Kemp

I thought Mayfield was the best of the group and that Allen would not turn out to be a good NFL QB. It's way too early to know, but I have seen nothing to contradict it, yet. I forgot the exact numbers, but Mayfield got rid of the ball much faster than Taylor, yesterday. That was one of the big keys to the difference in their performance. From Pro Football Focus on Mayfield, yesterday: The highest graded performance by a rookie quarterback since we began grading in 2006.

I get it. If it doesn't fit your narrative, it's fake news. Trump says that the Russians didn't do anything in an attempt to help him. All of the government agencies and Congress say otherwise. It is not a point of dispute that the voting machines were attacked. Who do you think was behind it.?

Wow! You didn't know Clinton was impeached! I just checked. Trump has not been removed from office.

This partisan behavior existed before Trump. Clinton was convicted of something that had zero to do with the initial investigation, so blaming the current Democrats for this behavior is provably wrong. What started the investigation was comments by one of Trump's aides. Attempts were made to break into the voting machines. This isn't even a point of dispute. If you can break into an electronic machine, you can change the data without causing totally obvious issues. I'm not saying it happened. I'm saying it was attempted and we assume hopefully that votes were not changed. Which correspondence are you referring to?

I've started reading your doc. You point out that election meddling has always existed. As far as I know, 2016 was the first time that a foreign power attempted to get into the actual voting machines. We were told the attempts were unsuccessful, but consider that if votes were changed, we would almost definitely not find this out because of the chaos it would cause. Will read more. A coup led by who? You lay out facts, well, but your conclusion that there is a coup, seems to be more of an assertion than evidence-based, to me, which leads to another obvious question: If there proves to be no collusion and Trump is found to be guilty of other unrelated felonies, should it all be tossed? Does your opinion on this matter mirror your opinion on the Clinton (Bill) investigation?

Per Fox News, this is what I found as to what Page testified to: More than nine months after the FBI opened its highly classified counterintelligence investigation into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript of Page's recent closed-door deposition reviewed by Fox News. "I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn't answer the question," Page said. She didn't say there was no collusion. She said that they could not determine it, at that point in time. I'll have to read your other source material. What is your point about Podesta? If Trump is innocent, he is 100% safe from the investigation, so all any of us can do is wait to see what comes out.

Are you Johnnie Cochran?

Who is "we"? Tee shirts are racist? Wow! Lisa Page, as far as I know, is hardly the owner of the primary knowledge surrounding the Mueller investigation. She was an FBI agent. What are the multiple shifts? The prosecutions have not even been laid out in full, yet. When they are, we will be able to determine what it all means. We all know that criminal investigations very often progress in a bottom-to-top trajectory, so what we think we know now could change quite a bit as this investigation progresses. When you bring down a mob boss, you usually get his underlings, first. All I maintain is that until we know all the facts, we don't know very much and everyone agrees that this investigation has been as leakproof as any we may have ever seen.

To me, Barney is perhaps the single greatest character in a sitcom, ever. Love when he sings a capella: Wore this shirt the other day.

It is not proper for the Federal government to pursue criminal investigations into private OR public citizens unprompted by evidence of wrongdoing. What started this investigation were the comments of George Papadopoulus, so I don't believe it was unprompted by wrongdoing. Some maintain it was the Steele dossier, which I doubt, but that would still mean that it was prompted by evidence. Unfortunately, we live in a society where these investigations have become common. Clinton was convicted of something that had zero to do with the initial charges, and I don't remember folks on the Right condemning it. One could also argue that the Benghazi investigation was 100% politically motivated and that resulted in zero findings of guilty. At least the Mueller investigation is uncovering quite a few illegal acts resulting in guilty pleas. If at the end of the investigation it is all found to be politically motivated bull, then those leading the crusade against Trump should be convicted and jailed. All I am saying is to wait and see what the investigation yields. Thanks for the sane tone.

Nope. It's too much fun watching people get nasty when they can't defend their position.

One sometimes has no choice but to take the easy way out. See above.

It was December of 2016. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/01/michael-flynn-charged-in-special-counsels-russia-investigation.html Again, we don't know what else will come out, yet. Why did Flynn lie to the FBI about Russian contacts? Would you plead guilty if you were innocent?. Of all the defendants, Flynn may turn out to be the weakest link. His ties to illegal activity involving Turkey is also a problem for him. Declaring innocence before the conclusion of an investigation makes no sense. In any case, let's see what comes out at the conclusion of the investigation.

I don't have a right to ask you a question? You must be very important. Wouldn't it have been easier for you to just come out and say that you are unable to answer the question than write near undecipherable nonsense that somewhat resembles English?

