Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Typo?

 

 

Thanks, it's been corrected.

[riclag]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

There's an excellent article in Slate laying out in detail how Barr lied repeatedly.

Barr Is Lying About Mueller’s Evidence

The attorney general’s falsehoods make his verdict in the Russia investigation worthless.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/barr-lying-mueller-report.html

 A slate Opinion piece based on conspiracy theories

[elmrfudd]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

right, so you think it would have been a different outcome then? 

Trump supporters seemed to think the Russian theft of DNC documents was a significant boost for Trump. Come to think of it, so did Trump.

did they say it swayed the election?

[elmrfudd]

2 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

You seem to be retreating into your own paranoia.

Frustration over getting outdone by a wabbit and duck repeatedly.

 

18 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

you mean like making the unfounded assumption russia changed the election outcome?

Hardly unfounded, certainly uninvestigated in depth. ~77,000 votes in three states swung the election. The trump campaign's data geeks (Brad Parscale, now 2020 chairman) bragged about how they "manipulated" the election in the days after. They quickly stopped that.

 

Robert S. Mueller, May 29, 2019

 

"Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is with interference in the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury by an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization Wikileaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

 

At the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election."

 

I wouldn't expect you to read this or the Muller Report, your head would explode.

 

The election was decided by people voting their own choice, not by facebook ads.

 

you lost, you lost fair and square. get over it, come up with policies that are better

for the vast majority and you will win. 

 

keep trying to blame it on "russia" and you will lose AGAIN

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

did they say it swayed the election?

So they made it a huge issue in the campaign because they were convinced it would have no effect?

[mtls2005]

9 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

The election was decided by people voting their own choice, not by facebook ads.

One could argue that the election was decided by Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, or by the 58% of the voters who voted, or the 29% who voted for trump, or by those who chose not to vote, or by those idiots who came up with the Connecticut Compromise?

 

Understanding the effects that Russia had should be investigated, understood and prevented in the future. To suggest otherwise seems, well, un-patriotic.

[riclag]

MTLS2005

"One could argue that the election was decided by Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, or by the 58% of the voters who voted, or the 29% who voted for trump, or by those who chose not to vote, or by those idiots who came up with the Connecticut Compromise?

 

Understanding the effects that Russia had should be investigated, understood and prevented in the future. To suggest otherwise seems, well, un-patriotic".

 

 

pretty much a everyday occurrence according to the FBI! Its very doubtful that it will ever stop seeing that they invent new ways of discord and propaganda to divide America! But the FBI and intel agencies are trying to keep it in check! Seems like the haters don't want to give it a rest when it comes to Mr. Trump as opposed to all the other years prior to him.  Continuous,beating the drum of divisiveness 

"In response to growing threats from Russia and other adversaries, the F.B.I. recently moved nearly 40 agents and analysts to the counterintelligence division, the senior bureau official said in an interview this month. Many of the agents will work on the Foreign Influence Task Force, a group of cyber, counterintelligence and criminal experts. Officials have made that task force, initially formed on a temporary basis before the midterm elections, permanent".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/us/politics/fbi-russian-election-interference.html  

Edited June 8, 2019 by riclag

[elmrfudd]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

did they say it swayed the election?

So they made it a huge issue in the campaign because they were convinced it would have no effect?

I will ask again, did they say it swayed the election?

[elmrfudd]

58 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

The election was decided by people voting their own choice, not by facebook ads.

One could argue that the election was decided by Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, or by the 58% of the voters who voted, or the 29% who voted for trump, or by those who chose not to vote, or by those idiots who came up with the Connecticut Compromise?

 

Understanding the effects that Russia had should be investigated, understood and prevented in the future. To suggest otherwise seems, well, un-patriotic.

right, so you are against the electoral college, and say Russia should be investigated, but by means of surveillance of american citizens.

 

that seems un-patriotic to me.

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 A slate Opinion piece based on conspiracy theories

Nonsense. Clearly you didn't bother to read it. There is absolutely no mention of conspiracy at all. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It's entirely based on textual analysis comparing what the Mueller report said to Barr's characterization of it.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

right, so you are against the electoral college, and say Russia should be investigated, but by means of surveillance of american citizens.

 

that seems un-patriotic to me.

