Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[mogandave]

“It’s warm this afternoon”, and then CNBC states that not only was it cooler than average, it was in fact 8% cooler than the twenty year average for that day!
This quote was taken from an even longer list. In fact it's an infinitely long list called "The Things Trump never said and was never accused of lying about"

Sorry, I thought it was clear I made that up. It was a joke, I guess you didn’t think it was funny.

I was making a point about how frivolous some of this crap is.

[sukhumvitneon]

Yawn.

 

Impeachment isn't happening against Trump at any time, ever.

[mogandave]

Also, your "open border" claim is another Trump lie.  Did you adopt it as your own?

 

I understand your team all claim they want border security and immigration reform, I never meant to imply they did not.

 

To be clear, I never said they SAY they want open boarders, I said they WANT open boarders.

 

They pretend they want to secure the border because they know that’s what voters want, but they turn around and do everything possible to undermine any attempt to control the border and stop the flow of illegal aliens.

 

The left’s idea of improving border security is the elimination of ICE.

 

Now you’ll demand I provide something to substantiate my claims, and perhaps you’ll post a link to some long winded article about how Nancy’s plan to control the border is so much better than Trump’s, but we both know that my putting any effort into convincing you of anything is a waste of effort.

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I understand your team all claim they want border security and immigration reform, I never meant to imply they did not.

 

To be clear, I never said they SAY they want open boarders, I said they WANT open boarders.

 

They pretend they want to secure the border because they know that’s what voters want, but they turn around and do everything possible to undermine any attempt to control the border and stop the flow of illegal aliens.

 

The left’s idea of improving border security is the elimination of ICE.

 

Now you’ll demand I provide something to substantiate my claims, and perhaps you’ll post a link to some long winded article about how Nancy’s plan to control the border is so much better than Trump’s, but we both know that my putting any effort into convincing you of anything is a waste of effort.

How would he know since you never try? You just parrot the lies that Trump regularly spouts.

[mogandave]

How would he know since you never try? You just parrot the lies that Trump regularly spouts.

So you disagree that the left undermines virtually every attempt to stop the flow of illegal aliens across the border?

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So you disagree that the left undermines virtually every attempt to stop the flow of illegal aliens across the border?
 

 

Absolutely.

[roobaa01]

1. mueller report is closed no obstruction , no collusion.

2. mueller could have reached the obstruction conclusion.

3. impeachment is the deranged mental off-spring by dems only.

4. 1 rst step by mr. president in the case of impeachment go to the chief of justice

and have it dismissed. impeachment is only for constitutional high crime matters such as treason.

5. senate will dismiss any impeahment motion

 

6. why is the impeachment rubbish still discussed do those followers need help.

7. only 10 % of congress wish impeachment of 451 , thats those socialist losers.

 

wbr

roobaa01

 

[Jingthing]

28 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

1. mueller report is closed no obstruction , no collusion.

2. mueller could have reached the obstruction conclusion.

3. impeachment is the deranged mental off-spring by dems only.

4. 1 rst step by mr. president in the case of impeachment go to the chief of justice

and have it dismissed. impeachment is only for constitutional high crime matters such as treason.

5. senate will dismiss any impeahment motion

 

6. why is the impeachment rubbish still discussed do those followers need help.

7. only 10 % of congress wish impeachment of 451 , thats those socialist losers.

 

wbr

roobaa01

 

So much misinformation there that it isn't even funny.

 

 

[mogandave]

Absolutely.

Okay, but rather than me going to the effort of gathering up measures attempted to slow the flow of illegal aliens crossing the border, why don’t we just pretend I already have? Now you can go ahead and claim the measures would have been ineffective, or not cost effective (how funny is that?), or they were inhuman, of they were racist or whatever, then you can link to a a few left-biased articles that “prove” your point.

You can claim victory and everyone will click “like” on your post, okay?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I understand your team all claim they want border security and immigration reform, I never meant to imply they did not.

 

To be clear, I never said they SAY they want open boarders, I said they WANT open boarders.

 

They pretend they want to secure the border because they know that’s what voters want, but they turn around and do everything possible to undermine any attempt to control the border and stop the flow of illegal aliens.

