The Robert Mueller Investigation

[bolverk 29399]

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Yeahhhhh, public opinion looks like it’s GREAT for Mein Trumpf!
 

 

PS - the mods have asked over and over to quit the off topic, personal attacks and bullshittery in this thread. It’s aggravating and juvenile and it’s the same handful of people over and over - from BOTH SIDES.

So I may or may not have just reported a few of y’all.

And I definitely reported the crazy person on their 93rd username.

Just wanted to be transparent. I’m tired of coming here to see 150 new posts and 113 of them are the same 7 people quoting each other and arguing and sniping like cunts over nothing.
 

 

But, Mom, he started it first!

In other news, 90% of Democrats, 54% of Republicans, and 74% of Independents want the full Mueller report to be made public.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1903251153.pdf#page=3

The majority of every demographic group wants it released but if we exclude explicitly identified Republicans the weakest support is found among (under 70%):

• Men - White - Not College Graduate
• Baby Boomers (54-72)
• Silent-Greatest (Over 72)
• White Evangelical Christians
• Rural

Not a surprise, but again we see exactly who "the base" is. What will it take to reach these people?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

21 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Not a surprise, but again we see exactly who "the base" is. What will it take to reach these people?

According to Yuri Bezmenov circa 1983, nothing.  But that analysis was before the internet and Fox News, so it’s probably worse today.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 hours ago, Jack Straw said:

You don’t get free reign to be a racist piece of low life white trash simply by virtue of posting on the politics board.  Sorry.  It appears that you’re also a whiny cunt who can’t take the consequences of posting hateful, treasonous garbage.  

Racist?  Fuck you.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, tjhooker said:

The collective calling you that affects you still?  I got over that a while back.  I've challenged countless posters who say that to find one post that is racist.  Never has someone found anything. Not once but they still say it.  Just ignore it. 

I won’t be seeing any more of that loser’s posts.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, tjhooker said:

That's one way.  I just think it is this bucket thinking which is prevalent here.  All Rs are racist bucket.  You have to be thrown in it because in their mind all Rs are racist.  No specific proof needed just you are.  Makes it easier for them to hate you. 

That’s the modern left.  Everyone that disagrees with them is a racist, sexist, homophobe.  They get that from their childish leaders.  

[DDD Dad 14251]

Will you guys just fuck and get it over with already?

[DDD Dad 14251]

[David Dennison 18657]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

That’s the modern left.  Everyone that disagrees with them is a racist, sexist, homophobe.  They get that from their childish leaders.  

The best way to combat this is to stop doing and saying things that are racist, sexist, and homophobic. Oh, and to support policies that are not racist, sexist, and homophobic.

[SquishMitten 10401]

11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if the powers that be said "no new accounts" for a few weeks.

That’s not going to happen. But there could be a post-number requirement before gaining access to this forum. That’d force someone to make 50 or so quality posts elsewhere before getting in here. 

[RomaVicta 29788]

7 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

She's just fine a 20th Century career politician, the demagoguery and flip flops are just stock and trade.  

 

Both parties equally polite?  Compile a list of Obama assassination fantasies and we'll compare.

Still strange.

[XingTheRubicon 134]

3 hours ago, Tom said:

 

Thanks Obama.

The only POTUS in the history of GDP to fail to achieve 3% growth in any one year. 

When you couple that with deficit spending 9 trillion dollars,

printing 2 trillion dollars, (to buy bonds to prop up equities)

keeping interest rates artificially low at 0% for Obama's first 7 years in office (only time that's ever happened in history) 

 

Economically, if you truly examine everything, Obama was a bumbling idiot at best.  

[triplehorn 2664]

The supposed money shot from Barr’s memo:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

The bracket [T] indicates that’s not the beginning of that key sentence.  I wonder why Barr chose to omit the first part of the quoted sentence?  It certainly stands to change the meaning in context.

A full week has passed and they’re still hiding the Mueller report.

[DDD Dad 14251]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I won’t be seeing any more of that loser’s posts.  

[NBMisha 224]

2 hours ago, tjhooker said:

Watch this.  It will be the Obama economy until it starts to dip then it won't be anymore.  I see how this works.  It's his economy for years on end apparently.  

