Magox

More like an amalgamation of conservatism, liberalism, nationalism, whatever will benefitism. If there is anything that he truly believes in other than himself it could be crony like capitalism and protecting U.S trade. Aside from that, he just goes where he can get support. With that said, his instincts of what the Republican base wants is uncanny, he truly has a great feel for what gets them going and he knows how to deliver it in a manner that viscerally connects with the base. Lots of his policies have been crafted by establishment and talk radio sort of conservatives. They have guided him but it has been his instincts and ultimately his decisions that have led him to where he is, which is the president of the most powerful country in the world presiding over a pretty terrific economy. So it's hardly a fluke.

Constitutionalist?? Did someone really say that?

Mayor Pete did destroy Beto. Poor guy, I'm sure he thought he was the second coming of Obama. Everyone should know by now that he only says things that attempt to shed him in a good light. His words are almost meaningless, which is why the thought that he attempted to obstruct justice or collude with Russians in plain sight is ridiculous. It merely was the rantings of man who will say anything to gain public support.

I pretty much think the same thing, I mentioned it just a few minutes ago in another thread. Oliver's athletic ceiling is considerably higher than Kyle's and his motor is on par with him as well. Kyle is just a wiley and crafty player with monstrous tenacity. He's a leader of men. That is an unknown with Oliver but the athleticism, first step and motor scream All Pro talent.

I do. I think he has considerable more upside from an athletic standpoint but Kyle as you know was crafty and the heart of a lion. But I do see him playing that role, which is as a disruptor/passrusher. Plus I think he will beef up to around the 295 area over the next 15 months.

Nothing is guaranteed but I think Oliver is a high ceiling high floor player. He not only is an elite athlete for his size but he has an elite motor. When you couple that with his elite first step, I just don't see how he doesn't at a very minimum turn out to be a good pro player. If the Bills think as highly of him as I do, I think he's worth giving up a 2020 2nd rounder to package along with our #9 pick to get him. I just don't think he will be there at 9 and to be honest with you, probably won't be there after the #6 pick anyways. Which would be too bad because he is a perfect fit for what the Bills want.

Are you saying that by Trump asking the "Russians" to release Hillary's emails in a campaign speech that this was a serious request by Trump? And that there was an unsaid understanding to take marching orders from Trump's campaign speech? or that Putin and KGB received the green light to release Hillary's emails because Trump said so at a campaign speech? I'm trying to unpack what you and the media are saying here. Also, it's not that the RUssians favor Republicans, it's that they don't support interventionists. They were also favoring Bernie during the primaries and Jill Stein as well. They also had a misinformation campaign against Marco Rubio. So it's not a Republican issue, if Bernie wins the nomination they will go all in on Bernie. To the second part, what "Russians" are you talking about? I think the press and others like to throw out the word Russians and use that word as a boogie term. Just about all of these "Russian" contacts were benign. If you could point out to me which "Russians" attempted to contact Trumps team. I'd like to know which Russians we are talking about. And they should have told the FBI a "foreign power was trying to influence the election". These are things that I keep hearing parroted left and right but for the life of me, I don't know what they are talking about. I am more than willing to hear what you or anyone has to say about this. What is it that they were supposed to tell the FBI? What instance? If you could provide me a specific example that the Trump campaign was made aware of that was given or provided to them from the Russian government. Because when you say "foreign power", that implies Russian government/KGB/Putin. I did plenty of reading of the report, I read tons of analysis and more from the lefts point of view than the rights and I have yet to see a specific example that would back up that the Trump campaign was aware of the Russian government's intentions to help the campaign that the FBI wasn't already privy to.

When you are saying "openly asking for Russian help" are you referring to him saying in his campaign speeches calling for Russia to release Hillary emails? If so, what's the crime here? Is the implication that Putin was taking orders from Trumps campaign speeches? Is this what you are going with? And what was Trump supposed to warn the FBI of? Can you please give me a specific example of what it was he was supposed to warn them about.

So the Russia tower meeting was to meet with that lawyer chick. I keep hearing she has "Kremlin ties" or "ties to Putin" Sounds ominous Then after a little research that is a complete mischaracterization of who she is. She represented an officer for one of the state-owned Railways companies. Since its state-owned, it is now considered close ties to the "Kremlin"? That's about all I could find about what she has done. That child adoption thing is something that she was lobbying for which was at odds of what Putin wanted. She was no more a "government" lawyer than any run-of-the-mill Russian lawyer. Complete mischaracterization of who she is. "Russia release the emails". Well....we know that's not evidence. That's campaign bluster Trump style. I knew of these two things but is there something else because if not then this parroted quote that they had knowledge of the Russian government wanting to assist with their campaign is unsubstantiated unless there is something else that I'm not aware of.

This would be like the Ravens being upset with the Bill's for rooting for the Bengals against the Ravens and even though the Bill's never communicated with the Bengals in how to defeat them. But they did cheer them on and there are some Bill's players who know some Bengals, that connection could mean they somehow assisted with the Ravens loss.