 

The left’s idea of improving border security is the elimination of ICE.

 

Now you’ll demand I provide something to substantiate my claims, and perhaps you’ll post a link to some long winded article about how Nancy’s plan to control the border is so much better than Trump’s, but we both know that my putting any effort into convincing you of anything is a waste of effort.

I wrote a long post addressing all your concerns, with the emphasis on improving your incredible lack of knowledge about Trump lies, and all you can reply to are the final two sentences. 

 

The rational people (left, right and central) understand that spending tens of billions on fences is idiotic.  The people who live along the border understand this best of all. 

 

Rational people want to increase the number of judges to process asylum claims.  They want to work with Central American countries that have conditions so dire that people will abandon everything and travel thousands of miles for an uncertain future attempting to get into the US.  They want to increase surveillance and security at ports of entry where most of the illegals enter the US.  Rational people want to do rational things.

 

How do you know that you can't convince me with verifiable facts?  Have you or any of the other Trump supporters tried?  If you intend to answer yes, give some examples.

[mogandave]

I wrote a long post addressing all your concerns, with the emphasis on improving your incredible lack of knowledge about Trump lies, and all you can reply to are the final two sentences. 
 
The rational people (left, right and central) understand that spending tens of billions on fences is idiotic.  The people who live along the border understand this best of all. 
 
Rational people want to increase the number of judges to process asylum claims.  They want to work with Central American countries that have conditions so dire that people will abandon everything and travel thousands of miles for an uncertain future attempting to get into the US.  They want to increase surveillance and security at ports of entry where most of the illegals enter the US.  Rational people want to do rational things.
 
How do you know that you can't convince me with verifiable facts?  Have you or any of the other Trump supporters tried?  If you intend to answer yes, give some examples.

See how easy that was? I knew what your answer would be before you did. Anyone that disagrees is irrational, the left’s favorite argument and it can be used to counter any argument.

It is worth noting that many of the people that previously feigned support fo the wall flipped on it in the last few years.

You argue spending tens of billions on fences is idiotic, yet you don’t say why. You claim people on the boarder understand this best, so I assume you have a long-winded article that involves people on the border that explain why the wall won’t work and how everyone that thinks it will work is a fool.

You claim the answer is more judges, but you don’t say how many or where they will they come from.

According to the CBP there were 98,977 Southwest Border appreciations this past April. That’s ~3,299 a day or ~137 per hour.

Each judge will cost AT LEAST three million dollars each year.

Yes, these are apprehensions, not court appearances, but if that many were caught, how many were not caught?

How many “asylum” training services will open up teaching people what to say?

Crossing dropped way down when Trump was elected, but since the press/left has made it clear its business as usual, and has in fact made it more clear to everyone coming the need to apply for asylum when the get here they’ve skyrocketed.

I would very much like to discuss the pros and cons of the wall, but it would be off topic so I will leave it at that.

Sorry, but only have my phone to post with, so writing long, comprehensive answers is difficult, and when they go away for being off-topic or some-such it’s disappointing.

I don’t think I ever said Trump didn’t lie, what I said was that what he lies about has no real impact on my life.

That said, I don’t think everything everyone says that is untrue is a lie.

It’s my opinion that people aren’t lying when they say things they truly believe, even if the things they say are not really true.

For example, I don’t think you’re lying when you say the left does not want open borders, but I don’t think you’re telling the truth.

Thinking about it, having the judges process them in will have the added advantage of putting them on the fast track to voting.....

[mogandave]

How do you know that you can't convince me with verifiable facts?  Have you or any of the other Trump supporters tried?  If you intend to answer yes, give some examples.

Please first define what a verifiable fact is. You (I think) posted as fact an opinion piece stating what Barr said in an interview conflicted with what he had testified, implying Barr was a perjurer.

I read the transcript, and did not see a conflict and attempted to enter into a discussion about it. You mocked me.

It’s (apparently) your position that because you did, any “rational person” would accept the writer’s opinion as fact.

You read an opinion and state it as fact, and when someone disagrees, you post a link to another opinion piece you believes proves your point.

