By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
jason1637 said:
Congress has invited Mueller to have a hearing about the investigation.

That should clear up an ambiguity with the redacted report.  I highly doubt that Mueller will not give his honest account of the report and his conclusions and determinations.  Either way, it should clear up some stuff so we can all move one one way or the other.  The thing is, if Barr is actually covering up for the President, we probably will get to the truth.  I believe that's pretty much want any American would want.  No more BS on both sides lets just get the facts straight.

That would be nice yes,clear facts for both sides to agree on.



Around the Network
coolbeans said:
Machiavellian said:

That should clear up an ambiguity with the redacted report.  I highly doubt that Mueller will not give his honest account of the report and his conclusions and determinations.  Either way, it should clear up some stuff so we can all move one one way or the other.  The thing is, if Barr is actually covering up for the President, we probably will get to the truth.  I believe that's pretty much want any American would want.  No more BS on both sides lets just get the facts straight.

So, I'm not really sure just what kind of Hail Mary people are expecting at this point.  Emphasizing that this is a "redacted report" shouldn't really hold any water on its own, as virtually all reports of this magnitude do.  And, as someone who's begun reading it, there's a healthy amount of text to chew through.  The most heavily redacted part I've seen skimming through makes sense: investigating Russian hacking & dumping operations (i.e. investigations that are still ongoing).  Literally the central point of this investigation states early on that "...the investigation did not establish that members of The Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with The Russian government in its election interference activities."  

Even though the report established that there was no collusion there is still a lot of info that shows that people like Trump jr and Manafort were involved with wikileaks/russia in some form. Also there is a case to be made about obstruction of justice.



Machiavellian said:
melbye said:

No politician should be above criticism, and it is really worrying to me that she and Cortez has pretty much been deemed untouchable and anything you say against them is sexist, racist or even inciting violence. And all politicians gets harassment and threats against them. It's not OK but it sadly a part of being a public figure

I do not know what news you have been reading or listening to but Neither Cortez or Omar has been deemed either untouchable or anything of the sort.  They have been criticized on both sides of the news including their own party.  It's one thing to criticize their view point, its another acting like a 3rd grade class idiot with insults.  The tweet Trump made was above stupid.  I put it right up there with is statements he saw Muslim people dancing and celebrating during September 11th.  Trump has a history of inciting racial bias and we can go over all the whole list if anyone is interested.

Omar and Cortez are the poster children for GOP platform of hate, division and fear mongering.  They want their base afraid of anyone who appears different from the norm and they want to make sure to keep the old white men in power to stem the tide of anything that looks like diversity.

So you think it is reasonable to accuse Dan Crenshaw of inciting violence for tweeting "Unbelievable" at he?



jason1637 said:
coolbeans said:

So, I'm not really sure just what kind of Hail Mary people are expecting at this point.  Emphasizing that this is a "redacted report" shouldn't really hold any water on its own, as virtually all reports of this magnitude do.  And, as someone who's begun reading it, there's a healthy amount of text to chew through.  The most heavily redacted part I've seen skimming through makes sense: investigating Russian hacking & dumping operations (i.e. investigations that are still ongoing).  Literally the central point of this investigation states early on that "...the investigation did not establish that members of The Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with The Russian government in its election interference activities."  

Even though the report established that there was no collusion there is still a lot of info that shows that people like Trump jr and Manafort were involved with wikileaks/russia in some form. Also there is a case to be made about obstruction of justice.

Depending on Muller testimony, we may see follow up investigations go down those lines.  If the Dems are going to be as bad as the GOP with Hillary, then this is just the beginning.  There is enough juice in there for them to go down the rabbit hole if they want.  Hell, it should be interesting if Julian Assange gets extradited to the US and give up some juicy tibbits.  Either way, since there is no smoking gun at the moment, there probably isn't enough to do anything with Trump but let him finish out his term and see what happens from there.  I personally just want it wrapped up with no BS in the middle.



melbye said:
Machiavellian said:

I do not know what news you have been reading or listening to but Neither Cortez or Omar has been deemed either untouchable or anything of the sort.  They have been criticized on both sides of the news including their own party.  It's one thing to criticize their view point, its another acting like a 3rd grade class idiot with insults.  The tweet Trump made was above stupid.  I put it right up there with is statements he saw Muslim people dancing and celebrating during September 11th.  Trump has a history of inciting racial bias and we can go over all the whole list if anyone is interested.

Omar and Cortez are the poster children for GOP platform of hate, division and fear mongering.  They want their base afraid of anyone who appears different from the norm and they want to make sure to keep the old white men in power to stem the tide of anything that looks like diversity.

So you think it is reasonable to accuse Dan Crenshaw of inciting violence for tweeting "Unbelievable" at he?

I do not know who Dan Crenshaw is.  I am only talking about the targeted response from the President using the 911 Incident to try and incite violent reaction.  If people say Trump isn't a complete imbecile then you have to know he fully understand the nature of that tweet and the effect it would have.

For anyone criticizing her for making dumb statements then they have every right because she has made a few.  She has the tact of Trump and a little to free with her speech not fully understanding her position and the tension within the US.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

You're the one who pointed out that not just Trump had it but it was basically made to define Trump. You never explained that. I also have said we all may be falling under the DK effect to some degree potentially.

Someone who likes a lot of different stuff plated or made of gold, who has had a multi billion dollar business for a long time now, which was doing well for the most part until his political career, is not the type of person who hires people with low standards. That doesn't necessarily mean every single person that get's hired meets his standards, but they are no doubt the best he can get at the time and for the money he's willing to pay.

