They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

Jesus Christ on a bike. Are you related to Sarah Sanders? Talk about endless streams of bullshite. It's just funny now.

Again, I see insults, but where are your facts? This is not a partisan issue for me at all. In the main, Mueller's letter changes nothing of substance.

Tbh I doubt you even read Mueller's letter....

Recently, you massively self-owned yourself by posting an article which referred to the dossier as Russian disinformation.
The same author also described the dossier as "fly paper for crazies." According to him, that means you, bub.

[Monker]

You spent weeks saying that if Mueller had an issue with Barr's summary, he would say something. Now we find that he DID say something and now you are saying that what Mueller says doesn't matter.

To date, Mueller still hasn't said anything publicly about Barr's summary. This latest story quotes anonymous sources - not Mueller. The example I repeatedly used was the Buzzfeed story regarding Michael Cohen. Mueller's office released a rare PUBLIC statement disputing the accuracy of the story.

Mueller will testify and it still won't make any difference.

The bottom line is Barr misled the public with his summary. A summary which you went on a rampage about for days. You were/are wrong. You'll never admit to it, but that is the truth.

You are doing nothing but deploying political spin tactics to favor Trump.

If Mueller publicly contested the accuracy of Barr's summary, then go ahead and quote him. You can't. All you have are anonymous sources and leaks. Could be true, could be BS. And if the story is to be believed, Mueller did not dispute the facts of the summary AT ALL.

It is OBVIOUS that Mueller does not want to get into a political argument about this report. He will not make a public statement about it and get into this back and forth with Trump and his zombies. He is very smart to not do this. He has maintained his credibility, Barr hasn't.

As far as I know, Mueller has never said his intentions were to leave it up to Barr to charge Trump. You are simply making stuff up, or repeating the spin like a zombie.

Under DOJ guidelines changed after the Starr report, the special counsel report is confidential and goes only to the AG. Previously, the independent counsel report went right to Congress. You don't know what the hell you are even talking about.

So, with one side of your mouth you argue that Mueller could have ignored DOJ guidelines and charged Trump, and with the other side you start arguing to those same guidelines stop Mueller from leaving it up to congress to remedy Trump's potential crimes. If you follow the same guidelines that you are so attached to, Barr couldn't charge Trump either.

But, your contradiction and hypocrisy aside, what I said has NOTHING to do with who received the report. It has to do with who can remedy Trump being a criminal.

It is up to congress to remedy the President being a criminal, not the DOJ...it is OBVIOUS to me that is what Mueller believes.

Mueller told Trump's team MONTHS prior that he would not charge Trump. If that is how he felt, I doubt very much that he felt the AG would indict Trump either. He left it up to congress...not the AG.

Starr didn't indict Clinton, but still clearly accused and outlined grounds for impeachment. Mueller, on the other hand, equivocated and punted by saying "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” In doing so, he left it up to Barr and Rosenstein to make a prosecutorial judgement. If Mueller could unambiguously weigh in on conspiracy, he could have equally done the same with obstruction. Instead, he kicked the can down the lane to the chief law enforcement officer of the US.

So what. Nothing is stopping congress from instigating further....and there does not need to be a crime to impeach.

And, "colluding" is not a crime...the report writes MULTIPLE PARAGRAPHS to explain that.

You're playing word games. While collusion is not a legal term, conspiracy most certainly is - and nobody was charged with that either.

"nobody was charged with that either'." You CAN'T be charged with collusion as a crime. Conspiracy or treason and collusion are not equal things to be compared. I have stated these things on this forum for MONTHS now.

The report is not playing word games either...and spends a great deal of space describing the difference between the common use of the word "collusion" and crimes that involve collusion. The Trump Tower meeting alone is collusion...and there are other examples of collusion, or failed attempts, in the report.

People need to read the report for themselves...there absolutely was collusion. It is a LIE to say there wasn't.

[Monker]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/441547-read-muellers-letter-to-barr

Until Mueller is subpoenaed or releases a statement, we don't know how he feels on any of this. This letter was an internal document. Initially, anonymous sources leaked about it to the press and now it was released by Barr's DOJ. The letter makes clear that Mueller would have preferred that Barr release Mueller's executive summaries. Instead Barr released his own four page summary.

The fact that this was a "private" conversation between Mueller and Barr makes it more credible. There is no reason for Mueller to be dishonest about any of this.

Is that Mueller's decision to make? No.

No, it's not. But, it is also not Mueller's point. Mueller's point was that Barr was going out of his way to mislead the American people as to what Mueller really concluded. If Barr wanted to present to the people what Mueller and his team really concluded, he would have released the summaries. Barry didn't do it because he had his own agenda - and it had nothing to do with being truthful to the American people.

