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

[xylophone]

13 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

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

Just watch and see with your own eyes............

 

There you go……….your favourite clown, in person, on video/tv/livecast etc spouting forth his lies.

Watch and weep.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/01/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.379102c451c0

 

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/  

 

 

[elmrfudd]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

You are funney

thank you tug,

 

let's hope you are still in good humor after the IG report

[Tug]

13 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

let's hope you are still in good humor after the IG report

I will be delighted when we get the full un redacted report rwayit goes if Donald isent a criminal that’s good if he is off to Leavenworth 

[spidermike007]

No doubt this is a major cover up, and Barr is a man that cannot be trusted to honor the oath he took, as the attorney general. He is partisan, to say the least.

[bristolboy]

13 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

 The massive donations to the Clinton foundation were fake? 

 

 

 

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

You mean the book by Schweitzer who back then worked for Breitbart?

Anyway, it's mostly nonsense

9 agencies had to approve the deal. The lead agency was not the State dept but the treasury dept. No evidence at all the clinton participated in the deal which was handled for State by an Undersecretary.  What's more all these department had only an advisory role. The President could approve or deny unilaterally. Politifact rated all these allegations as mostly false.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/

 

[bristolboy]

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?

It's too bad that modern communication methods haven't reached the Ukraine yet. You know, something called the telephone. I've even heard bizarre rumors about something called the internet. If the Ukranians had access to those they could contact Secretary Pompeo personally. Or maybe a fellow called John Bolton. Or their assistants. Or ther like-minded members of the Trump Administrtion.But of course, even if they did, there is absolutely no one in the Trump administration who would do anything to go after alleged misdeeds by the Democrats. Certainly not President Trump who is not in the least bit vindictive or defensive. But if these improbable condtitions were somehow to actually be the case, that would render this report and your belief in it absurd.

[wayned]

5 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

No doubt this is a major cover up, and Barr is a man that cannot be trusted to honor the oath he took, as the attorney general. He is partisan, to say the least.

Of course he is partisan!  I suspect that he is hoping the either RBG retires or kicks the bucket while Trump is still president and Trump nominates him for the Supreme Court.

[elmrfudd]

22 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

No doubt this is a major cover up, and Barr is a man that cannot be trusted to honor the oath he took, as the attorney general. He is partisan, to say the least.

zero evidence of that claim, but if it makes you feel better, ok

[elmrfudd]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's too bad that modern communication methods haven't reached the Ukraine yet. You know, something called the telephone. I've even heard bizarre rumors about something called the internet. If the Ukranians had access to those they could contact Secretary Pompeo personally. Or maybe a fellow called John Bolton. Or their assistants. Or ther like-minded members of the Trump Administrtion.But of course, even if they did, there is absolutely no one in the Trump administration who would do anything to go after alleged misdeeds by the Democrats. Certainly not President Trump who is not in the least bit vindictive or defensive. But if these improbable condtitions were somehow to actually be the case, that would render this report and your belief in it absurd.

how do you know they haven't had contact?  answer; you don't

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

 

 

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?

Because if the justice department actually was working with them on this, they wouldn't have used John Solomon to make their case. They wouldn't have needed to. If anything, they would have kept it hushed to allow the Justice Dept. to investigate. 

[elmrfudd]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean the book by Schweitzer who back then worked for Breitbart?

Anyway, it's mostly nonsense

9 agencies had to approve the deal. The lead agency was not the State dept but the treasury dept. No evidence at all the clinton participated in the deal which was handled for State by an Undersecretary.  What's more all these department had only an advisory role. The President could approve or deny unilaterally. Politifact rated all these allegations as mostly false.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/

 

well if you think it, it simply must be true. or not

 

 

In a written statement to three congressional committees, informant Douglas Campbell said Russian nuclear executives told him that Moscow hired American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide to influence Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, among others in the Obama administration, The Hill reported on Wednesday.

Campbell said Russian nuclear officials expected APCO to apply its $3 million annual lobbying fee from Moscow toward the Clintons’ Global Initiative. The contract detailed four $750,000 payments over a year’s time.

“APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement,” Campbell stated.

 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-routed-millions-influence-clinton-uranium-deal-informant-tells-congress-801686

 

of course, they deny it, so it must be a lie....in your opinion.

[elmrfudd]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Because if the justice department actually was working with them on this, they wouldn't have used John Solomon to make their case. They wouldn't have needed to. If anything, they would have kept it hushed to allow the Justice Dept. to investigate. 

is reporting on something "making a case"

 

who knew......

[elmrfudd]

34 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean the book by Schweitzer who back then worked for Breitbart?

Anyway, it's mostly nonsense

9 agencies had to approve the deal. The lead agency was not the State dept but the treasury dept. No evidence at all the clinton participated in the deal which was handled for State by an Undersecretary.  What's more all these department had only an advisory role. The President could approve or deny unilaterally. Politifact rated all these allegations as mostly false.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/

 

politifact?

 

you mean the site founded by democrat Bill Adair and run by democrats? 

 

they must be fair and impartial then and taken as the arbiter of truth.   or not....

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

is reporting on something "making a case"

 

who knew......

