidence of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes. But, they say, they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act. "

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

please treat this as nothing. ignore it and forget about it.

Treat the link you posted as nothing? Ok....

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Who says he's new to TV? Ever hear of reincarnation.

Heard of it, waiting for proof of it.

[elmrfudd]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Yeah, what is the Trump administration covering up?

 

" Ukrainian law enforcement officials believe they have evidence of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes. But, they say, they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act. "

well, in your tiny world, he simply must be guilty of something. because you obviously know better and have the evidence

 

or perhaps the ambassador he fired that refused to approve the visas for the people that wanted to testify, is now out of the way. as is the previous AG.

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

well, in your tiny world, he simply must be guilty of something. because you obviously know better and have the evidence

 

or perhaps the ambassador he fired that refused to approve the visas for the people that wanted to testify, is now out of the way. as is the previous AG.

Let me get this straight.  I quote the first paragraph of the link you provided, ask a logical question, and your reply is pure speculation?

 

Who did I state or imply is guilty of something, and what is he/she guilty of?

 

Just want to put your reply in perspective.

[elmrfudd]

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Let me get this straight.  I quote the first paragraph of the link you provided, ask a logical question, and your reply is pure speculation?

 

Who did I state or imply is guilty of something, and what is he/she guilty of?

 

Just want to put your reply in perspective.

"Yeah, what is the Trump administration covering up?"

 

 

 

assuming he is hiding something is not a logical question, as the article says nothing about Trump hiding anything.

 

but then ignoring the democrat alleged involvement mentioned in the article is not logical either.

 

or ignoring the fact that the Obama appointed ambassador refused visas for the people wanting to give evidence.

 

but it is very biased, and it is expected.

 

that is perspective.

 

 

[bristolboy]

14 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

or this

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437719-ukrainian-to-us-prosecutors-why-dont-you-want-our-evidence-on-democrats

An article written by John Solomon:

John F. Solomon is an American media executive and columnist. He is currently vice president of digital video and an opinion contributor for The Hill.^[1] He is known primarily for his tenure as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.^[2] He has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals.^[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Solomon

[elmrfudd]

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

An article written by John Solomon:

John F. Solomon is an American media executive and columnist. He is currently vice president of digital video and an opinion contributor for The Hill.^[1] He is known primarily for his tenure as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.^[2] He has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals.^[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Solomon

you can try and pretend this is not real, please keep that attitude. 

 

please list the faux scandals he has manufactured....if you can.

 

 

this isn't buzzfeed, but please keep thinking it is fake.

[xylophone]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

You have stated the Clinton's are "one of the most corrupt dishonest political families in the history of the United States" without offering any evidence.  Now, in true Trump fashion, you defend your libel with false accusation against me. 

 

What unfounded accusations have I made against Trump?

elmr posted: but constantly make unfounded accusations against the man you hate. 

 

 

I think you're wasting your time "heybruce", because it's quite obvious that a few of the Trump supporters here really do not want to see or understand exactly what he is and has said and done.

 

You would think that the amount of lies recorded and reported for all to see, plus the pseudo-intellectual preening (thanks elmr) when he is as dumb as a bag of rocks, inane statements about climate change and coal, plus pussy grabbing, and the list goes on and on and on, would be enough to show his supporters that he is a bit of a dumbo/clown, but a particular poster on here dismisses all of this as unproven/unfounded/not real/didn't happen etc and tends to attack the post which suggests otherwise, when the facts are all out there.

 

So there is nothing truer than the old expression, "there's none so blind as those who will not see" with regards to these people and that's the way it will always be with them. Their opinion and the opinion they want to believe is the only thing that matters, no proof or documented evidence will sway them from this path, so perhaps that is one of the reasons why the orange clown was elected – – elected by like-minded people perhaps?

 

Still, on the lighter side of things there has never been another POTUS who has been so widely ridiculed, lampooned, the subject of cartoons and caricatures as well as video clips and just about anything which can be used to poke fun at him, and there have been some absolute crackers (the "no one knows more about.....insert anything.....than I do") for example, so perhaps his main goal is to act out what others have actually called him, an orange clown, and he's doing a great job at it.

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

you can try and pretend this is not real, please keep that attitude. 