Would the executive summaries changed anything? Possibly.

The summaries could have more negatively shaped public perception on the issue of obstruction. But again, Mueller has no standing to make that decision.

You do't know that. It is all just speculation on your part.

What it would have changed is the American people would not have been misled by the Attorney General of the United States, and given a platform for the President of the United States to exaggerate and lie to the American people.

How Barr and Trump handled the release of the Mueller report should be unacceptable.

[Andrew]

He's trolling Monker. No one of previously displayed intelligence could become such a glued on Trumptaint licker, blind to something so fucking obvious!

[The_Noble_Cause]

Mueller will testify and it still won't make any difference.

Depends what he says.

The bottom line is Barr misled the public with his summary. A summary which you went on a rampage about for days. You were/are wrong. You'll never admit to it, but that is the truth.

The summary revealed that nobody was indicted for coordinating / conspiring with Russia. That remains true. Of course I crowed about it. All of your conspiracy theories were completely obliterated.

As for obstruction.... I have always said that I don't care about process crimes. If Barr downplayed obstruction, it is because Mueller allowed him to do that by failing to reach a clear conclusion. It is also Barr's prerogative to decide what gets released to the public and how.

It is OBVIOUS that Mueller does not want to get into a political argument about this report. He will not make a public statement about it and get into this back and forth with Trump and his zombies.

As previously mentioned, Mueller's office felt the need to release a formal public statement denying a Buzzfeed story about Michael Cohen. Until recently, Buzzfeed stood by the story. So the idea that the special counsel is above debate - or at least pushing back on false claims - is not true.

So, with one side of your mouth you argue that Mueller could have ignored DOJ guidelines and charged Trump,..

Yes, if Mueller found Trump's behavior to meet the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors and warranted ignoring pre-existing DOJ policy, he could have indicted. Guidelines are not laws.

...and with the other side you start arguing to those same guidelines stop Mueller from leaving it up to congress to remedy Trump's potential crimes. If you follow the same guidelines that you are so attached to, Barr couldn't charge Trump either.

Mueller, as per the guidelines, did not deliver his report to congress. He gave it to Barr. There was no guarantee that the report would even be released publicly.

But, your contradiction and hypocrisy aside, what I said has NOTHING to do with who received the report. It has to do with who can remedy Trump being a criminal.

So name the crime.

It is up to congress to remedy the President being a criminal, not the DOJ...it is OBVIOUS to me that is what Mueller believes.

Beliefs are not facts.

"nobody was charged with that either'." You CAN'T be charged with collusion as a crime.

Labels don't matter.
To quote one attorney, there's also "no crime called ‘shooting someone until they’re dead’ or ‘breaking into a house and stealing a laptop." The legal terms are homicide and burglary. Mueller looked for conspiracy and co-ordination. His definition of co-ordination is the same as collusion. Mueller's report is clear on this:


"In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears
in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express - between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."

I have stated these things on this forum for MONTHS now.

You've mostly been stating that Trump and his kids had a one-way ticket to jail or worse. You weren't parsing the letter of the law. Now you're claiming that the DOJ appointed a special counsel to investigate non-chargeable, non-provable crimes. That's nonsense.

The report is not playing word games either...and spends a great deal of space describing the difference between the common use of the word "collusion" and crimes that involve collusion. The Trump Tower meeting alone is collusion...and there are other examples of collusion, or failed attempts, in the report.

Most of those attempts were found to be innocuous or extremely circumstantial at best. It's painfully obvious you didn't read the report. Sorry.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The fact that this was a "private" conversation between Mueller and Barr makes it more credible. There is no reason for Mueller to be dishonest about any of this.

Mueller hasn't said anything. It's been anonymous leaks to the press. Even the letter that was recently released came from the DOJ, not Mueller.

No, it's not. But, it is also not Mueller's point. Mueller's point was that Barr was going out of his way to mislead the American people as to what Mueller really concluded.

You don't know what Mueller's point is or was. You are attributing motives to his actions, but you have no idea. This is just you further idolizing the great savior of the republic you've built up in your head. His report speaks for itself. Nobody was indicted for coordinating with Russia. Does anything Barr did change that fact? Not. At. All.

If Barr wanted to present to the people what Mueller and his team really concluded, he would have released the summaries. Barry didn't do it because he had his own agenda - and it had nothing to do with being truthful to the American people.

Barr has released more than just the Mueller summaries. He released the entire report, which he was not even bound to do.

