The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Eskimohorn 5682]

Where, exactly, do you think removing redactions is going to provide some goldmine of new information about your second sentence?
I mean, I was told on this thread that all the good stuff would be redacted, but not once in reading it did I say "oh shit, a redaction, this was getting good."

The redactions may cover grand jury testimony. I presume we’ll discover additional malfeasance and the people that are caught in lies.

[Bullneck 19531]

3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I’m sure he is. Mossadeq was a secular nationalist. The mullahs would have never grabbed power but for that awful mistake by the CIA,

Tailored Chinese jersey thread is ------------------->

[troph 25229]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you read the report, it's pretty easy to tell if critical information were left out.  Just as you can make educated guesses what material was redacted and why.

There are few instances of "In addition to the foregoing, President Trump __________________________________-donkey, prostitute ______________________________ urinated and ___________________________________ with ___________________________________________,

I suspect he's just repeating the talking point that "Barr's gonna hide all the good shit."

most of the redactions are in vol 1 and I'm over 100 pages in... so far they are not bothersome.  they are telling in terms of the ongoing investigations - most related to Russian interference not so much lying and inter-connection though there is still some of that.  at this point I don't think the redaction part is going to be a valid issue to balk at - at least not for the public.  I saw a statistic that only 36 pages were redacted in total.  and the categories are grand jury, ongoing investigation, investigative techniques, and privacy.  there might be others but the point's made.  i'm not upset about it at all.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Since it’s not your father’s GOP, what is it, @Iconoclast Texan? List the things you think Trump’s GOP stands for...then compare those things to your father’s GOP.

[TwiceHorn 32080]

1 minute ago, Eskimohorn said:

 

The redactions may cover grand jury testimony. I presume we’ll discover additional malfeasance and the people that are caught in lies.

The grand jury redactions are very small both in size (number of words) and volume (number of redactions) in comparison to "Harm Other Matter" redactons, and there's no surefire mechanism to get the HOM stuff.

Note that there is almost no bitching from the usual suspects that all the good stuff was redacted.  The whole issue was overblown.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[bolverk 30332]

Moo

Edited April 19, 2019 by bolverk
Devin Nunes's cow(s)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[David Dennison 19543]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is how you know today was a very bad day for Donald Trump.

[troph 25229]

just finished the Don Jr meeting to get dirt on HRC... it's like a terrible adam sandler comedy.  it's all there dirt on HRC here it comes.  nope.  just adoptions and she flew from Moscow to NYC for a twenty minute meeting to bitch about sanctions for the little Russian orphans.  it's bizzaro people. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Anastasis 23721]

1 hour ago, SpiralOut said:

Well they used to have them.  Ya know, because Bill Clinton literally bought and paid to keep Yeltsin as the Russian president.  Dude's numbers were completely in the tank.  Everyone knew he was going to get crushed.  Then ol' Slick Willy stepped in with a boatload of cash so Yeltsin could start paying people off and, wow, he magically won by a narrow margin!

That's not a foreign intelligence agency spreading shit on the internet for the rubes to lap up and maybe change their opinion.  That's the leader of a foreign power outright buying off your election.  But we should "go to war" over this shit when the Russians didn't over that shit back in '96? 

 In fact, it can easily be argued that our current predicament with Russia is just yet another consequence of our awful foreign policy of meddling everywhere we can stick our dirty fingers.  The list of democracies where we've come in, fucked shit up, installed a dictator, and then bailed is long as fuck.  Russia probably falls into that camp.  We broke them in the Cold War, then we started fucking around in their elections, but instead of getting our guy in there and keeping him there we opened the door for a ruthless fuck like Putin to take over.  He, naturally, doesn't have many fond feelings for us and our hypocrisy.  So tit for fucking tat.  If we were in his position we'd be doing the exact same fucking thing.

 Acting aggrieved and indignant is fucking stupid.  This is how the game is played.  We're fucking morons who are glued to our phones 24/7 and believe any crap spewed in the media or online that justifies our own warped ideologies and prejudices.  It bit us in the ass.  The only proper response is to nail Zuckerberg and his ilk to the wall and to be more vigilant about this type of shit.  I'd say we should also learn to stop giving a fuck about what we see in the media and online and not let it work us into a frenzy, but yeah, we all know that ain't gonna happen. 

The problem is us, not Russia.  Those crazy fucks are sitting on an ever shrinking economic island, have zero pull on the globe at large, and are rapidly killing themselves through alcohol poisoning, injecting gasoline into their veins, and falling off of tall buildings.  They're probably stunned their little stunt worked as well as it did.  Just like Osama was probably stunned he was able to pull off the largest terrorist attack in history with a few dumb fucks with box cutters because pilots didn't bother to lock the cockpit door.  If our country wasn't such a dysfunctional mess filled with easily led simpletons this "informational warfare" would have been a laughable joke.

