Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Mueller - "Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy.The Russian govt's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious."

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Disappointed that we have to wait until next week for this clown to be taken to the woodshed.

Do you really, truly, actually think this is going to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bucky86 said:

:lol: John F. Solomon is an American media executive and political commentator. He is currently executive vice president of digital video and an opinion contributor for The Hill.[1] He was formerly employed as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[2] He is known for biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals.[3][4][5]

:lol:

The guy has left a trail of firings, forced resignations, and Uranium One stories over the past 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Dossier found to be garbage by FBI

This is going to get ugly

paragraph 4: author claims the dossier was disproven, citing the Mueller report.  Is this accurate?  It's my understanding that Mueller barely touched on information from the dossier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, mr roboto said:

Do you really, truly, actually think this is going to happen?

Yes, he/they do.  But he/they also have not seen compelling evidence of man made climate change and don’t believe Trumps comments recently were bigoted, so 🤷‍♂️

Edited by dkp993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said:

Disappointed that we have to wait until next week for this clown to be taken to the woodshed.

Not supposed to call Trump names like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bananafish said:

They're asking Mueller to testify because there's been so much deliberate misinformation bandied about (exonerates the President, no collusion), that many will be hearing what's actually in the report for the first time (hint: it does not exonerate the President and there was plenty of collusion).

Before Amash left the party, he gave a speech calling on other other Republicans to stand up to Trump using quotes directly from the report. Many in the audience were shocked that it said anything negative at all about the President, let alone provided stark evidence of his lies, total disregard for the law, and concrete efforts to obstruct the investigation. Clearly they had been led to believe the exact opposite. By whom I wonder?

Of course Amash was attacked mercilessly by "Republicans" and ultimately banished from the party. For quoting and drawing conclusions from the report. 

If nothing else, the report should put Trump's claims of "fake news" and "witchhunt" to bed once and for all, as well as convince any reader, Trump fan or no, that the man is virtually incapable of telling the truth. Instead you have legions of people cheering the report as if it proves he was right all along and contains evidence of a deep state conspiracy. People actually think Mueller's testimony will be GOOD for the President and are relishing the comeuppance Democrats will receive. If Mueller just sticks to the report it will be anything but. 

Like I said earlier, almost every piece of news by the MSM on Trump's ties to Russia and obstruction that he decried as fake news was proven absolutely correct by Mueller's report, a fact which I haven't heard a single one of his supporters address. In fact, you could even say that it provides a textbook on how good journalism is done. 

Instead of being lauded for holding the Administration accountable and upholding their duty as the fourth estate which is crucial to a functioning democracy, they've been demonized as "the enemy of the people". I mean, journalists have been murdered right here in our own country and people barely batted an eye, if not downright applauded. It's crazy. 

In this very thread you have posters ridiculing others for buying into the "Russia Hoax" and falling victim to Trump Derangement Syndrome, as if their concerns about our government are something to be ashamed of. 

While it should be absolutely crystal clear who the hoax is on and exactly who might qualify as deranged, not one Trump supporter will address this post, just like they didn't respond to my previous post about the Mueller report. The posts are 100% factually correct and I challenge anyone to show where I've stated anything that is remotely false or misleading.

"But Hillarys" or CNN's low ratings or quotes from Bill Barr don't count as anything but deflection and attempts to muddy the water, not that they won't try anyway. It's all they have left. 

I urge those that support the President to turn off Fox News for a moment and investigate what I've said. Prove me wrong. If I am it should be easy and I'll gladly eat my crow. I'd much rather do that than be forced to accept that much of the country simply isn't interested in facts anymore. 

If just one person takes what I've written to heart and cracks their mind open to the mere possibilty that Trump might not be the best thing for the country, then the time I spent writing this long-### post will have been well spent. I have my doubts but I also have hope. 

We can't give up on America. Not yet.

So Mueller referring to his report is somehow better than what is actually in the report.  These are wonderful sentiments and yes, rah rah america.  But that isn't the point of this hearing..In fact, I don't know what is.  