 

Being against a provision of the constitution is unpatriotic? I guess that's why the Constitution doesn't allow amendments to be made.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

right, so you are against the electoral college, and say Russia should be investigated, but by means of surveillance of american citizens.

 

that seems un-patriotic to me.

 

You think American citizens shouldn't be investigated if there's evidence that they worked with a foreign power? And that it's unpatriotic to do so?

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I will ask again, did they say it swayed the election?

Who is they?

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

3 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

right, so you are against the electoral college, and say Russia should be investigated, but by means of surveillance of american citizens.

 

that seems un-patriotic to me.

 

Being against a provision of the constitution is unpatriotic? I guess that's why the Constitution doesn't allow amendments to be made.

right, so you actually think there would 2/3 voting in both chambers to get rid of it?

 

I see you side stepped the surveillance of american citizens comment, convenient that is

[elmrfudd]

Just now, elmrfudd said:

right, so you actually think there would 2/3 voting in both chambers to get rid of it?

 

I see you side stepped the surveillance of american citizens comment, convenient that is

you could answer that yourself, if you weren't disingenuous

[bristolboy]

26 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

right, so you actually think there would 2/3 voting in both chambers to get rid of it?

 

 

You claimed that it's somehow unpatriotic to be against the electoral college. What does the political reality of the situation have to do with that?

 

27 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

right, so you actually think there would 2/3 voting in both chambers to get rid of it?

 

I see you side stepped the surveillance of american citizens comment, convenient that is

I see you failed to read comment #463

[riclag]

43 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. Clearly you didn't bother to read it. There is absolutely no mention of conspiracy at all. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It's entirely based on textual analysis comparing what the Mueller report said to Barr's characterization of it.

Not nonsense ! The opinion author  is nonsensical . Until  law enforcement(real not retired ,working for news agencies) confirms Barr lied. It's all opinion,nice try

Edited June 8, 2019 by riclag

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Not nonsense ! The opinion author  is nonsensical . Until  law enforcement confirms Barr lied. It's all opinion,nice try

You know, some people actually back up their judgement with facts. Others not so much.  You're the one who claimed conspiracy theories were behind the analysis when if in fact there was absolutely no such thing said in the article. Nothing. Zero. Nada . Zilch.

[riclag]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You know, some people actually back up their judgement with facts. Others not so much.  You're the one who claimed conspiracy theories were behind the analysis when if in fact there was absolutely no such thing said in the article. Nothing. Zero. Nada . Zilch.

The author's opinion ! I don't see Mr. Barr indited for lying or being accused by a law enforcement or prosecutors departments of the United States accusing him  ,fact. any other accusation is opinion that he lied 

Edited June 8, 2019 by riclag

[mtls2005]

53 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

right, so you are against the electoral college,

 

Yes, suspect a majority of Americans are. If it's so great why don't we use it for every election?

 

54 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

and say Russia should be investigated

Yes, of course, who would disagree, I mean other than Vlad.

 

54 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

but by means of surveillance of american citizens.

Huh? You're such a wascal.

 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

The fact is opinion ! I don't see Mr. Barr indited for lying or being accused by a law enforcement or prosecutors departments of the United States accusing him  ,fact. any other accusation is opinion 

Possibly one minor reason for that could be, and I'm only offering this as the slightest possiblity, that lying while it may be morally wrong, is not necessarily a crime unless it is something said under oath. And in that case the legislative body it was said before has to recommend prosecution. None of the statements by Barr questioned in the article were said to the House. Because Barr refuses to appear before it. Only to the Senate, Doubt that the Republican majority Senate has much political appetite for referring Barr's answers to the DOJ.

[mtls2005]

I find it interesting that trump supporters, here and elsewhere, very rarely say that trump is "Innocent".

 

Instead, they twist themselves into pretzels justifying every potential criminal activity.

 

It's almost like they know he's guilty, and still have enough integrity to not lie by saying he is "innocent".

 

Complicit isn't the right word. Nor is Stockholm Syndrome correct. Not sure what it is, maybe like a bad poker player they just keep going all in, in hopes not having to admit the colossal mistake they made wasting their vote on him? Been there, done that: 1973/74.

 

 

[riclag]

54 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

I find it interesting that trump supporters, here and elsewhere, very rarely say that trump is "Innocent".