 

 

Why do you hate America

[/Hugocheerleadedbyacircleofdipshits]

Edited April 19, 2019 by Anastasis

[Eskimohorn 5682]

First Amendment.  Pentagon Papers.  If not complicit in the actual stealing, no criminal liability, or at least that's the tea leaf read.
I noticed that there was one section in the hacking/publication area redacted for HOM that seemed likely to be wikileaks.

Treating WikiLeaks like a news outlet is dubious. They acted more like a buffer between Russia and Trump.

[Anastasis 23721]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

You're still going to stick with the "delusion" bit?

Seems a good fit at this point. 

 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

He's gone off the rails and destroyed any and all goodwill, not to mention perceptions of objectivity around here.  Fuck him.

Sorry for being right. 

[troph 25229]

3 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

 

Treating WikiLeaks like a news outlet is dubious. They acted more like a buffer between Russia and Trump.

 

yeah it's as if Trump folks looked at the opportunity that arose with the emails and made a smart decision - we don't have to do anything - the Russians will leak it anyway - and they wiped their hands and walked away.  that's probably the best case though.  it still could be worse, but like any complex crime - it's often the hiding of it or the obstruction issue here that brings them down.

[texas08 1599]

We learned our lesson from Nixon. The man would be a liberal hero today for creating the EPA, affirmative action and going to China. It doesn’t matter to Dems, our Presidents are cold-hearted baby killers or spoofed as morons. Once a Republican President dies, the press then does an about face by saying they were so much more reasonable than the current crop. Playing nice so y’all will hopefully like us is dead. McCain and Romney tried to peddle the centrist, let’s try to please the editors of the NYT bs. That didn’t excite me or the base. Trump is giving us what we have wanted.

Dude, you sound like you would have a blast chillin w Stephen Miller, let that sink in.

Were y’all roommates?

[Eskimohorn 5682]

The grand jury redactions are very small both in size (number of words) and volume (number of redactions) in comparison to "Harm Other Matter" redactons, and there's no surefire mechanism to get the HOM stuff.
Note that there is almost no bitching from the usual suspects that all the good stuff was redacted.  The whole issue was overblown.

My overall point is not that redactions will be the end, but other indictments, hearings referenced will expose more liars in this conspiracy. The boy scouts expose Trump’s illegal orders. The scum carry them out, but lie and destroy evidence. That’s the Roy Cohn way.

That’s why at this point there’s not clear and convincing criminal evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal conspiracy. You only hear honest testimony from the Boy Scouts at this point.

[triplehorn 2664]

I figured the the new stuff gleaned from the report would have died down, but it keeps rolling. 

What's this about a whole separate category of information derived from the SC investigation that is walled off and not included in the Mueller report ?

"For more than the past year, the FBI also embedded personnel at the Office who did not work on the Special Counsel's investigation, but whose purpose was to review the results of the investigation and send - in writing - summaries of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to FBI HQ and FBI Field Offices.  Those communications and other correspondence between the Office and the FBI contain information derived from the investigation, not all of which is contained in this Volume."

Mueller is essentially signaling to the Intel Committees, "hey, look over there, check it out."  Not redacted, not in the report.  Foreign intel.  Counterintel.  Makes me wonder if Barr, on the job only a few months, was even aware this existed prior to the report, let alone seen it.  

 

I'm starting to feel the chances of Trump being toast are increasing, at least more so than I did this morning.  It's going to take a little time for Congress to pull it all together, but Trump has zero business occupying the Oval with what came out today.

[Anastasis 23721]

1 hour ago, SpiralOut said:

Well they used to have them.  Ya know, because Bill Clinton literally bought and paid to keep Yeltsin as the Russian president.  Dude's numbers were completely in the tank.  Everyone knew he was going to get crushed.  Then ol' Slick Willy stepped in with a boatload of cash so Yeltsin could start paying people off and, wow, he magically won by a narrow margin!

That's not a foreign intelligence agency spreading shit on the internet for the rubes to lap up and maybe change their opinion.  That's the leader of a foreign power outright buying off your election.  But we should "go to war" over this shit when the Russians didn't over that shit back in '96? 