The man said he will only discuss what he had in the report.   I'm not sure why everyone thinks that this would be different?

 

ETA...Again, reactions like this are exactly what I am talking about.  Emotional, full of all kinds of things, but completely not relevant to the question or topic.

The report said what it said..It isn't changing.  Mueller is not going to come out with some gem that he didn't put in it.  Decisions have been made about the report and Mueller testifying, where he has said he will only refer back to the report, is a waste of time.  Clearly you have already made your decision about what the report contains and you're some nobody on a message board---so what again is the point of the hearing?

Edited by supermike80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

So Mueller referring to his report is somehow better than what is actually in the report.

The man said he will only discuss what he had in the report.   I'm not sure why everyone thinks that this would be different?

I completely agree he will stick to only what’s in the report and this is largely a wasted exercise, as no one who currently has an opinion will change said opinion, I do hope that while sticking to the report he clarifies or add a little color to the meaning of the stuff in the report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

So Mueller referring to his report is somehow better than what is actually in the report.  These are wonderful sentiments and yes, rah rah america.  But that isn't the point of this hearing..In fact, I don't know what is.  

The man said he will only discuss what he had in the report.   I'm not sure why everyone thinks that this would be different?

Break this down for me please.  You don't know the point, but you DO know what the point isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, huthut said:

Telesur is the Venezuela state run media and is no more reputable than Russia Today when it comes to its anti-democracy, pro-dictatorship agenda. I mean, it is definitely plausible that Glennwald is being threatened by Brazil for exposing corruption, but that does not tie into the second thought at all. It was the only the beginning of this year when Putin sent Russian mercenaries to guard Maduro from the threat of a coup, probably so they could keep looting the country in peace. Him being boosted by Telesur increases the chances he is a Russian agent/useful idiot, it does not decrease it. 

Most of us know what Greenwald is at this stage.  As you say, linking to media networks run by authoritarians just bolsters that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Break this down for me please.  You don't know the point, but you DO know what the point isn't?

Sorry.   You are right.  To clarify, i don't know what the point of the hearing is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Sorry.   You are right.  To clarify, i don't know what the point of the hearing is.  

People have told you.  It's a reality that we live in a soundbyte world.  Vocal support and soundbytes matter to some....it's all some care to pay attention to.  The people that this is going to mean something to aren't the people who follow this stuff closely.  For those people (who follow this stuff closely) this will be, at best, a "I told you so" moment for those pushing back on all the intentionally false narratives that were created.  I am willing to bet, many people who watch will be hearing a lot of things for the first time.  I am also willing to bet that they are going to hear things that fly directly in the face of what their friend Joe Bob has been telling them.  If it gets people paying closer attention to reality and focus away from the talking points designed to keep them on board, then that's a win for the country....especially in this day and age.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

People have told you.  It's a reality that we live in a soundbyte world.  Vocal support and soundbytes matter to some....it's all some care to pay attention to.  The people that this is going to mean something to aren't the people who follow this stuff closely.  For those people (who follow this stuff closely) this will be, at best, a "I told you so" moment for those pushing back on all the intentionally false narratives that were created.  I am willing to bet, many people who watch will be hearing a lot of things for the first time.  I am also willing to bet that they are going to hear things that fly directly in the face of what their friend Joe Bob has been telling them.  If it gets people paying closer attention to reality and focus away from the talking points designed to keep them on board, then that's a win for the country....especially in this day and age.

People have given me their opinions.  Doesn't at all mean I have to accept their opinions.  You know that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/17/2019 at 10:08 AM, supermike80 said:

So Mueller referring to his report is somehow better than what is actually in the report.

The man said he will only discuss what he had in the report.   I'm not sure why everyone thinks that this would be different?

Because the administration and the right-wing media have fed the public a steady diet of lies about what's in the report and 99% or more of them haven't bothered to read it for themselves because they trust what they're being told is "real news". It's so disingenuous on it's face but it's worked. Over and over and over again.