I didn't bring up stonewalled, so I'm not sure what you mean. We don't know all the details of the guilty pleas, so there's no way to answer that, yet. The only one we know that fits that time frame for sure is Flynn. I assumed your side was the belief that the Mueller investigation should not be going on. Untrue? That's the position of some here who are upset with me. I will address anything you want after you answer if Trump was wrong or lying when he said the platform was changed.

I said the Republicans changed their platform at the convention in regards to Ukraine. You and your supporters claim this is a lie. When asked about it, Trump said: "They softened it, I heard, but I was not involved." Was Trump in error or lying? Is there a third possibility? You can huff and puff all you want, but you seem unable to answer the question. It's been stonewalled? It's still going on and people keep pleading guilty. We'll find out when it's over. If you're right, Mueller and the Dems will be devoured by the truth. If you're wrong, I have a feeling a lot of the folks on your side will not accept the results.

It must be tough to live in fear of what might come out in an investigation. You are bent out of shape because I said that it's impossible to know the findings of an investigation before they are revealed. Since you are so good at knowing things before they happen, and you think it's all a waste of time, you must feel nothing bad will come out. Yet, you're scared and upset. Why? Your screaming about partisan politics is ironic. Do you really not understand that everyone, including yourself, is partisan? I quoted Trump. Is he wrong or lying? There are no other options. Talk about poor reading comprehension. It's easy to rattle those who fear what might be just around the bend.

If you're bored by me you are free to ignore me. Yeah, I'm the sole person here who is politically motivated. You can't read and process? George Stephanopoulos: "Then why did you soften the GOP platform on Ukraine?" Trump: "I wasn't involved in that. Honestly, I was not involved." Stephanopoulos: "Your people were." Trump: "Yeah. I was not involved in that. I'd like to -- I'd have to take a look at it. But I was not involved in that." Stephanopoulos: "Do you know what they did?" Trump: "They softened it, I heard, but I was not involved."

Others in this thread have advocated for shutting it down. Good to hear that you're keeping an open mind. I agree, as I have already stated, that there is no indictable proof against Trump in the public sphere. The MSM is definitely against Trump, but Trump is even worse to the MSM than they are to him. Advocating for trying to change laws that would make it easier to jail journalists is the opinion of a dictator/autocrat. When Gary Hart went after the press and dared them to go after him, it ruined his career. Here's one: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/aug/04/did-trump-campaign-soften-platform-language-benefi/ Note that in the above link, Trump states that the platform was changed. There are plenty of other links out there. Look them up, if you're really interested.

You're unaware that the official platform of the Republican Party changed under Trump and Manafort in regards to Ukraine? There are numerous links out there that talk about it. Why do you believe Manafort asked to be Trump's campaign manager at no salary? Since you brought it up, was the Trump Tower meeting about adopting Russian children?

Getting testy, eh? Lot of pressure on you folks. I've already said that no charges have even been hinted at towards Trump. The report hasn't come out, yet. As to what constitutes a connection between Trump and Russia, we know that Trump publicly asked Russia for help getting Hillary's emails. We also know that Trump removed help for the Ukraine from the Republican platform and brought in Manafort, who EVERYONE knows was working for various Russian interests. By itself, these things are proof of nothing, but it dose raise concerns that it could mean something. Your opinion that we should look the other way shows a lack of curiosity, or self-deception, or a fear of the truth. If you choose to investigate your political opponents you shouldn't be surprised when the tables get turned. Again, you haven't seen Manafort's findings, yet. That he hasn't yet named Trump is proof that charges won't come in the future? If Trump is indeed innocent, he will come up clean in the final report. Since you are convinced there is nothing to find, why worry about it, at all?

Since none of us have seen Mueller's findings, on what do you base your opinion that none of it relates to Trump? When the investigation of Clinton took place and all of the original accusations turned out to be false and it morphed into a perjury case about sex, did you complain about it being unjust? When a prosecutor goes after one thing, it often leads to another thing.

It's been a year and a half. Starr's investigation of Clinton took 8 years. No one outside of the investigation, including you, knows where this will end up. So far, the following have already fallen: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/14/whos-been-charged-by-mueller-in-russia-probe-so-far.html If you think they are all irrelevant to the Russian angle, you're kidding yourself, especially as to Manafort's role. In any case, if it turns out that Trump has no criminal liability, you'll be proven right. What the hell is the "process of our republic"? You've seen Mueller's report?

Then there's no reason to not let Mueller finish his investigation.

Ebonics on the board.