BTW the president has little affect on the economy regardless of party.  Doesn't matter.  Economy is going to do what it is going to do.  Presidents can help congress pass policy that can massage the edges but overall a president doesn't make or break an economy.  If you have to assign credit Congress has the power of the purse.  I don't even give them that much credit either way.  The fed chairman may have more impact than all of them. 

Well, based on, say, third grade arithmetic, when the recovery gets to be about 15 years old, and if Trump is still president, then it will be the mostly Trump recovery/economy.  No need to "watch".

[David Dennison 18657]

Just now, XingTheRubicon said:

The only POTUS in the history of GDP to fail to achieve 3% growth in any one year. 

When you couple that with deficit spending 9 trillion dollars,

printing 2 trillion dollars, (to buy bonds to prop up equities)

keeping interest rates artificially low at 0% for Obama's first 7 years in office (only time that's ever happened in history) 

Economically, if you truly examine everything, Obama was a bumbling idiot at best.  

Donald Trump has continued the trend of sub 3% growth.

Donald Trump has increased deficit spending to record levels.

Donald Trump has overseen the highest trade deficit in U.S. history.

All during an decade long economic expansion that began under his predecessor.

Donald Trump is kind of fucking it up.

[XingTheRubicon 134]

37 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Donald Trump has continued the trend of sub 3% growth.

 

Quote

 

That's because the 3.1 percent measure more directly looks at growth in 2018. The 2.9 percent measure, on the other hand, is impacted by the GDP number from way back in the first quarter of 2017.  The 2 most common ways of measuring GDP averaged 3%, with 2018 alone finishing at 3.1%.

 

 

 

Far better GDP growth than ANY of Obama's 8 years, especially that piece of shit 1.9% in his last year.

 

**Keep in mind, that's without quantitative easing and artificially suppressing interest rates.

Edited March 29, 2019 by XingTheRubicon

[RomaVicta 29788]

1 minute ago, XingTheRubicon said:

Far better GDP growth than ANY of Obama's 8 years, especially that piece of shit 1.9% in his last year.

 

**Keep in mind, that's without quantitative easing and artificially suppressing interest rates.

This is some third rate sophistry here. Obama inherited an economic disaster and had to take steps to address the calamity. He did so at political risk. The economy did recover. Yet you roll out a narrow line of evidence to claim he was a failure.

You ignore context and hope your audience does the same. We know that works with about 35% of the electorate, but it's still basically lying. You good with that?

[seven 1366]

Trump was extremely fortunate to inherit such a great economy 

[XingTheRubicon 134]

16 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

This is some third rate sophistry here. Obama inherited an economic disaster and had to take steps to address the calamity. He did so at political risk. The economy did recover. Yet you roll out a narrow line of evidence to claim he was a failure.

You ignore context and hope your audience does the same. We know that works with about 35% of the electorate, but it's still basically lying. You good with that?

The economic disaster is precisely why there was so much opportunity for growth.  The Dow was at 6,500 in March of 2009.  I can find someone at Kroger that could have achieved 3% GDP with those starting parameters.  You understand, the economy is like a rubber band, right?  You stretch it one way and it always eventually comes back.  I hope you understand that.

I noticed you didn't address the whole 'printing 2 trillion' or training wheel interest rates.  If John McCain had those numbers, you might see it differently, I'm guessing.  Economy-wise, Trump will compare to Clinton and Reagan when all is said and done.  Obama was a naive amateur, at best...ask a business owner/your boss, etc.

 

In summation, averaging only 2.1% GDP growth while deficit spending 9 trillion, unprecedented training wheel interest rates, 2 trillion QE, is hapless by any metric...well, unless you're a complete shill.

Edited March 29, 2019 by XingTheRubicon

[elguapo 4583]

The POTUS gets far to much credit/blame for.the economy. Trump better hope the next recession is after 2020 after all the crowing he’s been doing.

[RomaVicta 29788]

6 minutes ago, XingTheRubicon said:

The economic disaster is precisely why there was so much opportunity for growth.  The Dow was at 6,500 in March of 2009.  I can find someone at Kroger that could have achieved 3% GDP with those starting parameters.  

I noticed you didn't address the whole 'printing 2 trillion' or training wheel interest rates.  If John McCain had those numbers, you might see it differently, I'm guessing.  Economy-wise, Trump will compare to Clinton and Reagan when all is said and done.  Obama was a naive amateur, at best...ask a business owner/your boss, etc.