Why they continue to be trusted is beyond me, but it's an interesting example of how powerless logic and reason are versus emotion and confirmation bias. Not just for Trump fans or Republicans but all human beings. 

There's a few notable exceptions of truth-telling by people on the right that still think integrity is worth something, but by far the vast majority of information disseminated by Republicans and the right-leaning media (like 99.9%) is either outright false or, more commonly, takes a small kernel of truth and magnifies its supposed importance to such a degree that it "proves" some ridiculous claim like the Russia investigation was a hoax or the report exonerates Trump or he was simply following Obama's policy of child separation. 

There's a million other examples and more every day (just see Don't Noonan's post above if you don't believe me). That's not to say that the left has never done anything similar or that everything the regular "fake news" media reports should be swallowed whole. But this has become the norm, the deliberate, blanket strategy of the right and their enablers in the media. 

This is not my opinion or my slant or my "take" on the news of the day. This is another FACT that cannot be disputed by anyone arguing in good faith and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I'm not talking about attacks on the margins or bringing up tangentially related issues or the dictionary definition of words or how some extreme example is representative of the whole or whatever means folks use to avoid addressing the subject. 

What I am saying is, as a general rule,  TRUMP, REPUBLICANS, AND THE MEDIA ON THE RIGHT LIE TO YOU ALL DAY EVERY DAY WITHOUT EXCEPTION. It's their business model. Their standard operating procedure. Their mission statement, raison d'etre, whatever you want to call it. I wish somebody would take me up on the challenge and prove that to be false. We'd be better off if that was the case. 

But they can't so they join in the "fun".

Yes, there are a few instances of the right spilling the truth or "telling it like it is" for real, but they're so rare that they make news themselves, like Sheppard Smith or Mitt Romney occasionally do. But a brief glimpse of a unicorn shouldn't be taken as proof that all horses have horns, especially when the unicorns face unrelenting criticism for not following the playbook.

The point of Mueller's testimony is to push back on the false narratives that surround the work he did for our country and have thus far overpowered what the report actually says. I don't know that it will make a meaningful difference, but it's worth a try and they don't have a lot of other options. 

This is a battle of truth versus propaganda and truth isn't doing so hot. It's Trump's upside-down world we are living in and he's unquestionably a master at it.

Edited by bananafish
added "fun"
  • Like 9
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bananafish said:

Because the administration and the right-wing media have fed the public a steady diet of lies about what's in the report and 99% or more of them haven't bothered to read it for themselves because they trust what they're being told is "real news". It's so disingenuous on it's face but it's worked. Over and over and over again.

Why they continue to be trusted is beyond me, but it's an interesting example of how powerless logic and reason are versus emotion and confirmation bias. Not just for Trump fans or Republicans but all human beings. 

There's a few notable exceptions of truth-telling by people on the right that still think integrity is worth something, but by far the vast majority of information disseminated by Republicans and the right-leaning media (like 99.9%) is either outright false or, more commonly, takes a small kernel of truth and magnifies its supposed importance to such a degree that it "proves" some ridiculous claim like the Russia investigation was a hoax or the report exonerates Trump or he was simply following Obama's policy of child separation. 

There's a million other examples and more every day (just see Don't Noonan's post above if you don't believe me). That's not to say that the left has never done anything similar or that everything the regular "fake news" media reports should be swallowed whole. But this has become the norm, the deliberate, blanket strategy of the right and their enablers in the media. 

This is not my opinion or my slant or my "take" on the news of the day. This is another FACT that cannot be disputed by anyone arguing in good faith and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I'm not talking about attacks on the margins or bringing up tangentially related issues or the dictionary definition of words or how some extreme example is representative of the whole or whatever means folks use to avoid addressing the subject. 