I think the first 2 paragraphs of that story pretty much established how this report came about

"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.

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."

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

politifact?

 

you mean the site founded by democrat Bill Adair and run by democrats? 

 

they must be fair and impartial then and taken as the arbiter of truth.   or not....

You mean the site that called Obama's claim that you can keep your health insurance "The Lie of the Year" is pro-Democratic?

And where's your evidence that Bill Adair is a Democrat? Apart from that fact that he believes in hard evidence and fact-checking.

 

[elmrfudd]

18 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I think the first 2 paragraphs of that story pretty much established how this report came about

"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.

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."

that is an assumption that the DOJ didn't have information prior to the story

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

that is an assumption that the DOJ didn't have information prior to the story

Once again, here's a sentence from that story:

"But, they say, they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act."

[elmrfudd]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Once again, here's a sentence from that story:

"But, they say, they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act."

not taking action in a quick manner is not the same thing as not having information

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

not taking action in a quick manner is not the same thing as not having information

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Donald Rumsfield

Rational people would argue otherwise. Especially when there is evidence to the contrary.

[elmrfudd]

49 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Donald Rumsfield

Rational people would argue otherwise. Especially when there is evidence to the contrary.

you can draw any assumption you want, it doesn't make it true

your determination of rational people would be those that agree with your opinion of course.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I think the first 2 paragraphs of that story pretty much established how this report came about

"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.

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."

You're wasting your time with elmrfudd.  He finds an article that opens with a statement condemning the Trump Justice Department, ends by asking why the Trump administration hasn't taken an interest in the Ukrainian investigation, and describes many missed opportunities by the Trump administration to look at the evidence, and all he sees is that one investigator claims the US ambassador blocked a visa request.  Of course to his mind that must be Obama's fault.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

you can draw any assumption you want, it doesn't make it true

your determination of rational people would be those that agree with your opinion of course.

No, it's based on those who use evidence and not the lack of it to support their case.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 5:16 PM, xylophone said:

You really must take those blinkers off..........

 

There are over 3000 (or is it 5000) lies which have been logged by this orange clown, and that's just a start (look them up yourself if you are that disbelieving, but they are out there and they are logged and can be seen and heard when this idiot opens his mouth).

 

He has been bankrupted five times and thereby got out of paying his dues; his organisation has hired and used illegal immigrant labour (settled out of court) and although he denies it, a large payment to a certain woman who claims to have had an affair with him, which would have been totally unnecessary if he hadn't, however both she and the orange clown's lawyer have testified that this was the case, as have others.

 

And of course comments about being able to "grab pussy or do anything you want with women" because he is famous, have been recorded, so exactly what decent person would want this man leading the country? That fall into the description of a misogynist............. "Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny manifests in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, disenfranchisement of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification".

 

Many more out there elmr, however I suspect that your comment could well be from someone suffering from a "Trump lovers condition", whereby everything is normal in this dumb world of the orange clown, and there are people who believe him – – God help America. 

 

PS. 

Just to help you a little more, there are video clips of him spouting off his lies, and even in these video clips when showed them, he denies that he spoke those comments, when it clearly shows he did! How dumb is that?

 

Also check out the statistics that he regularly spouts forth, and you'll find out that they are wrong......and, and, and.......Climate change; no way.......etc etc.

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.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes 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.

 

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!

 

[elmrfudd]

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You're wasting your time with elmrfudd.  He finds an article that opens with a statement condemning the Trump Justice Department, ends by asking why the Trump administration hasn't taken an interest in the Ukrainian investigation, and describes many missed opportunities by the Trump administration to look at the evidence, and all he sees is that one investigator claims the US ambassador blocked a visa request.  Of course to his mind that must be Obama's fault.

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

[elmrfudd]

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No, it's based on those who use evidence and not the lack of it to support their case.

your opinions are are not evidence....wait in your opinion, it is. sorry forgot who we were dealing with

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

your opinions are are not evidence....wait in your opinion, it is. sorry forgot who we were dealing with

I have provided plenty of evidence. You're the one who claims that because who knows the justice department may be pursuing this case, therefore no reasoned judgement on the issue is possible. 

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

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

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"? "

[Patriot1066]

On 4/8/2019 at 5:46 AM, elmrfudd said:

what precisely has been "proven"?

That democratically elected and this popular President Trump was innocent as was his campaign?

 

Despite the Dems and their press pack running a programme of hate against the Donald.

 

However, the Dems still can’t accept it or their as you say blinkered supporters

[Patriot1066]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I have provided plenty of evidence. You're the one who claims that because who knows the justice department may be pursuing this case, therefore no reasoned judgement on the issue is possible. 

No but at the moment surely you must accept there was no evidence that Trump was guilty of the treasonous charges he was wrongly accused of.

 

it is irrelevant if, and I mean if as you or I do not know if anyone else is looking to try to find some reason to politically find something that could be put to court.

 

The Dems don’t seem to be able to fight a straight campaign so do what the left often do by trying to demonise their opponents, by dog whistle politics.

 

But the Donald will win his second term as at the confidentially of the ballot box he will get the votes.