What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (6 Viewers)

Maurile Tremblay said:
If I'm Trump, I definitely would not agree to participate in any debates leading up to the 2020 election that are not hosted by Fox News. In a real debate, there would be way too many things from this report to ask him about that make him look terrible.
Click to expand...
Terrible to who?  I watched all the general election debates in 2016 and most of the Republican primary debates.  Trump looked terrible every time.  But apparently other people saw it differently or just didn't care.  I'm not sure why we should expect them to act differently this time around.

 
timschochet said:
It was good for Bill Clinton. His public approval rating shot up. Why? Because the public believed that although he lied, that Congress was overreaching. 
Click to expand...
I think Bill Clinton should have been removed. But I get why people may have thought it was overreaching - the theory that he just lied about an embarrassing sex episode.

There is A LOT more that would be included in the Trump impeachment trial. A LOT. As a result, fewer people may think it is overreach.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew said:
I believe Barr - in his press conference - said the White House "fully cooperated" with the investigation.
Click to expand...
Very possible he meant that the physical building cooperated.  Like when they turned on the lights, they worked, the doors were mostly unlocked or somebody opened them for him, he was able to plug in his phone, that kind of stuff.

 
Sinn Fein said:
All seriousness - I wonder if this could be a debate-less general election.

And then, who would that help/hurt?
Click to expand...
Considering there is virtually no way to spin but Trump being afraid to debate, I can't see how it possibly helps him. Except to the extent that it happens to hurt him less than going through with debates would. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TripItUp said:
Colossal waste of time and taxpayer money.

Middle class Americans can't afford healthcare and housing and American politicians are dicking around with this crap.

Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot for 2020 and don't even realize it.   At the end of the day, this hurts the Dems in the next election, and I couldn't be happier about that.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
TobiasFunke said:
It is amazing and quite telling that most of the pro-Trump people here regard the investigation and report as a "waste of time and money" despite the fact that they got exactly the result they supposedly wanted, and most of the anti-Trump people here think it was a useful and important investigation despite the fact that they did not get the result they supposedly wanted.
Click to expand...
There is a difference of opinion on whether the genesis of the investigation was legitimate or based on partisan wishing absent evidence.   That is TBD. Obviously, if you think the investigation began based on legitimate intelligence, then you will think the investigation was worth it.  If you think it was an extension of the Clinton oppo research, and had no basis in legitimate intelligence, then you will feel that it was a long drawn out waste.

 
Rove! said:
There is a difference of opinion on whether the genesis of the investigation was legitimate or based on partisan wishing absent evidence.   That is TBD. Obviously, if you think the investigation began based on legitimate intelligence, then you will think the investigation was worth it.  If you think it was an extension of the Clinton oppo research, and had no basis in legitimate intelligence, then you will feel that it was a long drawn out waste.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see how the other investigations turn out.

 
jonessed said:

It will be interesting to see how the other investigations turn out.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the proposed investigation-into-the-investigators?

If so, today's report put quite a bit of a damper on that one.
 
Mr Anonymous said:
Astonished to see two polar opposite reactions to the report depending on which way people lean. Shocked I tell ya.
Click to expand...
Yes. One side actually discussing and quoting the report.  The other seemingly refuses to actually discuss what’s been quoted.  Why is that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove! said:
There is a difference of opinion on whether the genesis of the investigation was legitimate or based on partisan wishing absent evidence.   That is TBD. Obviously, if you think the investigation began based on legitimate intelligence, then you will think the investigation was worth it.  If you think it was an extension of the Clinton oppo research, and had no basis in legitimate intelligence, then you will feel that it was a long drawn out waste.
Click to expand...
Not really a big difference of opinion.  Most who have seen the underlying documents and issues realize it was a legit investigation.  The few that still think it wasn’t seem to have zero to go in and want us to take the word of Devon Nunes and Donald Trump. And it requires believing the intelligence community and several federal judges committed multiple crimes. 

 
At this point I'd be satisfied if Trump and his sycophants would just admit to the very first conclusion. 

A foreign government attempted to influence a presidential election via both a massive disinformation campaign and attempted hacks of local municipalities involved with voting to aide Donald Trump. 

If I could just have that agreed to I'm fine to move on to 2020. But since they can't I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in an alternate reality. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Anonymous said:
Lol, which side is which? You just confirmed my point btw.
Click to expand...
I had the same observation as whoknew. Everyone quoting the report in this thread seems to believe that it's not good for Trump. People who are saying "this was all a waste of time [or a witch hunt, etc.]" have not quoted it directly or given any other indication that they've started reading it.

Can you point to any counterexamples?

 
Wait....what? This has been repeated so many times without refutation, I just assumed it was true (dumb I know). Mueller is one hard mfer to just let this be said over and over and not correct the record til his report. 

As for Mueller's interview for FBI Director, Bannon recalled that the White House had invited Mueller to speak to the President to offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI.532 Bannon said that, although the White House thought about beseeching Mueller to become Director again, he did not come in looking for the job.533
Click to expand...

 
Big winner today is the group everyone thought was the big loser after the Barr summary: the mainstream "fake news" media. Almost all of their investigative reporting was dead on, with the notable exception of the Buzzfeed Cohen testimony thing (at first glance I thought it got some support, but not so much). 