What I am saying is, as a general rule,  TRUMP, REPUBLICANS, AND THE MEDIA ON THE RIGHT LIE TO YOU ALL DAY EVERY DAY WITHOUT EXCEPTION. It's their business model. Their standard operating procedure. Their mission statement, raison d'etre, whatever you want to call it. I wish somebody would take me up on the challenge and prove that to be false. We'd be better off if that was the case. 

But they can't so they join in the "fun".

Yes, there are a few instances of the right spilling the truth or "telling it like it is" for real, but they're so rare that they make news themselves, like Sheppard Smith or Mitt Romney occasionally do. But a brief glimpse of a unicorn shouldn't be taken as proof that all horses have horns, especially when the unicorns face unrelenting criticism for not following the playbook.

The point of Mueller's testimony is to push back on the false narratives that surround the work he did for our country and have thus far overpowered what the report actually says. I don't know that it will make a meaningful difference, but it's worth a try and they don't have a lot of other options. 

This is a battle of truth versus propaganda and truth isn't doing so hot. It's Trump's upside-down world we're are living in and he's unquestionably a master at it.

Damn..You put a lot into this and I don't want to challenge it except to say your opinion of FACT, is just that, opinion.    But at a minimum I hope this explosion made you feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bananafish said:

Because the administration and the right-wing media have fed the public a steady diet of lies about what's in the report and 99% or more of them haven't bothered to read it for themselves because they trust what they're being told is "real news". It's so disingenuous on it's face but it's worked. Over and over and over again.

I know the Republican Senators and Congressmen have mostly claimed they have not read the report, I very much doubt it. IMO, there's no way they didn't all rush to read it the minute it was available to them. The fact that they deny reading it indicates to me that they know its bad for Trump. They're relying on Barr to establish the narrative and handle the media. If you haven't read it, you can't answer questions. But I find it very hard to believe they haven't read it.

I also don't believe Barr when he claims to have not reviewed the underlying evidence. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

I know the Republican Senators and Congressmen have mostly claimed they have not read the report, I very much doubt it. IMO, there's no way they didn't all rush to read it the minute it was available to them. The fact that they deny reading it indicates to me that they know its bad for Trump. They're relying on Barr to establish the narrative and handle the media. If you haven't read it, you can't answer questions. But I find it very hard to believe they haven't read it.

I also don't believe Barr when he claims to have not reviewed the underlying evidence. 

I really want to believe the bolded is true but this sounds more hopeful than anything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is not reading it allows you to say any damned thing you want to say and then when asked about the report’s finding on it say you have no earthly idea.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The answer is not reading it allows you to say any damned thing you want to say and then when asked about the report’s finding on it say you have no earthly idea.

I agree with this, I just have a hard time believing after this 2 year investigation they all just shrugged their shoulders. Again IMO, they've read it - they just deny it for the reasons you stated.

Assuming they have read it, I can only think of one reason they would have to deny it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

I agree with this, I just have a hard time believing after this 2 year investigation they all just shrugged their shoulders. Again IMO, they've read it - they just deny it for the reasons you stated.

Assuming they have read it, I can only think of one reason they would have to deny it.

I don't think they've read it. At all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

I don't think they've read it. At all.

Right. As I've posted many times, the republicans today are the party of willful ignorance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Damn..You put a lot into this and I don't want to challenge it except to say your opinion of FACT, is just that, opinion.    But at a minimum I hope this explosion made you feel better.

How is that an opinion? It wouldn't be hard to verify one way or the other which is not a characteristic of an opinion. Yes/no. Right/wrong. This is the realm of facts.

I'll humor you for a minute on the off chance you actually want to know the truth and aren't just dodging the issue like everyone else. We'll know the answer soon enough. 

Let's try an experiment, you know, like science does to prove things and uncover facts. Unless you don't care about those things, which would hardly make you unusual when it come to Trump. Your choice: 5 minutes to get the facts about Trump and the right-wing media or, as I expect you to do, just dismiss it with a bad attempt at humor ("I hope this explosion made you feel better") and go on your merry way. At least then we'll know what your agenda is and how seriously to take your posts. 