I was part of a 60 year old multi million dollar company which eventually fell apart, and while there were a few reasons why, one of the main reasons was they slowly kept lowering the employee standards more and more to grow. Along with that, they forced the team leaders to stop being 'mean' and 'pushy' because it led to many of these new hires quitting quickly, which led to the new hires doing less and lower quality work because they could get away with it. It eventually led to the company having little work because the jobs were poorly done and the brand was tarnished. It was soon after on the verge of bankruptcy and was sold off in pieces. While the company would have suffered due to the other issues, it wouldn't have completely fallen apart if the staff was as high quality as it once was.

The type of people you hire, and how you direct them and treat them matters a lot, and that doesn't simply mean treating them like royalty because that can actually be a hindrance. 

Still with the waffling.  You called me out and stated on the sly I was ignorant.  Then when asked to prove your point all you do is make excuses.  We can drop it, as I doubt you any other follow up then the sly dig.

As to Trump having gold plated stuff, why would that have anything to do with his ability to hire good people.  You forget all the failed business, you forget the 6 bankruptcies, you forget that no bank in the US will fund any of his projects and you forget the only bank that has funded him is one already charged with money laundering.  You make it seem like Trump is this great successful man but ignore all the failed businesses under his wing.  You ignore all the lawsuits he has where he doesn't pay for services rendered.  Instead, you focus on the fact that he is a billionaire but forget he inherited his money and with all the failures, bailouts, tax evasions somehow we are to believe he is this great person beyond reproach.  

We have no clue exactly how much a Billionaire Trump is because he will not release his taxes.  We do not know if the fortune left by his father after inflation has dwindled under the administration under Trump.  That question will definitely be answered soon no matter how much has administration tries to stonewall.

So why is it out of all the business Trump tried to do outside of real estate he has come up short.  Could it be that in areas he has absolutely no clue how those business work he is incompetent.  Can we also throw the Presidency there as well.  Another area he has absolutely no experience in and so for looks like he is running it just like all the other failed business.

So No, Trump being a Billionaire who inherited his wealth and has ruined many a businesses, filed Bankruptcy 6 times, Charged with over 5K lawsuits many have to do with not paying his debts is not the model successful business man I would consider going to for advice on anything let alone run the Presidency.

Lots of points that I've partially already alluded to, but still no explanation. What happened to waiting for explanations, or was that the point?



After reading through a bit of the report, it does seem like the main conclusion regarding Obstruction of Justice is that Trump clearly did it, but Mueller can't do anything about it because Trump is President and Barr says you can't indict the President. It really cannot get much clearer in how it states that Trump obstructed justice. Any claim of exoneration through this report is ludicrous, as the report is full of damning information regarding the President's conduct.

But beyond potential criminal behavior, the sheer amount of willful lies from Trump and his Administration that have been exposed by this report is astounding, even under Trump's standards. How does anyone support a president that lies to the American people as easily as he breathes?

As a side note, I would also argue that this report make Barr look like a complete shill with no integrity and no intention to honestly portray Mueller's findings.

Last edited by sundin13 - on 18 April 2019

sundin13 said:

After reading through a bit of the report, it does seem like the main conclusion regarding Obstruction of Justice is that Trump clearly did it, but Mueller can't do anything about it because Trump is President and Barr says you can't indict the President. It really cannot get much clearer in how it states that Trump obstructed justice. Any claim of exoneration through this report is ludicrous, as the report is full of damning information regarding the President's conduct.

But beyond potential criminal behavior, the sheer amount of willful lies from Trump and his Administration that have been exposed by this report is astounding, even under Trump's standards. How does anyone support a president that lies to the American people as easily as he breathes?

As a side note, I would also argue that this report make Barr look like a complete shill with no integrity and no intention to honestly portray Mueller's findings.

Mueller could have indicted Trump. There is no actual law that you can't indict a President. It's just an unofficial policy that started back when in the 70s.



SpokenTruth said:
I'm reading through it right now and I don't understand how Barr came to the conclusion he did. We have both obstruction and collusion....along with the worst campaign ethics I've ever seen.

Nah, the report says he is clean of collusion but there is a case for obstruction.



jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

After reading through a bit of the report, it does seem like the main conclusion regarding Obstruction of Justice is that Trump clearly did it, but Mueller can't do anything about it because Trump is President and Barr says you can't indict the President. It really cannot get much clearer in how it states that Trump obstructed justice. Any claim of exoneration through this report is ludicrous, as the report is full of damning information regarding the President's conduct.

But beyond potential criminal behavior, the sheer amount of willful lies from Trump and his Administration that have been exposed by this report is astounding, even under Trump's standards. How does anyone support a president that lies to the American people as easily as he breathes?

As a side note, I would also argue that this report make Barr look like a complete shill with no integrity and no intention to honestly portray Mueller's findings.

Mueller could have indicted Trump. There is no actual law that you can't indict a President. It's just an unofficial policy that started back when in the 70s.

Mueller could have recommended indictment to an AG who has made it very clear what his position is on the issue. As Mueller states in the report (and I am paraphrasing), he does not believe that it would be proper to recommend indictment if no charges were going to be levied in court as that would prevent the individual from addressing the charges and clearing their name through court proceedings. As such, its seems clear to me that Mueller would not have recommended indictment for obstruction charges under virtually any circumstance. Because of this, this report's decision to not recommend indictment should not be used as a measuring stick for whether or not Trump indeed obstructed justice. The findings of the report need to be evaluated independently of the separate issue of whether a President can be indicted on such charges.

And when evaluating the findings independently of that question, it is clear that Trump obstructed justice.