You think you know me, but you project partisan hackism. Go kowtow to the almighty business owner who knows what is best for all. You have your boilerplate religion down pat. 

 

[wildcat09 29251]

18 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

This is some third rate sophistry here. Obama inherited an economic disaster and had to take steps to address the calamity. He did so at political risk. The economy did recover. Yet you roll out a narrow line of evidence to claim he was a failure.

You ignore context and hope your audience does the same. We know that works with about 35% of the electorate, but it's still basically lying. You good with that?

Obama also had a GOP House doing everything it could to sabotage the economy for 6 of his 8 years in office.

[XingTheRubicon 134]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

You think you know me, but you project partisan hackism. Go kowtow to the almighty business owner who knows what is best for all. You have your boilerplate religion down pat. 

 

 

1

I like your posts, we just see things differently, that's all.

 

and you calling me partisan is chortle-worthy 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Gil Bang said:

Do you believe that he's corrupt as POTUS?  

Do you think it's OK that people doing business before the government (T Mobile for one), and foreign govts spend shitloads of money at Trump properties?  Do you think it's OK that he goes to one of his properties frequently, and the secret service has to pay him in order to protect him?   These types of questions can go on and on. 

Bottom line...does he get your vote again?

He probably doesn't get my vote again. He wouldn't have gotten my vote if just about any other democrat had run in 2016.  That the DNC hooked their Wagon to Hillary was as sleazy as it gets.  Party uber alles was (and still is ) their motto I believe.

I don't know if he's been corrupt as POTUS (meaning he's an agent for Russia or is sympathetic to them). I do know he's been successful at some things that have helped the economy (that's taken right from folks on NPR syndicated shows).

 I want to know what's actually in the Mueller report to make a definitive statement about his corruption as POTUS. I've stated that pretty clearly here the past several days. I want an independent accounting of what's in it.  Impeachment doesn't bother me if he's guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. 

Mr. Obama had IRS "issues" (and other issues ACA blatant lies, fast and furious, etc.),  those were all pretty damned bad, and those kinds of actions don't happen without approval from the highest placed power.

 

 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Obama also had a GOP House doing everything it could to sabotage the economy Presidency for 6 of his 8 years in office.

Can you say Presidential Harassment? 

[RomaVicta 29788]

The job of the party out of office is to become the party in office. (GOP strategy)

(National Journal): What’s the job?
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

-Mitch McConnell.

Fortunately, he doesn't waste any of his wind even mentioning the country. He doesn't care about the country. He is the leader of his party, the only thing that matters except for likely personal enrichment.

Go cash that NRA check, Mitch, you great American, you.

[XingTheRubicon 134]

8 minutes ago, elguapo said:

Trump better hope the next recession is after 2020 after all the crowing he’s been doing.

This is very true.  Our next POTUS is going to look like a fool...and most of it won't be his/her fault.

[RomaVicta 29788]

5 minutes ago, XingTheRubicon said:

I like your posts, we just see things differently, that's all.

 

and you calling me partisan is chortle-worthy 

And what worthiness had your remark about how I'd see things if we were talking about McCain?

[XingTheRubicon 134]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

The job of the party out of office is to become the party in office. (GOP strategy)

(National Journal): What’s the job?
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

-Mitch McConnell.

Fortunately, he doesn't waste any of his wind even mentioning the country. He doesn't care about the country. He is the leader of his party, the only thing that matters except for likely personal enrichment.

Go cash that NRA check, Mitch, you great American, you.

What was that about partisan hackery?

 

Do you honestly think if Dems were fed truth serum, they want Trump and America's economy to succeed right now?

 

and, I agree with you about McConnell...good lord, he's embarrassing 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

He probably doesn't get my vote again. He wouldn't have gotten my vote if just about any other democrat had run in 2016.  That the DNC hooked their Wagon to Hillary was as sleazy as it gets.  Party uber alles was (and still is ) their motto I believe.

I don't know if he's been corrupt as POTUS (meaning he's an agent for Russia or is sympathetic to them). I do know he's been successful at some things that have helped the economy (that's taken right from folks on NPR syndicated shows).