 

Go to Fox News (or any other right-leaning site you prefer) and look at their reporting of, say, the Mueller report since we're on that subject (pick a different one if you want, it doesn't matter).

Does it talk about what's in the report or anything BUT what's in the report? Taking sentence fragments out of context like Barr did doesn't count. In fact, that's evidence the other way.

Does it talk about the 10 instances of potential obstruction in the report or just that Mueller didn't indict him (conveniently leaving out that he couldn't)?

Does it talk about the 100+ times Trump's campaign had contact with Russians or Russian affiliates or does it leave that out and simply state that nobody was indicted? If the latter, does it include that he didn't indict Don Jr. because he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Don Jr. knew he was breaking the law (because he did, in fact, break the law)? Or that getting to the truth about Russia was impossible because Trump officials lied to him and destroyed evidence?

I haven't looked at Fox News and don't have to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it'll be full Republican politicians and pundits claiming that Mueller's testimony will be good for Trump, embarrassing for Democrats, and proof that the investigation was rigged or somehow unfair to the President. 

They won't talk about about what Mueller's actually said or written or if they do it will be done in a manner such to misconstrue the obvious, original meaning of his words. 

Fair enough?

Go get 'em tiger. Surprise me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your opinion of facts are just an opinion.  Ool

In this "brave new world" all opinions are valid. You can believe 1+1=2 but I say 1+1=3. How dare you infer I'm wrong. 

Also, you just may be a member of a cult if you believe this kind of nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Banana - I respect the effort.  But the Trump clan in this forum rarely if even engages substantively on any topic.  Just take a peak in the Great Thread this afternoon:  they are more interested in pot shots, laughing about yelling MAGA in public to get reactions, and where to get cool and knockoff Trump gear.  

I'd recommend not wasting your time.

Edited by zoonation
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, zoonation said:

Banana - I respect the effort.  But the Trump clan in this forum rarely if even engages substantively on any topic.  Just take a peak in the Great Thread this afternoon:  they are more interested in pot shots, laughing about yelling MAGA in public to get reactions, and where to get cool and knockoff Trump gear.  

I'd recommend not wasting your time.

Weird place to get on a soap box about substance.

All this anti Trump clan engaging "substantively" for 2300+ pages on a topic that resulted in... nothing.

A big ole 2300+ page nothing burger.

 

Edited by matuski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zoonation said:

Banana - I respect the effort.  But the Trump clan in this forum rarely if even engages substantively on any topic.  Just take a peak in the Great Thread this afternoon:  they are more interested in pot shots, laughing about yelling MAGA in public to get reactions, and where to get cool and knockoff Trump gear.  

I'd recommend not wasting your time.

Oh, I'm well aware of the Trump Bunch's preferred method of engagement and have set my expectations accordingly.

However, the usual back-and-forth gets us nowhere (exactly as it's meant to), so I thought I'd take a different tack and ask them to compare the facts to what they are being told. Maybe someone somewhere will actually do it and realize what they've been buying into.

3 posts asking for a shred of evidence that the powers that be on the right are not engaged in constant, habitual lying to deflect from the truth. Zero responses. 

So now we know where they stand which is progress of a sort. They're telling us not to take their posting seriously which I already knew but it's good to remove all doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, matuski said:

Weird place to get on a soap box about substance.

All this anti Trump clan engaging "substantively" for 2300+ pages on a topic that resulted in... nothing.

A big ole 2300+ page nothing burger.

 

What's it like being right all the time?

You must be proud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bananafish said:

What's it like being right all the time?

You must be proud. 

Talk about a waste of time...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bananafish said:

What's it like being right all the time?

You must be proud. 

I wouldn't know.

I mean, yea I nailed the nothing burger call... but you seem to be giving me too much credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mr roboto said:

Talk about a waste of time...