You do't know that. It is all just speculation on your part.

I was quite clear about this. I said releasing Mueller's summaries "could have" shaped opinion. I stated it as a possibility, not a fact.

How Barr and Trump handled the release of the Mueller report should be unacceptable.

Only to those who did not familiarize themselves with DOJ guidelines.

Look, you were manipulated into believing Hillary had permission to have a private server. You were manipulated into believing all 17 intelligence agencies reached a consensus on Russian interference. Time and again, you have proven yourself susceptible to false media narratives. Why should this time be any different?

[The_Noble_Cause]

He's trolling Monker. No one of previously displayed intelligence could become such a glued on Trumptaint licker, blind to something so fucking obvious!

All insults, no facts.

[Andrew]

He's trolling Monker. No one of previously displayed intelligence could become such a glued on Trumptaint licker, blind to something so fucking obvious!

All insults, no facts.

Not an insult. A fact.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Not an insult. A fact.

I hope you get help for whatever personal issues you are going through Drew. I refuse to engage with you on that level.

Given that there are nearly 20 Democratic candidates running against Trump and a US sponsored coup happening in Venezuela, one would think that "liberals" would have something more to offer in this thread than just name calling. But I guess not.

I'm more than happy to debate the specifics of Russiagate - the biggest disinformation campaign since Iraqi WMDs. The Mueller report has vindicated those, both on the right and the left, who saw through the falsehoods. Nothing the Attorney General said or released changed that.

[Andrew]

Not an insult. A fact.

I hope you get help for whatever personal issues you are going through Drew. I refuse to engage with you on that level.

Oh go away FFS. I'm perfectly fine thank you. But I am glad to hear you won't be engaging with me any further. Thank christ for that.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Oh go away FFS. I'm perfectly fine thank you. But I am glad to hear you won't be engaging with me any further. Thank christ for that.

Since Russiagate has been exposed as the hoax that it is, all you are left with is insults or worse. The Mueller report is over 400 pages. If it's as damning as you claim it is, surely you could discuss some of it's bombshell findings. Instead you are on here making inane comments about taint licking. When you're not lobbing insults, you're talking about kiddie fucking. You're actively trying to degrade the level of discourse here to that of a NAMBLA chapter meeting. Hard pass.

[Andrew]

The Russia collusion is every bit as real as can plainly be seen by anyone without their face in Trumps taint.

And the underage stuff. We’ll just have to see how that plays out. I guess those lawsuit filings are all fake.

So long.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The Russia collusion is every bit as real as can plainly be seen by anyone without their face in Trumps taint.

Better tell Mueller and his small army of lawyers & FBI agents. On the issue of collusion/conspiracy/coordination, Mueller did not mince words:

"The investigation did not identify evidence that any US persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA's interference operation."

"The investigation did not find evidence that the Trump Campaign recovered any such Clinton emails, or that these contacts were part of a coordinated effort between Russia and the Trump Campaign. "

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

And the underage stuff. We’ll just have to see how that plays out. I guess those lawsuit filings are all fake.

In addition to Trump, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, the Duke of York, and Prince Andrew have all been accused of being part of some Epstein ring. Some, like Dershowitz, welcome the chance to clear their name. The Jane Doe suing Trump has voluntarily withdrawn her lawsuit or had it thrown out several times now. It's obviously a shakedown.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/ ... e-lawsuit/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... allegation

So long.

Peace. Hope you find happiness, dude.

[Monker]

The Russia collusion is every bit as real as can plainly be seen by anyone without their face in Trumps taint.

Better tell Mueller and his small army of lawyers & FBI agents. On the issue of collusion/conspiracy/coordination, Mueller did not mince words:

"The investigation did not identify evidence that any US persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA's interference operation."

"The investigation did not find evidence that the Trump Campaign recovered any such Clinton emails, or that these contacts were part of a coordinated effort between Russia and the Trump Campaign. "

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

And the underage stuff. We’ll just have to see how that plays out. I guess those lawsuit filings are all fake.

In addition to Trump, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, the Duke of York, and Prince Andrew have all been accused of being part of some Epstein ring. Some, like Dershowitz, welcome the chance to clear their name. The Jane Doe suing Trump has voluntarily withdrawn her lawsuit or had it thrown out several times now. It's obviously a shakedown.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/ ... e-lawsuit/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... allegation

So long.

Peace. Hope you find happiness, dude.

That Snopes articles does nothing to help your case. In fact, it seems to support Andrew. The CA lawsuit was thrown out due to technicalities and filing issues...not due to lack of evidence or some issue that cleared Trump. The NY case even has a witness testifying. Epstein even settled with this lady.