"a candidate and a campaign aware of the existence of a plot by a hostile foreign government to criminally interfere in the U.S. election for the purpose of supporting that candidate’s side. It describes a candidate and a campaign who welcomed the efforts and delighted in the assistance. It describes a candidate and a campaign who brazenly and serially lied to the American people about the existence of the foreign conspiracy and their contacts with it. And yet, it does not find evidence to support a charge of criminal conspiracy, which requires not just a shared purpose but a meeting of the minds." Can someone share with me the evidence of the allegation that Trump and his campaign were aware of Russia wanting to interfere with the elections to assist with his victory? I'm not being coy, I know of a couple stated episodes but none show this. Even if you support Trump but know of what they are talking about, please link it.

Not sure if you guys are familiar with regulators, but I used to work as a commodities trader and we would have periodic audits conducted by the CFTC and they would essentially camp out at our office for about a week to see if everything was on the up and up and equally important find things to fine you on. It is a regulators job to find infractions, so anything that can be construed or misconstrued as an infraction will be charged as such. Coming up empty when you work as a regulator almost has the appearance from a regulators point of view of them not doing their job or being unremarkable. Just apply that logic to the Special Counsel, in such a high profile case coming up with nothing would be highly embarrassing for them. Mind you that most of the people Mueller brought on are Democrats, including Andrew Weismann who was one of the main authors of the report who sent an email praising Sally Yates about "how brave" and "in awe" she was to stand up to Trump for his immigration ban and attended Hillary Clinton's 2016 election night "Victory" party. With all that in mind, I guarantee you that if they had known 22 months ago that if they conducted an exhaustive investigation such as the one they did and it ended up with no recommendations or conclusive evidence regarding Russian collusion or obstruction of justice, they would have been very disappointed. Also, I found this to be pretty interesting. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/21/dershowitz_media_gets_f_grade_on_mueller_coverage_cnn_chose_to_trust_avenatti_over_me.html

It is, it's a prosecutorial account. Google up the names of all the lawyers that were brought on by Mueller and you will see that virtually are all prosecutors. This is an account from a prosecutors point of view regarding the allegations of criminal conspiracy to interfere in the elections and of obstruction of justice. You aren't going to find a balanced take, just a prosecutors document on their findings.

Highly unlikely that the Bills can get the sort of value via trade that he could potentially offer in production for the Bills. 31 year old and declining, coming off an off year at a $9M a year price tag. He represents good leadership to the team and who knows? He could be rejuvenated and have a 1000 yard season. No need to look at cap savings for this year as it's not needed.

She also is now pushing to pay for $50,000 worth of debt for each college student that is estimated to cost over $1.2 Trillion over the next 10 years. She backs the green deal. She is proposing Universal pre school care. She backs Medicare-for-all. You couldn't confiscate the wealth from the rich and still pay for these proposals. Ever since her Pocahontas gaffe she's been struggling and has been unable to get any traction in the polls. Now she's swinging for the fences, it comes off as pretty desperate.

I live a couple hours from Jacksonville and to be honest I think the disappointment is more of an overall disappointment of how putrid Jacksonville's rushing attack has been. I think its more of an offensive line blocking issue than anything else.

From a legal standpoint that seems reasonable. From a political one, I just don't see this report swaying opinions one way or the other.

Yes, I think much of that happened and a lack of insistence plays into that. But with Lewandowski episode, he left that conversation believing that Lewandowski would speak to Sessions to walk back his recusal. But, asking Sessions to walk back his recusal isn't dispositive of obstructing justice but certainly could be seen as attempting to control the investigation. Again, intent is hard to establish.

The McGahn allegation which I assume is accurate is pretty damning. There are some outs here though but ultimately I also suspect what you describe as luck could have been a saving grace and moving one of his "could"s to an outright accusation of obstruction of justice charge. Presumably this means that McGahn pushed back and the president acquiesced. If McGahn had not initially pushed back and actually went through with it, then we'd be talking about a whole new ball game. And if you look at the first sentence, there are some potential conflicts of interest. I will say that the team Mueller assembled definitely had a partisan makeup. Having said that, sometimes as an overall manager you go to your trusted advisers and you say something looking to see if they push back. It appears McGahn pushed back and that was the end of that. Lying to the media is unbecoming, deceitful and all that but it's not a crime. And to the second part in questioning why McGahn said what he said to the Special counsel is not a crime either. Interesting that McGahn noted it as "perceived the president to be testing his mettle". Embarrassing for Trump but again, for a variety of reasons doesn't rise to the level of conclusively obstructing justice.