2300+ pages of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did this thread go beyond the benghazi thread in pages of wasted time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bananafish said:

How is that an opinion? It wouldn't be hard to verify one way or the other which is not a characteristic of an opinion. Yes/no. Right/wrong. This is the realm of facts.

I'll humor you for a minute on the off chance you actually want to know the truth and aren't just dodging the issue like everyone else. We'll know the answer soon enough. 

Let's try an experiment, you know, like science does to prove things and uncover facts. Unless you don't care about those things, which would hardly make you unusual when it come to Trump. Your choice: 5 minutes to get the facts about Trump and the right-wing media or, as I expect you to do, just dismiss it with a bad attempt at humor ("I hope this explosion made you feel better") and go on your merry way. At least then we'll know what your agenda is and how seriously to take your posts. 

 

Go to Fox News (or any other right-leaning site you prefer) and look at their reporting of, say, the Mueller report since we're on that subject (pick a different one if you want, it doesn't matter).

Does it talk about what's in the report or anything BUT what's in the report? Taking sentence fragments out of context like Barr did doesn't count. In fact, that's evidence the other way.

Does it talk about the 10 instances of potential obstruction in the report or just that Mueller didn't indict him (conveniently leaving out that he couldn't)?

Does it talk about the 100+ times Trump's campaign had contact with Russians or Russian affiliates or does it leave that out and simply state that nobody was indicted? If the latter, does it include that he didn't indict Don Jr. because he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Don Jr. knew he was breaking the law (because he did, in fact, break the law)? Or that getting to the truth about Russia was impossible because Trump officials lied to him and destroyed evidence?

I haven't looked at Fox News and don't have to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it'll be full Republican politicians and pundits claiming that Mueller's testimony will be good for Trump, embarrassing for Democrats, and proof that the investigation was rigged or somehow unfair to the President. 

They won't talk about about what Mueller's actually said or written or if they do it will be done in a manner such to misconstrue the obvious, original meaning of his words. 

Fair enough?

Go get 'em tiger. Surprise me. 

Honey.....The media is biased.  This isn't new news.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the majority of folks who haven't read the report, MSNBC is doing a primer this Sunday at 9pm EST. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, matuski said:

Did this thread go beyond the benghazi thread in pages of wasted time?

100s of pages beyond.  And people died in Benghazi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

100s of pages beyond.  And people died in Benghazi. 

And Russia did interfere in the elections.

The events happened.

Pinning them on Clinton and Trump were pure partisan endeavors clearly destined to fail from the start. Ie nothing burgers.

Edited by matuski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matuski said:

And Russia did interfere in the elections.

The events happened.

Pinning them on Clinton and Trump were pure partisan endeavors clearly destined to fail from the start.

Or because ot was determined the Russian efforts were to help trump...and Trump campaign  met with Russians and lied over and over about those multiple meetings?  We could easily go kn and on to shown that it wasn't nothing...but you won't ever agree .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Or because ot was determined the Russian efforts were to help trump...and Trump campaign  met with Russians and lied over and over about those multiple meetings?  We could easily go kn and on to shown that it wasn't nothing...but you won't ever agree .  

Right, so put him on ignore. He's desperately in need of attention. Please don't give him anymore. TIA

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Or because ot was determined the Russian efforts were to help trump...and Trump campaign  met with Russians and lied over and over about those multiple meetings?  We could easily go kn and on to shown that it wasn't nothing...but you won't ever agree .  

There is no longer a debate.

Like Beghazi, the Mueller nothing burger has been sitting out so long it is getting cold.

Waste of time confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Right, so put him on ignore. He's desperately in need of attention. Please don't give him anymore. TIA

:lmao:

Someone that knows how to do so please share my posting frequency in this place alongside Bucky's.

I would be willing to bet Bucky has as many posts in this thread alone as I do in the PSF combined.

Edited by matuski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matuski said:

There is no longer a debate.

Like Beghazi, the Mueller nothing burger has been sitting out so long it is getting cold.

Waste of time confirmed.

There was never a debate for those who believed Trump, who thought Mueller was a democrat, that it was a hoax, a witch hunt, a nohting burger, that trump had "nothing to do with Russia!", who accepted his lies at every step of the way, and now continue to do so by writing off a report they've never read, and saying it now shows there was nothing there.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, adonis said:

There was never a debate for those who believed Trump, who thought Mueller was a democrat, that it was a hoax, a witch hunt, a nohting burger, that trump had "nothing to do with Russia!", who accepted his lies at every step of the way, and now continue to do so by writing off a report they've never read, and saying it now shows there was nothing there.

 

Please refer to my definition of nothing burger posted ad nauseam.

You seem to be talking about something else.

Edited by matuski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, matuski said:

There is no longer a debate.

Like Beghazi, the Mueller nothing burger has been sitting out so long it is getting cold.

Waste of time confirmed.

Yes...a waste of time convincing someone who won't even look at the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Yes...a waste of time convincing someone who won't even look at the facts.

Please see "nothing burger" again .. you seem to be hung up on rehashing all the ingredients that made the nothing burger.

That part is over.  It is out of the oven, plated.  Just sitting there.  A symbol of all the wasted time and energy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matuski said:

Please see "nothing burger" again .. you seem to be hung up on rehashing all the ingredients that made the nothing burger.

That part is over.  It is out of the oven, plated.  Just sitting there.  A symbol of all the wasted time and energy.

 

Your opinion that runs contrary to the facts is noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 8:47 AM, The Commish said:
On 7/17/2019 at 8:44 AM, Doug B said:

I am curious as to whether, politically, Meuller can get away with stating flatly "The investigation found both collusion and obstruction -- it just wasn't actionable."

What do you mean? He doesn't hold a political office regardless of what some might think.

I know ... I just mean, really is there any real negative fallout or unintended negative effect if Meuller does spell it out that plainly to Congress. Just for the purpose of shutting up (or attempting to) all the "No collusion, no obstruction!" cries.

"Politically" as in "political (public relations) considerations (esp negtive ones) for anyone allied against Trump." And maybe reputationally for Meuller, too -- does he remain above reproach if he essentially adds a verbal addendum to his team's report? I'm thinking he probably does, but I don't know all the ins and outs, and I don't know where all the shoes drop. That's what I was getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I know ... I just mean, really is there any real negative fallout or unintended negative effect if Meuller does spell it out that plainly to Congress. Just for the purpose of shutting up (or attempting to) all the "No collusion, no obstruction!" cries.

"Politically" as in "political (public relations) considerations (esp negtive ones) for anyone allied against Trump." And maybe reputationally for Meuller, too -- does he remain above reproach if he essentially adds a verbal addendum to his team's report? I'm thinking he probably does, but I don't know all the ins and outs, and I don't know where all the shoes drop. That's what I was getting at.

Given his candor and respect for the process, I can't see Mueller being so blunt.

There was plenty of collusion and the Meuller report is filled with instances of it, but collusion isn't a crime and it's a made up word that has no legal significance.  It's ugly politics, and it's taking advantage of criminally obtained information, but what legally matters is that there was no criminal conspiracy involving the Trump administration because they weren't involved in the underlying crime (i.e. the hacking).  I'd imagine much of Meuller's testimony will focus on this distinction and there will be many questions asked about Team Trump's extraordinary efforts to acquire this criminally-obtained information.

As for obstruction, I'd imagine similar questions on Trump's extraordinary efforts to suppress and hinder the investigation.  No matter how many specific instances of obstruction are raised, Mueller will testify that DOJ policy (that's all it is) forbids him from prosecuting a sitting President and the remedy, if there is one, is political.  I doubt Mueller goes so far as to say the Trump committed a crime, but he will likely be pressed with "But for the fact that he is a sitting President, did probable cause exist for charging the President with obstruction of justice?  If so, how many separate counts of obstruction were supported by that probable cause?"  I look forward to his answers.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, matuski said:

Please see "nothing burger" again .. you seem to be hung up on rehashing all the ingredients that made the nothing burger.