 I want to know what's actually in the Mueller report to make a definitive statement about his corruption as POTUS. I've stated that pretty clearly here the past several days. I want an independent accounting of what's in it.  Impeachment doesn't bother me if he's guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. 

Mr. Obama had IRS "issues" (and other issues ACA blatant lies, fast and furious, etc.),  those were all pretty damned bad, and those kinds of actions don't happen without approval from the highest placed power.

 

 

You do know that there are more corrupt possibilities than simply being an agent for Russia?  Take his hotel in DC for instance which is always filled up with foreign and domestic lobbyists who are staying there intentionally to gain favor from Trump by fattening his pockets.  Take the fact that when traveling, he doesn't get bids for accommodations from multiple hotels.  Instead, he stays at his own hotels and has the government pay market rate for them.

It also wouldn't be beneath him to quietly try to push federal funds into all types of personal business interests via no-bid contracts.  Grift is his game.  Always has been.

I've never thought he was an intentional traitor.  At worst, I've always thought he is an accidental traitor.  His singular goal is self enrichment.  How he achieves that is inconsequential to him.  If anything, he is such a conman that in a deal with Putin, I'd expect him to promise Putin something, let Putin deliver his side, and then renege on his promise to Putin.  Historically, that's the way he's tried to conduct business with everyone forever.  Its why he had to go to Russia to get lending in the first place.  Western banks wanted nothing to do with him anymore.

[RomaVicta 29788]

1 minute ago, XingTheRubicon said:

What was that about partisan hackery?

 

Do you honestly think if Dems were fed truth serum, they want Trump and America's economy to succeed right now?

 

and, I agree with you about McConnell...good lord, he's embarrassing 

Sorry quoting McConnell to support a post about obstructionism seems like partisan hackery to you. McConnell said it and did it. 

You presume to know how I would react to an issue if McCain were its supporter. You presume to know what the Dems would say under truth serum. Those aren't substantial arguments. Those are guesses that support what appears to be a dogmatic political view.

The only concerns I've read about Trump's economic policies are that they favor the rich with tax breaks, burden farmers and business men with tariffs, and he fails to see the economic opportunities for the economy in renewable resource technology growth. That's just for starters. He rabble rouses about the dead coal industry and alienates long time trade partners and allies.

Is that sound economic policy? Do you suppose that I would applaud it were they promoted by a Dem president?

I appreciate the comment that you like my posts. Thanks.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You do know that there are more corrupt possibilities than simply being an agent for Russia?  Take his hotel in DC for instance which is always filled up with foreign and domestic lobbyists who are staying there intentionally to gain favor from Trump by fattening his pockets.  Take the fact that when traveling, he doesn't get bids for accommodations from multiple hotels.  Instead, he stays at his own hotels and has the government pay market rate for them.

It also wouldn't be beneath him to quietly try to push federal funds into all types of personal business interests via no-bid contracts.  Grift is his game.  Always has been.

I've never thought he was an intentional traitor.  At worst, I've always thought he is an accidental traitor.  His singular goal is self enrichment.  How he achieves that is inconsequential to him.  If anything, he is such a conman that in a deal with Putin, I'd expect him to promise Putin something, let Putin deliver his side, and then renege on his promise to Putin.  Historically, that's the way he's tried to conduct business with everyone forever.  Its why he had to go to Russia to get lending in the first place.  Western banks wanted nothing to do with him anymore.

Nothing you say negates the facts that Hillary Clinton, and her husband are just as if not more corrupt, as they did most if not all of their shit while in the service of the US  Gov't. If you don't recognize that, please stop addressing my posts with your but ... but... buts.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Nothing you say negates the facts that Hillary Clinton, and her husband are just as if not more corrupt, as they did most if not all of their shit while in the service of the US  Gov't. If you recognize that, please stop addressing my posts with your but ... but... buts.

While the Clintons are corrupt, they are in no way as corrupt as Trump.  The real problem that you are having though is that most of the things you believe the Clintons did, they didn't actually do.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Explaining the significance of the Russian Interference to Republicans

Yesterday I tried to explain the significance of the Russia interference to a Trumpish associate  of mine and I felt like I got somewhere so I’ll try to lay it out here:

First, you HAVE to FORGET the election is Hillary vs Trump and you have to forget political parties exist.

No matter what, the US Presidential election will be:

Candidate A vs Candidate B

These are both Americans attempting to lead and presumably work in the interests of America.