Now if Barr is not convicted of perjury, will you have been a liar? I don’t think so, but by your standard you would be.

Will the author write a retraction and apologize?

I think not

I think the author will write a new article about what a travesty of justice it was and that any “rational person” knows that Barr was guilty. Then you’ll link to the author’s new article and use that to prove you were right all along as well. Of course the author didn’t bother gathering any new information, as the information he had already fit the narrative.

In all honesty, I don’t know if Barr lied or not, but I do know the interview/article/hit-piece you linked to proved nothing.

[Scott]

Posts and replies removed.  

 

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I knew what your answer would be before you did. 

 

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

I don’t think I ever said Trump didn’t lie, what I said was that what he lies about has no real impact on my life.

That said, I don’t think everything everyone says that is untrue is a lie.

It’s my opinion that people aren’t lying when they say things they truly believe, even if the things they say are not really true.




 

 

Actually, that's even worse. That means that Trump isn't even aware of the basic facts about some hugely important issues. That's inexcusable for a chief executive.

[bristolboy]

Here's some news. But since it comes from CNN, there will be many who won't believe it.

The Justice Department on Friday released a more complete transcript of a voice mail from Donald Trump's attorney John Dowd to Rob Kelner, the lawyer for Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn, where he sought information about Flynn's discussions with the special counsel on the eve of his cooperation deal.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/michael-flynn-john-dowd-voicemail/index.html

[candide]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Here's some news. But since it comes from CNN, there will be many who won't believe it.

The Justice Department on Friday released a more complete transcript of a voice mail from Donald Trump's attorney John Dowd to Rob Kelner, the lawyer for Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn, where he sought information about Flynn's discussions with the special counsel on the eve of his cooperation deal.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/michael-flynn-john-dowd-voicemail/index.html

The moron is surrounded by the morons he himself selected. Which lawyer can be stupid enough to leave such a message on a voice mailbox?

[bristolboy]

Actually, what's really interesting is what followed this message. Flynn's lawyers called back to say that they couldn't share information anymore. Here's how they charcterized the response of the President's Counsel:

According to Flynn’s attorneys, the President’s personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement.⁸³⁸ The President’s personal counsel said that he interpreted what they said to him as a reflection of Flynn’s hostility towards the President and that he planned to inform his client of that interpretation.⁸³⁹ Flynn’s attorneys understood that statement to be an attempt to make them reconsider their position because the President’s personal counsel believed that Flynn would be disturbed to know that such a message would be conveyed to the President.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-321

The link isn't all that useful without this information. It's found in Volume 2, page 121

[mogandave]

Actually, that's even worse. That means that Trump isn't even aware of the basic facts about some hugely important issues. That's inexcusable for a chief executive.

In my post I said that I never said Trump didn’t lie.

I know Trump has lied.

I went on to state (in a different paragraph) an opinion on lies in general.

At no time did I say Trump believed what he was lying about.

That makes you a liar.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

See how easy that was? I knew what your answer would be before you did. Anyone that disagrees is irrational, the left’s favorite argument and it can be used to counter any argument.

It is worth noting that many of the people that previously feigned support fo the wall flipped on it in the last few years.

You argue spending tens of billions on fences is idiotic, yet you don’t say why. You claim people on the boarder understand this best, so I assume you have a long-winded article that involves people on the border that explain why the wall won’t work and how everyone that thinks it will work is a fool.

You claim the answer is more judges, but you don’t say how many or where they will they come from.

According to the CBP there were 98,977 Southwest Border appreciations this past April. That’s ~3,299 a day or ~137 per hour.

Each judge will cost AT LEAST three million dollars each year.

Yes, these are apprehensions, not court appearances, but if that many were caught, how many were not caught?

How many “asylum” training services will open up teaching people what to say?

Crossing dropped way down when Trump was elected, but since the press/left has made it clear its business as usual, and has in fact made it more clear to everyone coming the need to apply for asylum when the get here they’ve skyrocketed.

I would very much like to discuss the pros and cons of the wall, but it would be off topic so I will leave it at that.