That part is over.  It is out of the oven, plated.  Just sitting there.  A symbol of all the wasted time and energy.

 

You probably should just post nothing burger a couple more times, maybe that'll help?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Cohen documents reveal calls with Trump, National Enquirer publisher before payment
 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump and his campaign may have had prior knowledge of a deal to silence Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who allegedly engaged in an extra-marital affair with the then-presidential candidate in the weeks leading up the 2016 election, newly-unsealed court records suggest.

In unredacted search warrant documents revealed Thursday, an FBI special agent described a series of phone calls in October of 2016 between the president’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, the president’s then-campaign press secretary, Hope Hicks, and Trump himself.

In between calls with Hicks and Trump – one of which was a three-way phone conversation – Cohen communicated by text and phone with two executives at American Media Inc., publisher of The National Enquirer, at times immediately afterwards. In those discussions, Cohen repeatedly invoked the name “Keith,” referring to Keith Davidson, the lawyer representing adult film-star Stormy Daniels.

The content of these communications is not made explicit by the FBI agent, but the timing suggests the group was discussing the hush-payment deal with Daniels.

In a footnote in the documents, the FBI special agent says Hicks later told investigators that “to the best of her recollection, she did not learn about the allegations made by Clifford until early November 2016. Hicks was not specifically asked about this three-way call.”

During her testimony before Congress last month, Hicks denied ever being present during conversations between Cohen and Trump about Daniels, or ever having direct knowledge of Cohen's payments to Daniels.

Two sources familiar with the probe told ABC News neither Hicks nor anyone else would be charged in the as it relates to the investigation in the Southern District of New York.

These new revelations come from a cache of documents unsealed on Thursday after the judge in Cohen's case ordered prosecutors to make public some documents related to Cohen's campaign finance violations, which he pleaded guilty to in August.

The violations to which Cohen pleaded guilty stem from the hush-money agreements which the documents released Thursday show were possibly being discussed by Cohen, Hicks and Trump.

Cohen was sentenced to 3 years in prison for his admitted crimes. He's been in ongoing cooperation with prosecutors since he entered his plea. During his plea hearing, Cohen told the court he had made payments to the women "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office" who was later identified as Trump.

These new records were unsealed by an order from U.S. Judge William Pauley, who said that "every American" should have the opportunity to "scrutinize" the materials after prosecutors signaled that they had ended their investigation into the Trump Organization's involvement in the hush money payments.

"The campaign finance violations discussed in the materials are a matter of national importance," Judge Pauley said, denying the government's request for limited redactions.

The government confirmed the conclusion of the its investigation in a letter filed Thursday.

On Wednesday, after Judge Pauley suggested that the government’s probe had concluded, the president's attorney, Jay Sekulow, said the president’s legal team was “pleased” by the news.

Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, however, expressed displeasure with prosecutors decision to drop the proceedings in his own statement issued Wednesday evening.

“Case closed? Why is Michael Cohen — after all his voluntary cooperation and testimony that Mr. Mueller said was credible and went to “core issues” and all the information and documents he voluntarily provided to prosecutors and to congress — the only member of the Trump company to be prosecuted and imprisoned?" Davis said in the statement. "Especially since prosecutors found that virtually all of Michael’s admitted crimes were done at the direction of and for the benefit of Donald Trump? Why?”

In a statement of his own that he made from prison on Thursday, Cohen said that "as I stated in my open testimony, I and members of The Trump Organization were directed by Mr. Trump to handle the Stormy Daniel`s matter; including making the hush money payment. The conclusion of the investigation exonerating The Trump Organization`s role should be of great concern to the American people and investigated by Congress and The Department of Justice."

During his congressional testimony in February, Cohen testified that he had "pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with Individual #1" who is known to be Trump. Trump has denied these claims.

Cohen had previously testified before Congress, and later pleaded guilty to lying about elements of his first testimony.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.