 

Instead, they twist themselves into pretzels justifying every potential criminal activity.

 

It's almost like they know he's guilty, and still have enough integrity to not lie by saying he is "innocent".

 

Complicit isn't the right word. Nor is Stockholm Syndrome correct. Not sure what it is, maybe like a bad poker player they just keep going all in, in hopes not having to admit the colossal mistake they made wasting their vote on him? Been there, done that: 1973/74.

 

 

I don't consider myself a Trump supporter, For sure it wasn't or isn't a mistake to support his agenda !I do agree with mostly everything on his agenda. I can honestly say I would support anybody who wasn't a politician and was for less Government intrusion in its citizens lives.

 

Could I support a dem,I use to until Barry's last term! Would I support another dem, no, to far left and radical! If a dem won the office, I wouldn't beat him like a red headed step child like the media never trumpers and liberal dems do everyday to Mr. Trump, just to gain power and continue divisiveness that caused the  MAGA movement to begin with! Just my opinion

Edited June 8, 2019 by riclag

[elmrfudd]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

6 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

i posted several sections bruce

When you addressed several sections, post #401, I addressed several sections in post #403.  When you stated the entire bill was written to reduce identity verification, post #410, I addressed that.  You seem to have trouble with numbers.

you seem to leave out the statehood for the democrat controlled washington dc, i am sure that was not intentional

[elmrfudd]

58 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

I find it interesting that trump supporters, here and elsewhere, very rarely say that trump is "Innocent".

 

Instead, they twist themselves into pretzels justifying every potential criminal activity.

 

It's almost like they know he's guilty, and still have enough integrity to not lie by saying he is "innocent".

 

Complicit isn't the right word. Nor is Stockholm Syndrome correct. Not sure what it is, maybe like a bad poker player they just keep going all in, in hopes not having to admit the colossal mistake they made wasting their vote on him? Been there, done that: 1973/74.

 

 

it's almost like you assume guilt to feed an emotional irrational narrative.....

 

but you are of a higher moral and intellectual pedigree than those who do not agree with your opinion, in your opinion.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

it's almost like you assume guilt to feed an emotional irrational narrative.....

 

but you are of a higher moral and intellectual pedigree than those who do not agree with your opinion, in your opinion.

The person who ends every post with "They Lied, They Spied, and they will be tried. pucker up" is accusing others of assuming guilt.  Funny.
 

[elmrfudd]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

it's almost like you assume guilt to feed an emotional irrational narrative.....

 

but you are of a higher moral and intellectual pedigree than those who do not agree with your opinion, in your opinion.

The person who ends every post with "They Lied, They Spied, and they will be tried. pucker up" is accusing others of assuming guilt.  Funny.

were you man that had a mueller bat symbol? that may have been the other uber leftist Jingthing...not sure

 

 

as the IG report gets released and more information gets released, then we will surely have another conversation.

but then you knew nothing nefarious was done by the fbi and doj even before that.....because you just know it.

[Sujo]

It is painfully obvious those that defend trump havent read the mueller report. They just repeat fox soundbites.

 

Unfortunately mueller will have to testify to congress to reiterate what he has written so that the lies coming from his defenders can be put to rest.

[mtls2005]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

it's almost like you assume guilt to feed an emotional irrational narrative.....

I assume guilt based on the facts. "Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up"

 

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

but you are of a higher moral and intellectual pedigre

Aw shucks. Flattery will get you everywhere.

 

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

were you man that had a mueller bat symbol? that may have been the other uber leftist Jingthing...not sure

 

 

as the IG report gets released and more information gets released, then we will surely have another conversation.

but then you knew nothing nefarious was done by the fbi and doj even before that.....because you just know it.

I have very high confidence that nothing nefarious was done by the FBI and (before Barr) the DOJ because I have confidence in the professionalism of the people in both organizations.  I also have confidence in Trump's lack of professionalism as well as his lack of honor, ethics, dignity, etc.

 

For this reason I'm sure the investigation of the investigators will be as unproductive as Trump's commission to find the millions of illegal voters.  Of course that doesn't mean Trump won't keep the nonsense going through the 2020 campaign and repeatedly claim they are finding unbelievable things.