 

Now pretend you’re Putin and you have Russia’s entire military intelligence apparatus and all the social media platforms at your disposal with access to all the micro-targeting data tools you need. 

You want to install a puppet in the White House.  How do you do this?  Ideally you’d want to compromise both candidates and EVERYONE around them using all the tools at your disposal including money, promised business deals, agents of influence on the ground, blackmail, hackers, and even persuasion to your ideology.  If you can compromise both equally, it doesn’t matter who wins the election, you’ve taken the White House. Game over.  You win. (We should keep this in mind when selecting our 2020 nominees).

However, you’ve determined early on Candidate B will never be compromised and is already outright antagonistic to you.  You’ve decided you’re going to try to cripple that candidate’s chances regardless of their opponent.  You are going to commit criminal acts of espionage and cyber crime on Candidate B and their entire campaign.  You are going to acquire materials you can spin as disqualifying and strategically disseminate those materials into the American main and alternative media blood stream throughout the election process, with plausible deniability.  

The more the material you’ve stolen is used by Americans to discredit Candidate B the better.  More significantly, the material you’re pushing out doesn’t even need to be true or false, just as long as Americans are talking about it, you’re winning.  As long as you have unwitting Americans proliferating your false stories throughout the social media platforms, you’re doing serious damage.

Now to Candidate A, you are going to aggressively try to compromise Candidate A early, the earlier the better.  If you can compromise them early, you can work in your own interest by actively protecting and promoting their candidacy throughout the campaign.  You can get Candidate A to unwittingly work in concert with your criminal efforts to destroy Candidate B.  You will hack Candidate A too but only to hold it as kompromat if something goes wrong.  Even after you’ve successfully compromised Candidate A, you’re going to keep trying to compromise them, their family, and their staff because you can never stop improving your advantage if Candidate A wins. 

If Candidate B is defeated, you win and you’ve cleverly engineered a significant imbalance between Candidate A and B that otherwise wouldn’t have existed. If you didn’t criminally subvert candidate B and bolster candidate A would candidate A have lost?  Perhaps but who gives a shit? You’ve already installed your puppet President.  Measuring the impact of your subversive efforts is virtually impossible. 

Now, the pushback responses:

Russia has been doing this for years what makes this special?   

The globalization of access to information and widespread use of social media has allowed very powerful bad actors including foreign governments to weaponize these tools to attack Western Democracies where liberal ideas like free speech and open societies can be exploited against the population.  In other words, the game has changed and we haven’t adapted yet because not everyone recognizes this new environment and the predators in it.  The predators come disguised as credible “truth tellers” and popular American media personalities.  Information must be verified, fact checked, and assessed more now than ever because once objective truth is destroyed, freedom is sure to follow.

There’s no evidence Russia altered the outcome of the election, this narrative it BS. 

While it’s true you can’t measure the impact of the Kremlin influence, you can somewhat conceptualize the influence and determine if it was significant.  Who doesn’t know about Wikileaks role in the 2016 election? Does anyone think their efforts weren’t influential in shaping the opinions and decisions of voters? I don’t.  

Moreover, the sheer possibility Putin could have altered the outcome of the election should be alarming because a huge vulnerability has been exposed.  There’s no excuse to wait until Russia or China really takes over before taking precautions to ensure it never happens again. 

It was Hillary’s fault she got hacked and the stolen material exposed corruption.

This is the most insidious interpretation of what happened and implies Putin was justified to break the law against Americans.  First, it’s akin to “it’s the woman’s fault she got raped because she was wearing a short skirt.”  That’s bullshit.  Second, from Russia’s point of view, it didn’t matter if the stolen material was real or fabricated, everyone instantly assumed the information was credible and damning because of the warped public perception of Wikileaks as some whistleblower instead of a front for a hostile foreign power.  

It wouldn’t have made a difference if every email they released was doctored, misrepresented, taken out of context, or real.  Americans were going to consume and internalize them however the Kremlin decided to frame and present them.  Once the narratives were set the influence couldn’t be undone before the election.  That’s dangerous and the MSM was irresponsible for being a big part of the dissemination and framing to the population.  They were essentially unwittingly working on Putin’s behalf too.  They still haven’t adequately taken responsibility for their role in 2016, kinda like Candidate A. 