Sorry, but only have my phone to post with, so writing long, comprehensive answers is difficult, and when they go away for being off-topic or some-such it’s disappointing.

I don’t think I ever said Trump didn’t lie, what I said was that what he lies about has no real impact on my life.

That said, I don’t think everything everyone says that is untrue is a lie.

It’s my opinion that people aren’t lying when they say things they truly believe, even if the things they say are not really true.

For example, I don’t think you’re lying when you say the left does not want open borders, but I don’t think you’re telling the truth.

Thinking about it, having the judges process them in will have the added advantage of putting them on the fast track to voting.....

Not that it's important, but who has reversed their position on the wall?

 

Walls are idiotic because most immigrants enter the country through legal ports of entry.  Walls won't stop people that enter the country legally then overstay.  Walls also won't be much of a deterrent for people who have traveled thousands of miles and crossed jungles, rivers, mountains and deserts to get to the US border. 

 

Walls will also take years to construct, will require expropriation of vast amounts of private land, construction of a stable wall will required dividing ranches and leaving parts of the US on the "Mexico" side of the wall, and will be environmentally disastrous. 

 

If the US is going to spend tens of billions on border security we should spend the money where it will do some good.  Has Trump made any effort to determine the most cost-effective means of securing the border?  I seriously doubt it, he started calling for a wall because it was an easy to understand campaign issue that his base, most of whom live far from the border, liked.

 

Now explain why you think a wall will work.

 

Apparently you think that when Trump makes stuff up and pulls numbers out of his *ss he's not lying.  Do these routine displays of ignorance reassure you?

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Please first define what a verifiable fact is. You (I think) posted as fact an opinion piece stating what Barr said in an interview conflicted with what he had testified, implying Barr was a perjurer.

I read the transcript, and did not see a conflict and attempted to enter into a discussion about it. You mocked me.

It’s (apparently) your position that because you did, any “rational person” would accept the writer’s opinion as fact.

You read an opinion and state it as fact, and when someone disagrees, you post a link to another opinion piece you believes proves your point.

Now if Barr is not convicted of perjury, will you have been a liar? I don’t think so, but by your standard you would be.

Will the author write a retraction and apologize?

I think not

I think the author will write a new article about what a travesty of justice it was and that any “rational person” knows that Barr was guilty. Then you’ll link to the author’s new article and use that to prove you were right all along as well. Of course the author didn’t bother gathering any new information, as the information he had already fit the narrative.

In all honesty, I don’t know if Barr lied or not, but I do know the interview/article/hit-piece you linked to proved nothing.

 

For the purposes of discussion on this forum I regard a verifiable fact as something that actually happened, reported by a credible news source and put in context.

 

I rarely reference opinion pieces, yet you accuse me of doing so and mocking those who disagree with me.  You'll have to provide the posts you think I made before I can respond to that.

[WayWokeWhiteGuy]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, what's really interesting is what followed this message. Flynn's lawyers called back to say that they couldn't share information anymore. Here's how they charcterized the response of the President's Counsel:

According to Flynn’s attorneys, the President’s personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement.⁸³⁸ The President’s personal counsel said that he interpreted what they said to him as a reflection of Flynn’s hostility towards the President and that he planned to inform his client of that interpretation.⁸³⁹ Flynn’s attorneys understood that statement to be an attempt to make them reconsider their position because the President’s personal counsel believed that Flynn would be disturbed to know that such a message would be conveyed to the President.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-321

The link isn't all that useful without this information. It's found in Volume 2, page 121

Did Mueller not already have this information?

 

How is it news?

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, WayWokeWhiteGuy said:

Did Mueller not already have this information?

 

How is it news?

I don't think you understand how this all works. Someone authorized by thaivisa.com chooses a news story. Then members got to comment on it. The comments don't have to be news. (In fact it would be very odd if what we posted was news to a player in the story.) Although I suspect that not everyone on this forum has read the report so it might just possibly be news to at least some of those who haven't read the report. 

[mogandave]

For the purposes of discussion on this forum I regard a verifiable fact as something that actually happened, reported by a credible news source and put in context.
 
I rarely reference opinion pieces, yet you accuse me of doing so and mocking those who disagree with me.  You'll have to provide the posts you think I made before I can respond to that.