[Monker]

The fact that this was a "private" conversation between Mueller and Barr makes it more credible. There is no reason for Mueller to be dishonest about any of this.

Mueller hasn't said anything. It's been anonymous leaks to the press. Even the letter that was recently released came from the DOJ, not Mueller.

No, it's not. But, it is also not Mueller's point. Mueller's point was that Barr was going out of his way to mislead the American people as to what Mueller really concluded.

You don't know what Mueller's point is or was. You are attributing motives to his actions, but you have no idea. This is just you further idolizing the great savior of the republic you've built up in your head. His report speaks for itself. Nobody was indicted for coordinating with Russia. Does anything Barr did change that fact? Not. At. All.

If Barr wanted to present to the people what Mueller and his team really concluded, he would have released the summaries. Barry didn't do it because he had his own agenda - and it had nothing to do with being truthful to the American people.

Barr has released more than just the Mueller summaries. He released the entire report, which he was not even bound to do.

You do't know that. It is all just speculation on your part.

I was quite clear about this. I said releasing Mueller's summaries "could have" shaped opinion. I stated it as a possibility, not a fact.

How Barr and Trump handled the release of the Mueller report should be unacceptable.

Only to those who did not familiarize themselves with DOJ guidelines.

Look, you were manipulated into believing Hillary had permission to have a private server. You were manipulated into believing all 17 intelligence agencies reached a consensus on Russian interference. Time and again, you have proven yourself susceptible to false media narratives. Why should this time be any different?

.

Mueller TOLD TRUMP' that he would not be indicted.

Barr told congress during his confirmation that he wanted to disclose as much of the report as possible, "“I … believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel’s work. My goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law”

The DOJ rules apply to BOTH Mueller and Barr. If Mueller believed he could not indict Trump, then he also believed that the attorney general could not indict Trump, regardless of who it was.

With the House under the control of the Democrats, they have power to subpoena the report, or impeach out of malice to get the full report (which may still happen.)

You would have to be a naive moron to believe that the Mueller report would not be made public in some fashion.

To believe what you do, you have to believe that Mueller lied to Trump, Barr lied to or misled congress, Mueller believed that the AG is somehow above the guidelines of the DOJ, and that congress and the American people would allow the report to remain for the AG's eyes only.

[The_Noble_Cause]

That Snopes articles does nothing to help your case. In fact, it seems to support Andrew. The CA lawsuit was thrown out due to technicalities and filing issues...not due to lack of evidence or some issue that cleared Trump. Epstein even settled with this lady.

Ah, so you are a pedophile conspiracy theorist also?
The Snopes articles, and the links embedded within it, establishes that the case has been dismissed or withdrawn repeatedly. It will never go to court.

The NY case even has a witness testifying.

The NY case was voluntarily dismissed. Never happened.

Epstein even settled with this lady.

Epstein settled with Jane Doe 102. She never accused Trump of anything. Not the same Jane Doe.

It's pretty obvious why you continue to fall for falsehoods. Attention to detail is not your strong suit.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Mueller TOLD TRUMP' that he would not be indicted.

And...?
Mueller could have accused and outlined grounds for impeachment. Like Ken Starr did. Instead, Mueller did something completely different - he refused to charge or exonerate. Starr was unambiguous with his findings. Mueller was vague on obstruction and left the prosecutorial judgment up to the sole recipient of the report (the AG).

On the issue of conspiracy/collusion, Mueller didn't punt and refuse to exonerate or charge. On that matter, he was quite clear. He should have been similarly decisive on the issue of obstruction.

Barr told congress during his confirmation that he wanted to disclose as much of the report as possible, "“I … believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel’s work. My goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law”

As I said several times, it was up to the AG to decide what and when to disclose of the confidential special counsel report. This quote only confirms that.

The DOJ rules apply to BOTH Mueller and Barr. If Mueller believed he could not indict Trump, then he also believed that the attorney general could not indict Trump, regardless of who it was.

I can't read Mueller's mind. I can only judge his actions. Based on those, he followed OLC guidelines. Barr apparently has his own slightly unorthodox view on these matters completely. Did Mueller have to follow these? No. Even your hero, Bill Maher, agrees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4LMxMLTCps

You would have to be a naive moron to believe that the Mueller report would not be made public in some fashion.

Mueller's confidential report was prepared for the AG - not the public. The idea that Mueller was hoping that congress would do his job for him is based on assumptions. What if Trump invoked executive privilege not to release it and the conservative supreme court agreed? By your logic, Mueller also could have left the issue of conspiracy/co-ordination up to the congress as well. Hell, in that case, why even have a special prosecutor at all?