In fact, it can easily be argued that our current predicament with Russia is just yet another consequence of our awful foreign policy of meddling everywhere we can stick our dirty fingers.  The list of democracies where we've come in, fucked shit up, installed a dictator, and then bailed is long as fuck.  Russia probably falls into that camp.  We broke them in the Cold War, then we started fucking around in their elections, but instead of getting our guy in there and keeping him there we opened the door for a ruthless fuck like Putin to take over.  He, naturally, doesn't have many fond feelings for us and our hypocrisy.  So tit for fucking tat.  If we were in his position we'd be doing the exact same fucking thing.

Acting aggrieved and indignant is fucking stupid.  This is how the game is played.  We're fucking morons who are glued to our phones 24/7 and believe any crap spewed in the media or online that justifies our own warped ideologies and prejudices.  It bit us in the ass.  The only proper response is to nail Zuckerberg and his ilk to the wall and to be more vigilant about this type of shit.  I'd say we should also learn to stop giving a fuck about what we see in the media and online and not let it work us into a frenzy, but yeah, we all know that ain't gonna happen. 

The problem is us, not Russia.  Those crazy fucks are sitting on an ever shrinking economic island, have zero pull on the globe at large, and are rapidly killing themselves through alcohol poisoning, injecting gasoline into their veins, and falling off of tall buildings.  They're probably stunned their little stunt worked as well as it did.  Just like Osama was probably stunned he was able to pull off the largest terrorist attack in history with a few dumb fucks with box cutters because pilots didn't bother to lock the cockpit door.  If our country wasn't such a dysfunctional mess filled with easily led simpletons this "informational warfare" would have been a laughable joke.

 

 

I am going to quote this again because it really is required reading. 

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20926]

1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

 Trump is giving us what we have wanted.

 

Huge increases in the size of government, huge increases in the debt, a giant wipe-out in the midterms, and the least popular president ever?  A compulsive liar who thinks grabbing women by the pussy is fine, fucking over his countrymen is fine, trying to sleep with the wives of his best friends is fine, screwing porn stars while married is fine?



 

[notre dame joe 205]

1 hour ago, TexEx15 said:

Finally something I agree with you about.  You say it like its a good thing when in reality the GOP has lost all its morals and principals for a dear leader so devoid of any decency it’s staggering.  My father would have never tolerated this banana republic bullshit that Trump is responsible for that you and your friends just lap right up off the sacks of Hannity and his ilk. 

Is your Dad LBJ?  

[Celery Man 21098]

2 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

You weren’t watching Martha MacCallum earlier. Our gloves are off. We’re defending our President. This isn’t your father’s GOP anymore.

 

my father isn't a stupid piece of shit.  so, that checks out.

[troph 25229]

so vol 1 just goes on and on and on.  cohen, papa, manafort and to a lesser extent but with major highlights junior are all up in Russian business.  and then Mueller concludes:

 

In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances , the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately , the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
1275

 

so offers made to "collude" and the campaign was receptive and in other instances folks closely aligned with the campaign repeatedly tried to get the campaign to bite but it didn't happen.  yet massive coordinated efforts by Russian intelligence and military operations occurred to influence the election for Trump -  from hacking attempts to social media campaigns to rallies to voter suppression activities and then the cyber warfare and email thefts disclosed through wikileaks. 

I'm shocked vol 1 gets as close as it does to establishing the connection but then can't do it after 173 pages.  it's not that there's no evidence, it's the tinniest sliver of missing evidence, the size of the sliver is so tailor made to fit the hardest piece to prove in a conspiracy that any reasonable person could easily conclude by civil standards its there.  no question.

and even if not by criminal standards, it's clear the campaign fucked up repeatedly on doing the right thing by our country.  not a crime punishable by jail time but no way this guy should be our president.  our sworn enemy is waste deep in our election, his campaign knows it and they don't do a damn thing but profit from it.  scary as fuck fellas. 

[Bruh Man 3160]

The regular posters who bend over backward to defend Trump everyday on here do realize Trump wouldn't let one of his hookers piss on you if you were on fire, right?

It's amazing the loyalty some of you have to a guy who would switch parties in a heartbeat and disown all of you in exchange for the ending of every investigation into his family. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Bruh Man

[triplehorn 2664]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

and even if not by criminal standards, it's clear the campaign fucked up repeatedly on doing the right thing by our country.  not a crime punishable by jail time but no way this guy should be our president.  our sworn enemy is waste deep in our election, his campaign knows it and they don't do a damn thing but profit from it.  scary as fuck fellas. 

It warrants impeachment and removal.  There's no way to spin this active and ongoing betrayal of our country.