I apologize, this was not meant for you, the Barr-tickle I was talking about was linked to by BristolBoy.

That said, if it’s something that actually happened, what difference does it make who reports it?

Thinking about it, the facts aren’t the issues, it’s the propagandizing of the facts that cause the problem.

Media bias would be a great topic, it it would no doubt judged be off-topic here.

Again, my apologies.

[WayWokeWhiteGuy]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't think you understand how this all works. Someone authorized by thaivisa.com chooses a news story. Then members got to comment on it. The comments don't have to be news. (In fact it would be very odd if what we posted was news to a player in the story.) Although I suspect that not everyone on this forum has read the report so it might just possibly be news to at least some of those who haven't read the report. 

Okay, sorry.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, WayWokeWhiteGuy said:

Okay, sorry.

No need to apologize. For a newbie it was a fair question.

[candide]

19 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I apologize, this was not meant for you, the Barr-tickle I was talking about was linked to by BristolBoy.

That said, if it’s something that actually happened, what difference does it make who reports it?

Thinking about it, the facts aren’t the issues, it’s the propagandizing of the facts that cause the problem.

Media bias would be a great topic, it it would no doubt judged be off-topic here.

Again, my apologies.

 

However, there is still a big difference between propagandizing true facts and propagandizing fake facts......

[mogandave]

Post 260

I can’t get the quote to work, but:

Discussing who supported wall funding gets in the weeds, as if you stipulate “Trumps Wall”, dems have not flipped, but walls in general, many have.

Actually I think not just most but all immigrants enter through legal points of entry. It is illegal aliens that come in “legally” and then overstay their visa, or that sneak across the border.

But how does that make the wall idiotic? Does putting insulation in your walls keep all or even most of the heat out or in? No it does not. Does that mean it’s idiotic to insulate your walls? No it does not.

What percentage of the people crossing the border have trekked through jungles, swum rivers, climbed mountains and hiked across sun-parched deserts? Illegal border crossing in an industry. People are driven to the border.

If you saw any of CNN caravan footage, you would think it’s all fat single mothers coming across, and they are definitely not climbing a wall.

That something will take a long time is a good excuse to not do it? The sooner you start the sooner your done. Seems like a great multi-year infrastructure project to me.

To put the cost into perspective, the California Bullet Train cost projection is now $77 billion which is up 20% from just two years ago, and it will likely go as high as $98 billion (that’s b like in bodacious). It’s been delayed another four years so it will not be complete until 2033 at the earliest. The train will continue to hemorrhage money after it’s done, while the starts paying for itself right away.

I’ve driven or ridden over that border at least a hundred times and flown over at least twenty. There is not much of an environment down there. Most of the environmental studies/issues popping up are just designed to stall the project. Every highway, railway, aqueduct and pipeline in the country cut homes farms and ranches in half.

I think we need to have the wall AND do any number of other things, but as long as once they get a foot in they’re in, it a lost cause.

Explain how the wall will work for what? Will it stop all illegal immigration? No.

Is there anything that will stop all illegal immigration? No.

With a wall, people either have to go over, under or around. Far and away, most people can’t go over or under, so they go around, meaning through border crossings. Going through border crossings frees up resources currently wasted patrolling hundreds of miles of dirt.

No, it won’t stop everyone.

[mogandave]

However, there is still a big difference between propagandizing true facts and propagandizing fake facts......

Really? So it’s okay to propagandize “true” facts?

There is no such thing as true facts and fake facts. A fact is by definition true, if it is fake, it is not a fact.

Claiming something as a fact, does not make it a fact.

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Really? So it’s okay to propagandize “true” facts?

There is no such thing as true facts and fake facts. A fact is by definition true, if it is fake, it is not a fact.

Claiming something as a fact, does not make it a fact.

 

You mean like claims that news services reported disagreements with Trump's characterization of the weather as lies?

[mogandave]

You mean like claims that news services reported disagreements with Trump's characterization of the weather as lies?

You’re lying again. The claim was that CNBC reported, not news services.

That’s twice in as many hours.