Bottom line:

It doesn’t matter how you feel about a candidate or political party.  This is an emerging vulnerability we all share equally.  As long as we are a free democratic society, this playbook will be available to bad actors wishing to do us harm, both foreign and domestic, for every future presidential election on both sides unless we can come together and agree not to tolerate it.

Be Best

Edited March 29, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[babysdaddy 2718]

Article made me appreciate the problems with Barr's summary.  Not the collusion angle given Mueller addressed that (assuming Barr didn't mislead or misquote) but the obstruction angle.  Also, being relieved/happy that Mueller didn't find collusion doesn't make one a Trumpkin.  The alternative was not palatable for the country or globe.

"Bill Barr’s understanding of presidential power (he comes close to believing it’s absolute) makes his interpretation of whether Trump obstructed justice highly unreliable."  I had not thought of it from that angle and while I'm sure mentioned in here, the poo flinging is making this thread unreadable.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

While the Clintons are corrupt, they are in no way as corrupt as Trump.  The real problem that you are having though is that most of the things you believe the Clintons did, they didn't actually do.

Uh huh, when Trump has served in the go'tv as many years as they did, and done what they did then he'll be on par with them. Corruption in the private sector is bad and he's probably enriched himself thru his gov;t service. Show me a poor congressman .

The Clintons did it for decades while in the service of taxpayers. They're far worse.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Uh huh, when Trump has served in the go'tv as many years as they did, and done what they did then he'll be on par with them. Corruption in the private sector is bad and he's probably enriched himself thru his gov;t service. Show me a poor congressman .

The Clintons did it for decades while in the service of taxpayers. They're far worse.

Did what exactly?  Lay out all the things you believe the Clintons did.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Did what exactly?  Lay out all the things you believe the Clintons did.

And why were the Republicans inept at pinning them down on anything during the years of investigations if they were so corrupt?

[RomaVicta 29788]

2 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Article made me appreciate the problems with Barr's summary.  Not the collusion angle given Mueller addressed that (assuming Barr didn't mislead or misquote) but the obstruction angle.  Also, being relieved/happy that Mueller didn't find collusion doesn't make one a Trumpkin.  The alternative was not palatable for the country or globe.

"Bill Barr’s understanding of presidential power (he comes close to believing it’s absolute) makes his interpretation of whether Trump obstructed justice highly unreliable."  I had not thought of it from that angle and while I'm sure mentioned in here, the poo flinging is making this thread unreadable.  

Sensible post. I would be happier if the president was not colluding with the Russians, and I am certainly someone who despises Trump. However, since the report has not been released, I find it difficult to think the president is exonerated. 

Barr's summary does not erase what we know to be true about meetings, contacts, and all the lying about it. Chairman Schiff summarized all of that very well in his "think it's okay" remarks to his committee.

The poo flinging when it comes to name-calling (even when it's accurate) muddies the waters. The spin from Trumpists muddies the waters. Anti-Trumpists rising to the bait muddies the waters, too. 

Still, the key points remain. We've seen enormous amounts of evidence of corruption that the summary cannot hide. Will the electorate stay focused long enough to thwart what appears to be a cover-up? That's a key question, I believe.

[RomaVicta 29788]

4 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

And why were the Republicans inept at pinning them down on anything during the years of investigations if they were so corrupt?

No shit. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Did what exactly?  Lay out all the things you believe the Clintons did.

You wanna start with White water (pre federal gov't service) or the Chinese national  campaign funds they received (no controlling legal authority, "listen we were going up against a juggernaut") ? I'm sure you don't think they were guilty of either of those. 

The Rose Law firm billing reports just magically showing up hours after the investigation was over just outside the doors of the Clintons private quarters.  Private meetings on a tarmac between the AG and Bill Clinton (baby talk to be sure), Culminating with 30,00 destroyed e mails regarding weddings and yoga classes.

Mrs. Clinton has written how many minutia filled books of her time in Washington, but whenever questioned under oath has had early onset alzhiemers regarding facts or any issue for that matter.  

And just because you don't get caught doesn't mean you didn't do it.  Smokey, I hope you're more intelligent than that.   The Clintons are very smart and insulated people, that's never been argued otherwise.  I think we're going to see trump skate the same way in all probability.