I think this best sums it up. Did Trump try to stop the investigation? Kinda but not really. He ranted and mused about taking actions to stop or limit the investigation but he really didn't follow through with it. Sort of like when you hear something that infuriates you and your immediate reaction is wanting to do something illogical, but then you hold back and not actually follow through with it. This is what allegedly happened on numerous occasions. Did Trump or anyone on his campaign "collude" with the Russians? No. They didn't conspire with any Russian officials to interfere with the elections. Did the Russians attempt to reach out to the Trump campaign? Allegedly yes but to no avail. Were Trump and his team happy to have dirt on Hillary compiled by any Russians to go public to damage her? Yeah, but so what? That's not a crime and in a blood sport profession as politics, dirt that is uncovered no matter the source, no matter how is a welcome event for opposing campaigns. Can you obstruct Justice if there was no underlying crime? Yes. But if you look at the legal definition of Obstruction of Justice: It states: "obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent." Did he try to impede? There definitely are some instances "episodes" that show that he did try or pondered or initially reacted in a manner to want to do so. Ultimately for one reason or another, in just about every "episode", he either didn't follow through, someone from his camp didn't follow through or there are legal loopholes such as the firing of Comey that provide some wiggle room. That's the stronger part of the definition against Trump. Was there corrupt intent? This is the second part of the definition of obstruction of justice and broad and open to interpretation. If you know that you are wrongfully being accused of something and you instigate some dubious actions that "could" be interpreted as attempting to impede justice. Is there any weight that should be applied to the defense of obstructing justice when the accused is first and foremost wrongfully accused and peripherally almost as important that the accused is under withering criticism by the Democrats and their media allies from carrying out his duties as president? Barr attempted to make this point and he was roundly criticized by the usual suspects, but I do believe that is a fair question. I do think this creates a conundrum and the burden of proof becomes that much more difficult. All the evidence and yes it is evidence and some of it pretty damning do strongly suggest that there "could" have been a case for obstruction of evidence in each of the 10 "episodes" that they laid out. Some of the cases as I mentioned earlier are pretty flimsy or potential explanations to absolve him of those allegations but there are others that are pretty straight forward and potentially damaging. But Mueller uses the word "could" in each of the "episodes". Mueller states that he couldn't indict but he could make recommendations and he wasn't shy to definitely stake a position of opinion on numerous occasions. The fact that he used the word "could" says a lot. It says that he could not conclusively prove it. And Mueller also implies in the report on a couple occasions that establishing "intent" is a high bar and that he could not conclusively say one way or the other. Bottom line: Trump and his team did not collude or conspire with the Russians even though they were happy to have information regarding Hillary out in the public that were damaging to her. Again, so what? That's not a crime. Trump initial instincts on many of the things that enraged him were to attempt to stop them. But he rarely followed through or they weren't followed through completely by his team. It's a high threshold to prove which is why there was no recommendation of indictment and Mueller knew that. Lets not forget a few things though. This was a conspiracy and it started with the Democrats and career officials that loathe Trump. He was treated differently which is a kind of way of saying unfairly by the media and some higher level intelligence officials. There should have never been an investigation on Trump. The media is a complete sham, they are dishonest brokers and should be viewed as such. It's not that some of their reporting was wrong, they are human and humans get things wrong. It's that they have an agenda. You would be hard-pressed to find a single media outlet that is able to report strictly the "news", just the news and nothing but the news. Covering politics is a matter of click bait and supplying "news" that only reinforces their viewers confirmation biases. They are just preaching to the choir. And all media outlets are guilty of it. The media was so vested in this collusion narrative which was the whole genesis of this all, they cannot go back and admit that they were wrong. Rather than that, they move the goal posts, bring up some anecdotal instances of potential appearances of impropriety regarding that claim and shamelessly then quickly move on to the the obstruction of justice allegation. Now Democrats have a decision to make, do they give what their progressive/socialist base wants, which is to have endless hearings to build up to impeachment or do they just do some hearings to embarrass Trump further to defeat him in 2020? They'd be wise to go with the latter. I'll end it with that I believe Trump's initial instincts on many of these matters are embarrassing. He lies excessively. He bullies whoever is in his way to get what he needs to get done. They are beneath the dignity of who you would like to represent your country. But none of this rises to level that he conclusively committed a crime pertaining to these matters. And he understandably has some of these recalcitrant reactions. He is not paranoid to think that the media and some from the intelligence communities are out to get him. He is under unfair and withering attack and its non stop. So I don't blame him for lashing out, he just needs to think these things through before he acts because I do believe he has shown that when he does get all the opinions and has had sufficient time to think about things, he tends to make much better decisions. And since now this report/document is now not a criminal matter but a political one and you have an economy is going strong, an ok foreign policy and he's getting lots of originalist judges to the bench, and a Democratic party that is lurching to socialism, he's got better than 50/50 odds of being re elected.

He's a good receiving back. I think the Bills are going to be hell bent on getting lots of underneath options for Josh Allen to throw to this year.

Any idea who pushed for the new facility?

Great Post! And I seem to remember telling certain posters that the previous 2 years were not about adding talent but finding the franchise QB, instilling a culture of accountability and attitude and shedding off players who didn't fit the mold and under performed their abilities to free up cap space so that THIS would be the year to finally begin to upgrade the talent on a NET basis. That's exactly what happened.

If Williams drops close enough then I think the Bills try to make a trade for him.

That's odd, he is the most NFL ready 2nd year QB.