[troph 25229]

interesting footnote on the "stolen property" angle:

 

 The Office also considered , but ruled out, charges on the theory that the post-hacking sharing and dissemination of emails could constitute trafficking in or receipt of stolen property under the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315. The statutes comprising the NSPA cover "goods, wares , or merchandise," and lower coutts have largely understood that phrase to be limited to tangible items since the Supreme Court's decision in Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985). See United States v. Yijia Zhang, 995 F. Supp. 2d 340, 344-48 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (collecting cases). One of those post-Dowling decisions-United States v. Brown, 925 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1991)-specifically held that the NSPA does not reach "a computer program in source code form," even though that code was stored in tangible items (i.e., a hard disk and in a three-ring notebook). Id. at 1302-03. Congress, in turn, cited the Brown opinion in explaining the need for amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) that "would ensure that the theft of intangible information by the unauthorized use of a computer is prohibited in the same way theft of physical items [is] protected." S. Rep. 104-357, at 7 (1996). That sequence of events would make it difficult to argue that hacked emails in electronic form, which are the relevant stolen items here, constitute "goods, wares, or merchandise" within the meaning of the NSPA.

[notre dame joe 205]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

john dean was just on cnn saying this was way worse than anything nixon did.  but what does he know.

The Watergate break in probably wasn't in the top 10 worst things done by Nixon.  Nixon was an outsider who grew up poor.  He didn't have the Kennedy gang to handle his dirty work for him. 

 

I asked about LBJ Jr because there was a new bio out that sheds some light on his ummm .  .  . 'shenanigans'

Edited April 19, 2019 by notre dame joe

[elguapo 4620]

Trump is giving us what we have wanted.

If your ability to immigrate to this country had been decided by Trump you wouldn’t be here.

[troph 25229]

and the real winner on Junior's meeting to get dirt on HRC is buried in the dry legalese of scienter or knowledge that the act was unlawful.  so there you have it.  Junior probably didn't know taking dirt on HRC from a foreign official would be a violation of campaign finance laws because he's stupid and so he gets off.  meh.  

p 187-188

[troph 25229]

Trump says "no obstruction" and AG Barr says "nothing to do with the OLC opinion"... here is how Mueller opens the obstruction piece, vol 2:

 

Quote

We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 2

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible .3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought , affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .5

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report , could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

 

wow.

Edited April 19, 2019 by troph

[troph 25229]

2 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/mueller-completely-dropped-the-ball-with-obstruction-punt/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

“Most important, the special counsel found that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and that the president’s frustration wasn’t over fear of guilt — the typical motivation for obstruction — but that the investigation was undermining his ability to govern the country. The existence of such a motive is a strong counter to evidence of a corrupt intent, critical because corrupt intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in an obstruction case.

This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged.

In his report, Mueller didn’t resolve the issue. If he had been satisfied that there was no obstruction crime, he said, he would have so found. He claimed he wasn’t satisfied. Yet he was also not convinced that there was sufficient proof to charge. Therefore, he made no decision, leaving it to Attorney General William Barr to find that there was no obstruction.

This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.”

quoted to be read next to Mueller's own words I quoted above.

this article could not be more wrong.  the OLC guidance is binding on Justice.  Mueller is appointed as a special prosecutor under the DOJ here is therefore bound.  he was charged with investigating but chose not to draw any conclusions, but only to preserve the record while memories are fresh so that if Congress wants to impeach and convict it can or if prosecutors at a later date - when prosecution is lawfully permitted - wish to pursue these claims may with a well preserved record of evidence.  it's actually quite the well reasoned position under the law.

[notre dame joe 205]

2 hours ago, troph said:

and the real winner on Junior's meeting to get dirt on HRC is buried in the dry legalese of scienter or knowledge that the act was unlawful.  so there you have it.  Junior probably didn't know taking dirt on HRC from a foreign official would be a violation of campaign finance laws because he's stupid and so he gets off.  meh.  

p 187-188

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 hours ago, Satchel said:

The report says it could not be proved that the campaign "willfully" conspired with the Russians.

Willfully or knowingly.  Meaning no one set out to assist them.

[Goredho 17657]

13 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

TOO INEFFECTUALLY STUPID TO COLLUDE!!  #TSTIC!!! WINNING!  Suck it, libs!
...
...
Right?
...
...
This means we're winning, doesn't it?
...
...
Well, I think we're winning.  I mean, hillary, angry dems, emails, tan suit, no collusion, etc... et al. 

Being too ineffectually stupid to mount an international conspiracy should be a disqualifying characteristic for the presidency. You see, we want someone with the ability to organize and lead others even to that end, but so morally sound that they would never focus those leadership skills in that direction.  Instead, we have a cretinous, evil Forrest Gump whose only saving grace is being incapable of executing on his unethical, immoral and illegal impulses and ideals.