 

please list the faux scandals he has manufactured....if you can.

 

 

this isn't buzzfeed, but please keep thinking it is fake.

Uranium One, for starters.

[elmrfudd]

28 minutes ago, xylophone said:

elmr posted: but constantly make unfounded accusations against the man you hate. 

 

 

I think you're wasting your time "heybruce", because it's quite obvious that a few of the Trump supporters here really do not want to see or understand exactly what he is and has said and done.

 

You would think that the amount of lies recorded and reported for all to see, plus the pseudo-intellectual preening (thanks elmr) when he is as dumb as a bag of rocks, inane statements about climate change and coal, plus pussy grabbing, and the list goes on and on and on, would be enough to show his supporters that he is a bit of a dumbo/clown, but a particular poster on here dismisses all of this as unproven/unfounded/not real/didn't happen etc and tends to attack the post which suggests otherwise, when the facts are all out there.

 

So there is nothing truer than the old expression, "there's none so blind as those who will not see" with regards to these people and that's the way it will always be with them. Their opinion and the opinion they want to believe is the only thing that matters, no proof or documented evidence will sway them from this path, so perhaps that is one of the reasons why the orange clown was elected – – elected by like-minded people perhaps?

 

Still, on the lighter side of things there has never been another POTUS who has been so widely ridiculed, lampooned, the subject of cartoons and caricatures as well as video clips and just about anything which can be used to poke fun at him, and there have been some absolute crackers (the "no one knows more about.....insert anything.....than I do") for example, so perhaps his main goal is to act out what others have actually called him, an orange clown, and he's doing a great job at it.

If you are going to make statements like "all facts are out there" 

 

You should be able to back it up with actual verified information from named sources that can be corroborated. 

 

But hey, keep up the phony self righteous routine for all its worth. 

 

If there ever is actually any real verification of your vacuous assumptions, you can hammer away. 

 

You might be very disappointed. 

[elmrfudd]

31 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Uranium One, for starters.

 The massive donations to the Clinton foundation were fake? 

 

 

 

Wasn't this reported by the author of Clinton Cash? 

[elmrfudd]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

elmr posted: but constantly make unfounded accusations against the man you hate. 

 

 

I think you're wasting your time "heybruce", because it's quite obvious that a few of the Trump supporters here really do not want to see or understand exactly what he is and has said and done.

 

You would think that the amount of lies recorded and reported for all to see, plus the pseudo-intellectual preening (thanks elmr) when he is as dumb as a bag of rocks, inane statements about climate change and coal, plus pussy grabbing, and the list goes on and on and on, would be enough to show his supporters that he is a bit of a dumbo/clown, but a particular poster on here dismisses all of this as unproven/unfounded/not real/didn't happen etc and tends to attack the post which suggests otherwise, when the facts are all out there.

 

So there is nothing truer than the old expression, "there's none so blind as those who will not see" with regards to these people and that's the way it will always be with them. Their opinion and the opinion they want to believe is the only thing that matters, no proof or documented evidence will sway them from this path, so perhaps that is one of the reasons why the orange clown was elected – – elected by like-minded people perhaps?

 

Still, on the lighter side of things there has never been another POTUS who has been so widely ridiculed, lampooned, the subject of cartoons and caricatures as well as video clips and just about anything which can be used to poke fun at him, and there have been some absolute crackers (the "no one knows more about.....insert anything.....than I do") for example, so perhaps his main goal is to act out what others have actually called him, an orange clown, and he's doing a great job at it.

 

[riclag]

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

you can try and pretend this is not real, please keep that attitude. 

 

please list the faux scandals he has manufactured....if you can.

 

 

this isn't buzzfeed, but please keep thinking it is fake.

faux scandal 2007(3) and 2012(4) . Looks clean after those comment's from Columbia Journal review.

"John F. Solomon is an American media executive and columnist. He is currently vice president of digital video and an opinion contributor for The Hill.[1] He is known primarily for his tenure as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[2] He has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals.[3][4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Solomon

[Brigand]

The liberals will soon start eating their own (it'll soon get that far) and it's already started really with Biden who is (sorry "was") the only chance they have/had of winning the White House next time.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

"Yeah, what is the Trump administration covering up?"