You're opening the door to all sorts of "what-if" scenarios. Let's stick to the facts.

To believe what you do, you have to believe that Mueller lied to Trump, Barr lied to or misled congress, Mueller believed that the AG is somehow above the guidelines of the DOJ, and that congress and the American people would allow the report to remain for the AG's eyes only.

I don't have to "believe" anything. The report is out there and not a single American was indicted for conspiring/co-ordinating/colluding with Russia. That's all that really matters to me. I've openly said that I didn't read volume 2 (on obstruction), because I don't give a shit! Once the underlying crime (Russia collusion) fell apart, it was pretty much game over. Now you are left quibbling about process crimes. Where's the beef?

Also, while the AG may not be above DOJ guidelines, the AG is def. above Mueller. The AG is the final word on all criminal investigations handled by the DOJ.

[RPM]

NO Crime of collusion. NO crime of obstruction. Lowest unemployment in 49 years. lowest hispanic unemployment
in history of our nation. Rate of economic growth 3.2 percent. good luck joe.....

[The_Noble_Cause]

NO crime of obstruction.

Not what Mueller said. He cleared on collusion/conspiracy. On obstruction, he said the "....report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Guidelines don't prevent Mueller from reaching a conclusion on criminality. But that's exactly what he did. Now that the AG did Mueller's job for him, everyone wants to demonize Barr. It's ridiculous. Until Democrats start talking about issues that actually matter, not stupid Russia memes, they are stuck in a holding pattern of stupidity.

good luck joe.....

I agree that Biden has a very slim chance of pulling this off. Not because of Trump. Just because Biden is Biden. Biden, like Trump, is a gaffe machine. However, Trump is better at walking in-between the landmines. Or tripping so many simultaneously that everybody is distracted. Also, Biden is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Delaware credit card industry. The Democratic base is hungry for a true progressive.

[verslibre]

lowest hispanic unemployment in history of our nation.

No, just fewer applying for UIB because they exhausted their benefits or can't get it. That's where they get the statistic.

[RPM]

NO crime of obstruction.

Not what Mueller said. He cleared on collusion/conspiracy. On obstruction, he said the "....report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Guidelines don't prevent Mueller from reaching a conclusion on criminality. But that's exactly what he did. Now that the AG did Mueller's job for him, everyone wants to demonize Barr. It's ridiculous. Until Democrats start talking about issues that actually matter, not stupid Russia memes, they are stuck in a holding pattern of stupidity.

good luck joe.....

I agree that Biden has a very slim chance of pulling this off. Not because of Trump. Just because Biden is Biden. Biden, like Trump, is a gaffe machine. However, Trump is better at walking in-between the landmines. Or tripping so many simultaneously that everybody is distracted. Also, Biden is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Delaware credit card industry. The Democratic base is hungry for a true progressive.

Your correct on the obstruction. I just don’t see it going anywhere, and you bring up a good point.
At all these town hall meetings and the hundreds of questions asked only a few have been about
Russia or mueller or any of that nonsense. It’s not what most people care about, and that’s a fact.

[RPM]

lowest hispanic unemployment in history of our nation.

No, just fewer applying for UIB because they exhausted their benefits or can't get it. That's where they get the statistic.

Ok so you think it’s not a true statement?

[verslibre]

A skewed statement.

[RPM]

A skewed statement.

Yeah that very well could be the case. Even so don’t you think it’s pretty
Impressive that it is so low?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Sorry state of media affairs when you have to turn to Fox News for dissenting views on Venezuela. Everything is upside down.

https://youtu.be/0A6P3lfinSg

[The_Noble_Cause]

Joe Rogan and Ron Paul have endorsed Tulsi Gabbard. I agree. Easily the best candidate running in 2020.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4OFm4Q93U4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0L_T5ylzwM

[The_Noble_Cause]

MSNBC has turned to shit and Maddow has sold her soul to Comcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTGlagIOgcE

[The_Noble_Cause]

At close to 90 years old, Mike Gravel still remains ahead of his time. I remember watching him in the 2008 debates and being thoroughly impressed.

https://youtu.be/Sydk-42Ean4

[The_Noble_Cause]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR8UcnwLH24&t=6913s

While most 2020 candidates have been silent on issues of Assange and Venezuela, Tulsi has taken a public stand. She's great.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Doubt I would vote for de Blasio, but as far as campaign spots go, this is a strong one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... HDhsPyJzvk