[XingTheRubicon 134]

26 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Sorry quoting McConnell to support a post about obstructionism seems like partisan hackery to you. McConnell said it and did it. 

 

I appreciate the comment that you like my posts. Thanks.

1

 

You're welcome.

[David Dennison 18657]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You wanna start with White water (pre federal gov't service) or the Chinese national  campaign funds they received (no controlling legal authority, "listen we were going up against a juggernaut") ? I'm sure you don't think they were guilty of either of those. 

The Rose Law firm billing reports just magically showing up hours after the investigation was over just outside the doors of the Clintons private quarters.  Private meetings on a tarmac between the AG and Bill Clinton (baby talk to be sure), Culminating with 30,00 destroyed e mails regarding weddings and yoga classes.

Mrs. Clinton has written how many minutia filled books of her time in Washington, but whenever questioned under oath has had early onset alzhiemers regarding facts or any issue for that matter.  

And just because you don't get caught doesn't mean you didn't do it.  Smokey, I hope you're more intelligent than that.   The Clintons are very smart and insulated people, that's never been argued otherwise.  I think we're going to see trump skate the same way in all probability.

It says a lot about Republican and conservative incompetence that they could commit so many nefarious deeds and never get pinned for any of it.

 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Imagine if there was a cable news network, a series of talk radio hosts, and elected representatives from a particular party that all parroted for a decade the same talking point that Hillary was corrupt. Then, imagine that the closest they ever got to proving any actual corruption was an email server. At some point, folks should hope that some degree of self-awareness would take hold or they would move on, and then they would be able to see what their party is doing today, right now. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It says a lot about Republican and conservative incompetence that they could commit so many nefarious deeds and never get pinned for any of it.

 

No, what it says is it's easier to commit crimes than it is to get caught.

[jimmyjazz 45558]

27 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Nothing you say negates the facts that Hillary Clinton, and her husband are just as if not more corrupt, 

Well, no, that's just not true.  You should be ashamed for believing it, though.  It speaks to your intellect.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You wanna start with White water (pre federal gov't service) or the Chinese national  campaign funds they received (no controlling legal authority, "listen we were going up against a juggernaut") ? I'm sure you don't think they were guilty of either of those. 

The Rose Law firm billing reports just magically showing up hours after the investigation was over just outside the doors of the Clintons private quarters.  Private meetings on a tarmac between the AG and Bill Clinton (baby talk to be sure), Culminating with 30,00 destroyed e mails regarding weddings and yoga classes.

Mrs. Clinton has written how many minutia filled books of her time in Washington, but whenever questioned under oath has had early onset alzhiemers regarding facts or any issue for that matter.  

And just because you don't get caught doesn't mean you didn't do it.  Smokey, I hope you're more intelligent than that.   The Clintons are very smart and insulated people, that's never been argued otherwise.  I think we're going to see trump skate the same way in all probability.

Would you put that same perspective on the current Trump mess? And if so, is it somewhat ok then?

 

Politics is far too dirty and opaque for my comfort level. Made worse by policies like Citizens United. Love or hate the Clintons, they are masters at playing the LEGAL game of politics. I personally am not a fan that to succeed, you have to get in the muck of Washington but comparing the Clintons with Trump is intellectually dishonest. Trump built his life on playing in the shadows. Clintons have been in the public eye since day one. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by SmokeyTheBear

[retread 2951]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Imagine if there was a cable news network, a series of talk radio hosts, and elected representatives from a particular party that all parroted for a decade the same talking point that Hillary was corrupt.

A lot of people get honorable mention, but Rush single-handedly wrote that script and beat that drum for 2 decades, with a lot of success.

[Chooky 13302]

A two year investigation that compiled over 300 pages in a final report is reduced to a four-sentence summary by a guy who was appointed within the last couple of months by the people being investigated naturally compels one to look further into Clinton real estate deals 30 years ago and Benghazi and Chinese donors.  Dumb is the new smart and orange is the new Caucasian.  I have to get creative in finding new ways to keep laughing at watching the world's greatest democracy finger itself in the ass.  But witnessing people like Onboard justify everything by comparing two unscrupulous hordes like the Clintons and the Trumps into a compatible, net positive helps with the laughing part.   

[BrickHorn 18194]

If you’re so smart, then why can’t you tell us where Hillary’s emails are?