Surprising loser: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who ain't gonna be giving any press conferences any time soon.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Here is Mueller on the decision not to subpoena Trump:

Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation, against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report. As explained in Volume II, Section II.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility, which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's a really interesting paragraph.

I wonder what anticipated benefits they believed their report and investigation would provide.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
TobiasFunke said:
Big winner today is the group everyone thought was the big loser after the Barr summary: the mainstream "fake news" media. Almost all of their investigative reporting was dead on, with the notable exception of the Buzzfeed Cohen testimony thing (at first glance I thought it got some support, but not so much). 

Surprising loser: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who ain't gonna be giving any press conferences any time soon.
Click to expand...
You found it surprising SHS makes unfounded statements or surprising that she admitted it?

 
adonis said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Here is Mueller on the decision not to subpoena Trump:

Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation, against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report. As explained in Volume II, Section II.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility, which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's a really interesting paragraph.

I wonder what anticipated benefits they believed their report and investigation would provide.
Click to expand...
He's saying that they had to weigh the costs of lengthy constitutional litigation against the anticipated benefits of lengthy constitutional litigation in terms of their effects on the investigation and report. (The anticipated benefits, if successful, would be an order requiring Trump to sit for an interview.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
He's saying that they had to weight the costs of lengthy constitutional litigation against the anticipated benefits of lengthy constitutional litigation in terms of their effects on the investigation and report.
Click to expand...
Ah, reading comprehension.  That makes more sense.  Thanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BroadwayG said:
You found it surprising SHS makes unfounded statements or surprising that she admitted it?
Click to expand...
Honestly I just didn't think very much about the fact that she would be mentioned at all.  And I suspect others didn't either.  Thus the surprise. Obviously nobody should be surprised that she's a fraud.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Consciousness of guilt. Your argument is that “I’m ####ed” means nothing will get done in his term while being investigated, when he clearly stated his Presidency would end as a result. It’s an unreasonable interpretation that this reaction is in reaction to an investigation in which he knows he’s innocent.
Click to expand...
My argument is not that "I'm ####ed" means nothing. Is that YOUR assertion that it means something other than "presidents who are subject to a special investigation are crippled" is based on your own speculation which contradicts the very context of the statement.  That is my (entire) argument.  Your extrapolation of this point might be a sign of further exaggerations on your part, which makes it very hard for me to come into threads like this and suss out what is fact and what is op ed.

 
adonis said:
Much of the Christie stuff seems new.
Click to expand...
Definitely. It's surprising to me how often he comes up.

It's clear he's been an unofficial adviser to the President but from his testimony to the SCO, it also seems clear that his advise wasn't followed (though part of me wonders if as always, CC has painted himself as the hero of the story). 

 
prefontaine said:
Definitely. It's surprising to me how often he comes up.

It's clear he's been an unofficial adviser to the President but from his testimony to the SCO, it also seems clear that his advise wasn't followed (though part of me wonders if as always, CC has painted himself as the hero of the story). 
Click to expand...
Agreed.  He comes off as a sage, offering good advice.  I haven't seen many instances where his account is verified by others, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's being honest here.  Most of the good advice is advice most normal/good people would've given.

 
adonis said:
GoBirds said:
John Blutarsky said:
Seems like a conspiracy theory
Click to expand...
You are in the right place for those......just dig up some desperation NY Times tweets and keep rolling. :lmao:
Click to expand...
I'm confident both of you were on the right side of the birther conspiracy right?

Wait until the Mueller report comes out.  Then look back on the actions of Barr and judge my comments.

Too many folks are doing victory laps, prejudging all of this stuff as "conspiracy theories" simply because Barr and/or Mueller state that what went on didn't rise to a level of activity that was criminally prosecutable.  That doesn't mean what was said in this thread, at large, didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Bump

 
There also is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn. The President made the calls to McGahn after McGahn had specifically told the President that the White House Counsel's Office-and McGahn himself-could not be involved in pressing conflicts claims and that the President should consult with his personal counsel if he wished to raise conflicts. Instead of relying on his personal counsel to submit the conflicts claims, the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel. And after the media reported on the President's actions, he denied that he ever ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated and made repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story, as discussed in Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Those denials are contrary to the evidence and suggest the President's awareness that the direction to McGahn could be seen as improper.
Click to expand...
Essentially each section ends with a summary conclusion that sounds like the SCO's believes a crime occurred. 

I get that Barr said he had differences of opinion on some of this, but several of these seem pretty unequivocal that the SCO felt like there was Obstruction. The hardest part to this charge is intent and I just don't see how anyone could read the above and judge Mueller wasn't sure. 

 
timschochet said:
You don't suppose Robert Mueller fabricated this whole thing out of spite because he believes Trump overcharged him to play golf?
Click to expand...
Mueller actually addressed this  :lmao:

In October 2011, Mueller resigned his family's membership from Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, in a letter that noted that "we live in the District and find that we are unable to make full use of the Club" and that inquired "whether we would be entitled to a refund of a portion of our initial membership fee," which was paid in 1994. I 0/ 12/11 Letter, Muellers to Trump National Golf Club. About two weeks later, the controller of the club responded that the Muellers' resignation would be effective October 31, 2011, and that they would be "placed on a waitlist to be refunded on a first resigned I first refunded basis" in accordance with the club's legal documents. 10/27/11 Letter, Muellers to Trump National Golf Club. The Muellers have not had further contact with the club.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
199
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top