 

assuming he is hiding something is not a logical question, as the article says nothing about Trump hiding anything.

 

but then ignoring the democrat alleged involvement mentioned in the article is not logical either.

 

or ignoring the fact that the Obama appointed ambassador refused visas for the people wanting to give evidence.

 

but it is very biased, and it is expected.

 

that is perspective.

 

The question I posed was to high-light the fact that the first paragraph of the April 7, 2019 link you provided stated "they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act. "

 

You ignore the clear implication that the Trump administration, through incompetence or hostility to the investigation, are preventing the Ukrainians from presenting evidence in the US.  If this is intentional, it is suspicious.

 

I suggest you read the entire article.  I find this part of the article interesting:

 

"One focus of Ukrainian investigators, Kulyk said, has been money spirited unlawfully out of Ukraine and moved to the United States by businessmen friendly to the prior, pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych."

 

 “In addition, these payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company was involved in these payments.”

 

Apparently I'm limited to quoting three sentences, so I omitted the sentence that claimed the company was tied to one or more prominent Democrats.

 

If only Democrats are associated with the illegal money linked to the past pro-Russian government of Ukraine, I'd think the Republicans would be eager to get this evidence.  Yet it appears they aren't.  Trump has been in office for more than two years, so suggesting that an Obama appointed ambassador is responsible is pretty lame. 

 

If it helps, I'll make the question broader:  Why isn't the Trump administration assisting this Ukrainian investigation?

 

Happy?

[elmrfudd]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

The question I posed was to high-light the fact that the first paragraph of the April 7, 2019 link you provided stated "they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act. "

 

You ignore the clear implication that the Trump administration, through incompetence or hostility to the investigation, are preventing the Ukrainians from presenting evidence in the US.  If this is intentional, it is suspicious.

 

I suggest you read the entire article.  I find this part of the article interesting:

 

"One focus of Ukrainian investigators, Kulyk said, has been money spirited unlawfully out of Ukraine and moved to the United States by businessmen friendly to the prior, pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych."

 

 “In addition, these payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company was involved in these payments.”

 

Apparently I'm limited to quoting three sentences, so I omitted the sentence that claimed the company was tied to one or more prominent Democrats.

 

If only Democrats are associated with the illegal money linked to the past pro-Russian government of Ukraine, I'd think the Republicans would be eager to get this evidence.  Yet it appears they aren't.  Trump has been in office for more than two years, so suggesting that an Obama appointed ambassador is responsible is pretty lame. 

 

If it helps, I'll make the question broader:  Why isn't the Trump administration assisting this Ukrainian investigation?

 

Happy?

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?

[Tug]

Wow there are some desulinary folks here or perhaps they have other agendas be that as it may the majority of folks see Donald for what he is

[elmrfudd]

36 minutes ago, Tug said:

Wow there are some desulinary folks here or perhaps they have other agendas be that as it may the majority of folks see Donald for what he is

there is that phony self righteous thing again, pretending to know what the "majority" thinks

[Tug]

4 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

there is that phony self righteous thing again, pretending to know what the "majority" thinks

You are funney

[heybruce]

3 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?

You clearly assume, without evidence, that the US Ambassador to Ukraine, a career foreign service officer with significant experience in central Asia, is obstructing an investigation into unnamed Democrats who are no longer in power.  What makes you so certain?

 

Also, why don't you at least entertain the possibility that the current President, and his State Department and Justice Department, aren't pursuing this because they think the evidence lacks credibility, or, possibly, that more than Democrats will be exposed when that rock is turned over?

 

Read the last two sentences of the article that has you so excited:

 

"If Ukrainian prosecutors can augment their allegations with real evidence, there could be a true case of collusion worth investigating."

"The only question is why the U.S. government so far hasn’t taken interest — and whether Attorney General Barr will change that."

 

It's logical to deduce that the evidence isn't "real", or the Trump administration has concerns about where the investigation will lead.  After all, the article states that Rudy Giuliani knows about some of the allegations.  He's the President's lawyer, why do you think he isn't pressing for more information?

 

As to why the US media isn't all over this (not even Faux News), perhaps they too find the evidence unconvincing.  Perhaps they also think that if Trump isn't trying to make it an issue, there is no there there.