"Too ineffectually stupid to collude!" is a hell of a thing to hang your hat on.  It will make a great 2020 Campaign slogan.  If the last midterms were a referendum on Trump, the 2022 election is a referendum on Americans.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[GW Hayduke 1957]

8 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Republicans gloating about the Mueller Report is pretty amazing.

Yeah, your boy's off the hook for collusion conspiracy.  But obstruction is wide open.  The man did everything he could to slow this investigation down, and that is exactly what sank Nixon.

And this is the fucking redacted version...

 

[Pam Cummings 9869]

Hmm, who should i listen to, the people who are discussing sections of the report and what they mean, or the fucking retards posting twitter memes? Hmmmmmm tough decision.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Pam Cummings

[GHOSTUSER 361]

7 hours ago, elguapo said:

If your ability to immigrate to this country had been decided by Trump you wouldn’t be here.

Another baseless lie. My parents would have passed on a skills and education level points system with flying colors. Trump helped reorient the Party which the base appreciates. We all acknowledge that he is an undisciplined, loudmouth, moron. I’m looking forward to the next generation where we’ll hopefully find a smarter candidate. My hope is Tucker in 2024. We’ll able to win back the Tanglewood lawyer dad and yoga mom set with him. Same anti-illegals, anti-globalist, pro fair trade  agenda with better packaging.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's a topic for another thread, but step 1 is federal law mandating universal backup ballots that can't be manipulated.

Well, like improving the affordability of health care in this country or tackling the existential problem of climate change, the way to improve the security of our elections and democratic institutions is to smash the duopoly in some vague and unspecified way. Sure, it seems like there's consistently one party preventing or encumbering these problems from being addressed, or just denying there's a problem all together, but that's just what the duopoly wants you to think.

 

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/trump-white-house-objecting-senates-election-security-bill

[TexEx15 17953]

10 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Another baseless lie. My parents would have passed on a skills and education level points system with flying colors.

Assuming your parents were the right color and of the correct religious persuasion.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

10 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Another baseless lie. My parents would have passed on a skills and education level points system with flying colors.

 You’re brown though.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

2 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

 

 You’re brown though.

 

3 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Assuming your parents were the right color and of the correct religious persuasion.

Please show me in any GOP or Administration provided documents where people from Iran would be permanently banned. The current travel ban is temporary. I personally support it.

[Steamboat1874 4373]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

 

Please show me in any GOP or Administration provided documents where people from Iran would be permanently banned. The current travel ban is temporary. I personally support it.

Of course you do.....however the terrorists were Saudis.

[SubliminalHorn 7009]

Oh just currently banned. No way, no how would a nationalist-run party or government EVER push permanent bans of ethnicities and nationalities. That’s just crazy talk. 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 minute ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Of course you do.....however the terrorists were Saudis.

Trump called for a Muslim ban after the Paris terrorist attacks. That’s the first thing that he did that made me warm to him. I appreciate him opening that door and saying what needed to be said.

[elguapo 4620]

Another baseless lie. My parents would have passed on a skills and education level points system with flying colors. Trump helped reorient the Party which the base appreciates. We all acknowledge that he is an undisciplined, loudmouth, moron. I’m looking forward to the next generation where we’ll hopefully find a smarter candidate. My hope is Tucker in 2024. We’ll able to win back the Tanglewood lawyer dad and yoga mom set with him. Same anti-illegals, anti-globalist, pro fair trade  agenda with better packaging.

Go fuck yourself dumb cunt. He literally has put in place a travel ban for Iran. If it were solely up to him no one from Muslim majority or other “shithole” countries would be allowed to immigrate here permanently.

 

But you’re here already so fuck all those other poor bastards right?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 minute ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Oh just currently banned. No way, no how would a nationalist-run party or government EVER push permanent bans of ethnicities and nationalities. That’s just crazy talk. 

Keep dreaming up your dystopian fantasies about how I will be gassed or taken to a concentration camp. Maybe you can make them into a short story series and post them here. Icono gets deported (even though he was born here), Icono in a concentration camp, the final solution to deal with Icono.

[David Dennison 19543]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Trump called for a Muslim ban after the Paris terrorist attacks. That’s the first thing that he did that made me warm to him. I appreciate him opening that door and saying what needed to be said.

That's because both of you are unapologetic bigots.

Congratulations on being awful.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

8 hours ago, triplehorn said:

It warrants impeachment and removal.  There's no way to spin this active and ongoing betrayal of our country.

Since we know there won’t be impeachment cause GOP, the game shifts to Dems using the report, hearings, etc. to rub the GOP’s face in this until the election.