Deranged Rhino Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 *More 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: *More I don't know what the big deal is. The FBI never even kept notes when they interviewed Hillary. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Garbage... what kind of *****ery is this? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 5 minutes ago, Foxx said: what kind of *****ery is this? The answers are in the emails Adam Schiff has ensured he can selectively leak anything he wants and there will be no way to definitively debunk his lies. The *only* reason to do this is so you can leak lies without fear of the truth catching up to you. . 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 1 hour ago, B-Man said: The answers are in the emails Adam Schiff has ensured he can selectively leak anything he wants and there will be no way to definitively debunk his lies. The *only* reason to do this is so you can leak lies without fear of the truth catching up to you. . 100% It's the move of a dishonest, and frightened man. I give you, Adam Schiff. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 "20 questions for Robert Mueller." You should read this, from Jonathan Turley. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 The Ghost of Hunter Thompson Lurks over Mueller’s Coming. You don't have to exhume Dr. Hunter S. Thompson to explain the sudden turnabout that has led the previously silent Robert Mueller to accept subpoenas to testify in front of two congressional committees. But it doesn't hurt. Fear, as the good doctor famously said, and loathing. The fear is obvious. The Democrats and Mueller too, of course, not to mention an indeterminate number of FBI, DOJ, State Department, intel agency, and former administration scalawags are scared defecation-less waiting for shoes to drop from U.S. Attorney John Durham and Inspector General Michael Horowitz working under the steady hand of AG William Barr. Careers could be ending, some going to jail. Not even their obedient media lackeys can save them in a court of law. It looks at least possible, maybe even probable, that this will be the biggest political scandal in the history of the country. No wonder they want to get out in front of it as much as they can, even if that the means the special counsels having to face truly embarrassing questions like "Just when, Mr. Mueller, did you realize there was no Russia collusion?" He's probably already rehearsed about thirty answers to that. ("How's this one sound, dear?") House intel chair Adam Schiff says what he's really trying to do is explain "to the American people the serious counterintelligence concerns raised by the Mueller report." He must assume we're ignoramuses — or is that projection? Okay, I'm picking on someone for whom a lobotomy would be irrelevant, but he has lied to the American public consistently for over two years and deserves to be punished and humiliated. He undoubtedly knows this, because, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, he was supposedly privy to the truth all that time. (The number of Democrat politicians who deliberately lied to the public about Russia is extraordinarily long. Hello, Senator Warner... Someone should make a YouTube of their lies when this is over, but the organization would undoubtedly ban it.) Another question for which Mueller is undoubtedly rehearsing a response is "When did you learn the Steele dossier was a fraudulent document paid for by the Clinton campaign and did you inform the FISA court about it?" You don't have to overhear rehearsals with his wife to know the answer to that one: "I cannot answer because that is beyond the scope." But to anyone with an IQ in triple digits, that's the very thing everyone wants to know. I predict quite a number of "beyond the scope" answers from the special counsel and I would advise Republicans to craft their questions to evince them. Ideologues like Nadler and Schiff may find legal ways of shutting these questions down. I'm sure they're preparing them, but the public will have heard them and they will see Mueller ducking, as indeed he will. Another question: "Why didn't you investigate the provenance of your own investigation? How could you know it was fair without doing that?" Again, "beyond the scope" squared, because an honest answer might send Mueller to jail, just as a similarly honest answer as to why he lined the investigation with thirteen Democrats and not one Republican. That group included the highly-controversial Andrew Weismann of the Enron scandal and more. Not exactly anyone's idea of Atticus Finch. So the fear. As for the loathing, it's the only replacement for fear that they have. When fear fails or gets too excessive to handle, enter loathing. We've seen plenty of that for the last few years. Some worry the inspector general's report, promised for May or June, has not yet appeared. I don't. Horowitz is only allowed to question people currently working for the government. Durham can go after anyone and evidently has. He can probably be extremely helpful to Horowitz and vice versa. So we shall see. More at the link: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 1, 2019 Share Posted July 1, 2019 Insinuendo: Why the Muller Report Doth Repeat So Much. . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 This is STILL a thing? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 3 hours ago, row_33 said: This is STILL a thing? July 17th will be an attempt to do this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 then again it would have been awesome to watch some of those actors read out the Report as a comedy routine, nothing to want to murder people over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Red King Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 (edited) The thread title is misleading. At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion. Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion. So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno. Maybe?". And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no. At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie. Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one. It doesn't exonorate him. Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie. And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling. Edited July 3, 2019 by The Red King 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 21 minutes ago, The Red King said: The thread title is misleading. At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion. Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion. What's the fundamental legal principle in this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 (edited) 45 minutes ago, The Red King said: Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion. You're already sliding and bending the rule of law to fit your narrative. One that's devoid of factual support or a proper foundation -- both legally and evidenciary wise. A prosecutor's job, which is what the SCO was, is to see if there's enough evidence to convict, and then ONLY then, bring a case to court. Implying or suggesting that just because there's some "evidence" that means collusion happened is not how our system of justice works, nor should it work. Every scrap of "evidence" in Volume I is untested and one sided, not "proof" of anything as even the report admits -- it's never been cross examined or rebutted in a court of law. And there's overwhelming evidence to suggest much of its foundation was not only illegal and improper to begin with, but deeply - no, fatally - flawed. I know this to be true because I've read the report in full. I've also spent a great deal of time examining the entire story and every scrap of evidence (including talking to people involved first hand) to try my best to understand it. 45 minutes ago, The Red King said: So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno. Maybe?". And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no. It's not "more frustrating" -- there WAS a clear and decisive yes or no in the Volume I: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaigned conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities." That's a decisive NO to collusion/conspiracy. After two years, thousands of warrants and mountains of disclosure, they DID NOT ESTABLISH any conspiracy between Trump/Russia. 45 minutes ago, The Red King said: At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie. It's not a lie. 45 minutes ago, The Red King said: Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one. The SCO never states that it "didn't get a good enough look" in any manner or form. They clearly state they DID NOT ESTABLISH a conspiracy. That's precise legal language with meaning, which you're ignoring as you attempt to invert the entire premise of our system of justice in order to fit into the narrative you've bought and swallowed thanks to a media and establishment which has lied to you for 3+ years about this very topic. You should be outraged at how badly misinformed you've been on this subject by whichever news sources or experts you have deferred to in forming this opinion. 45 minutes ago, The Red King said: It doesn't exonorate him. A prosecutor's job is not to exonerate anyone. The standard of justice is NOT, nor has it ever been, guilty unless exonerated. What you're advocating for (likely unknowingly) is a complete reversal of our system of justice and due process in favor of a fascist/authoritarian legal system wherein everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent. What you're pushing should alarm you if you're honestly able to step back from and out of your partisan bubble. 45 minutes ago, The Red King said: Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie. It's not a lie. If a prosecutor DID NOT ESTABLISH a conspiracy, that means there is no case to bring. And since we are all innocent until proven guilty, Trump remains innocent in the eyes of the law -- which even Mueller would agree to. The lie is the belief you still hold that there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russia. It was never real. Ever. It was a concoction. And I can (and have) proven it. 45 minutes ago, The Red King said: And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling. I can tell you have not read the report in full... nor do you have a grasp of the facts of the story itself. You're going to read this as me attacking you. It's not. It's me challenging you to learn more about this matter and figure out why you believe what you do at present (and then who convinced you of that). (that was supposed to be one post, not two -- I fudged it up) Edited July 3, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 2 hours ago, The Red King said: The thread title is misleading. At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion. Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion. So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno. Maybe?". And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no. At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie. Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one. It doesn't exonorate him. Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie. And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling. Lol!!!! It's good to know you're not biased in any way. This was the funniest post I've read in days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Red King Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 (edited) When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. What am I biased against, facts? The fact is, there were not enough facts to deny or establish collusion. At no point in my post did I say or even suggest there was collusion. Next time you read into my post, try actually reading it. Irony is, you showed your bias pretty well. Like the kid and a cookie jar example I gave, the report said there was not enough evidence to prove collusion. Nowhere in the report does it specifically state there was no collusion. This isn't opinion, it's concrete fact. Seriously, show me where in the report it specifically says 'no collusion'. Go on, I'll wait.. Edited July 3, 2019 by The Red King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, The Red King said: When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. What am I biased against, facts? The fact is, there were not enough facts to deny or establish collusion. At no point in my post did I say or even suggest there was collusion. Next time you read into my post, try actually reading it. Irony is, you showed your bias pretty well. Like the kid and a cookie jar example I gave, the report said there was not enough evidence to prove collusion. Nowhere in the report does it specifically state there was no collusion. This isn't opinion, it's concrete fact. Seriously, show me where in the report it specifically says 'no collusion'. Go on, I'll wait.. you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Red King Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Just now, Foxx said: you're an idiot. Biting rebutal. Let's see if I can reply at your level. Um...you're a poo-poo head! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Red King Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 (edited) You can say 'The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', and you would be accurate. But that is not the same thing as saying 'The report said no collusion.' The former suggests there is not enough evidence to support a conclusion. The latter suggests a definitive conclusion was reached, and it wasn't. Hell, the most accurate statement would be "The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', which again isn't quite the same. Edited July 3, 2019 by The Red King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 5 hours ago, The Red King said: The thread title is misleading. At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion. Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion. So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno. Maybe?". And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no. At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie. Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one. It doesn't exonorate him. Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie. And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling. Therefore, no grounds to pursue the accusation of collusion. You should read how our legal system works. Is there a crime of collusion out there? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts