Summery in March (SCO v 31)

[kpt018]

I'd bet Schiff is among the top five best-known Democratic congresspeople.

And most normal people couldn't name them. We are in a bubble here in the WR. Most people don't give a shit about this stuff.

Incessant congressional investigations and reckless rhetoric pointed at the president hurt the Republicans badly in 1998, a year the Republicans should have picked up seats.

Except that Trump is actually highly corrupt and it's out in the open.

I think that's silly.

For the past two years, Schiff has been doing interviews on CNN/MSNBC making statements like:

"There is ample evidence of collusion between people in the Trump campaign and the Russians."

"I think there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy."


See also the comments of Representative Turner in this post.

I'm well aware. The only way you can believe that is silly is if you've already concluded that Trump has been exonerated. And that would be silly.

 

[Rational Poster]

I'm not a lawyer either but I do think that's true.

The whole point of obstruction is the obstruction of an investigation into a potential crime that was committed.

But if that crime never existed in the first place(which Mueller seemed to confirm), then Obstruction never existed either.

Kind of like how some here feel about Brock's "win" against Mark Hunt.

I say that Brock won that fight but others here say "bullshit. The win was turned into an NC so he didn't win."

Obstruction of justice is a crime, period.

It doesn't matter if "the crime never existed". It's not like conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government was the only thing the investigation turned up.

Did you miss Trump's cronies getting put behind bars? It wasn't the only crime. So while he may not have obstructed that one specific charge, he certainly obstructed all the others.

This is a really stupid argument and you guys should back off from it.

 

[CrazyN8]

Are any of you guys capable of discourse absent this odd hyperbolic dualism? So many goddamn assumptions about others on your part.

I don't necessarily want him impeached or not, but I don't think it was ever a likely scenario, considering the stricture regarding impeachment of a sitting president. If you had asked, instead of making an assumption about that, you would appear less a fool, in my eyes at least.

The investigation led to numerous indictments of senior members of Trump's inner circle, including someone who was his national security advisor in the WH. There are still questions about what happened in any number of these strange instances between Trump's people and numerous shady entities. Hopefully the report, should the Attorney General do the right thing and release it fully, will show the context of said instances.

There are also over a dozen other investigations probing every area of Trump's business and political life.

But alas, it is quite funny, you sitting here, either playing coy or simply being naive about Russia's government, or the Vor and Kremlin crooks who run the nation.

Yes yes the truth is out there. I dont really care, keep digging, its just funny at this point.

 

[glenwo2]

I can see it going either way, depending on the letter of the law, so let's wait and see. And Brock won the battle but lost the war by having PEDs in his system. He comes from the WWE world and isn't an ATG like Jones, so it's somewhat forgivable, but Hunt still faced a guy with unnatural athleticism so he shouldn't have a defeat on his record. I thought his lawsuit had some merit considering how many guys he faced that were juiced up.

Don't want to derail but Mark should've went after those guys long before Brock. 'Cause right now it seemed more like he was upset that 1.) Brock got paid a lot and wanted some of the cheddar......and 2.) he felt embarrassed that he lost after he talked all that shit pre-fight.

Had he gone after guys like Mir or Gonzaga, he might've been viewed in a more sympathetic light.

Okay...derailment over. Back to our regularly-scheduled "No-Collusion" episode.

 

[method115]

2.) he felt embarrassed that he lost .

I really believe this is why Hunt lost his mind after the Brock fight. Not because of the prefight talk though I think it's because Brock came from the WWE and losing to someone like that has to sting. I'm sure Marks friends give him shit over it.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Don't want to derail but Mark should've went after those guys long before Brock. 'Cause right now it seemed more like he was upset that 1.) Brock got paid a lot and wanted some of the cheddar......and 2.) he felt embarrassed that he lost after he talked all that shit pre-fight.

Had he gone after guys like Mir or Gonzaga, he might've been viewed in a more sympathetic light.

Okay...derailment over. Back to our regularly-scheduled "No-Collusion" episode.

I can't agree with this. These UFC guys are pressured into money fights the company thinks will sell. If they turn a blind eye to WWE doping to sell a PPV Hunt shouldn't be the victim.

 

[waiguoren]

Except that Trump is actually highly corrupt and it's out in the open.

Momma always said: two wrongs don't make a right.

Even if I accept your premise---and I probably don't, depending on the definition of 'corrupt'---that doesn't excuse Schiff's grandstanding, wasting of taxpayers resources, and abandoning of HPSCI's important work.

I'm well aware. The only way you can believe that is silly is if you've already concluded that Trump has been exonerated. And that would be silly.

These are just word games, which is my point. Collusion, exoneration...the core accusation was that Trump or his campaign engaged in a conspiracy whereby Russia was offered policy concessions in exchange for help in the 2016 election. There is and has been a mountain of evidence undermining this narrative, yet Schiff gave 10s of interviews over two years indicating the opposite. That reflects poorly on him.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Momma always said: two wrongs don't make a right.

Even if I accept your premise---and I probably don't, depending on the definition of 'corrupt'---that doesn't excuse Schiff's grandstanding, wasting of taxpayers resources, and abandoning of HPSCI's important work.



These are just word games, which is my point. Collusion, exoneration...the core accusation was that Trump or his campaign engaged in a conspiracy whereby Russia was offered policy concessions in exchange for help in the 2016 election. There is and has been a mountain of evidence undermining this narrative, yet Schiff gave 10s of interviews over two years indicating the opposite. That reflects poorly on him.

Prosecutors or investigators aren't mind readers. Having guys like Manafort not only clam up but supply the SCO's questions to Trump's legal team hampered the investigation. You're obviously very partisan, even if you really are a registered Democrat, your posts are just best case scenarios for Trump.

 

[kpt018]

Momma always said: two wrongs don't make a right.

Even if I accept your premise---and I probably don't, depending on the definition of 'corrupt'---that doesn't excuse Schiff's grandstanding, wasting of taxpayers resources, and abandoning of HPSCI's important work.



These are just word games, which is my point. Collusion, exoneration...the core accusation was that Trump or his campaign engaged in a conspiracy whereby Russia was offered policy concessions in exchange for help in the 2016 election. There is and has been a mountain of evidence undermining this narrative, yet Schiff gave 10s of interviews over two years indicating the opposite. That reflects poorly on him.

Wrong. Mueller was hired to investigate the Russian probe into election interference. This narrowing down of Mueller's scope is inaccurate and shows your bias. And the fact remains that even Barr's partisan summary noted there were ongoing investigations and there was evidence of obstruction. You shouldn't have made this error because obviously we know who Mueller has indicted and for what (meaning we know his scope extended beyond what you're claiming here).

Again, Schiff is simply acknowledging facts the entire investigation and now after it's been concluded. He's done nothing inappropriate.

And I've said for a long time I've hated the term collusion and this is exactly why. You (and Trump supporters) get to change the meaning to how it suits you. Exoneration has a concrete meaning so it just seems like you're dodging that point. Trump and his gang is lying that he has been exonerated.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Yes yes the truth is out there. I dont really care, keep digging, its just funny at this point.

More nonsense on the part of you guys. The truth is most likely in the report, which has not been released. You guys are taking a victory lap alongside the president who screams about total exoneration while his hand picked AG even explicitly states he has not been exonerated, whatever that means.

Everyone seems capable of waiting but you guys.

If all of you are so.....premature, it would seem obvious as to why the right wing is infested with this incel, MGTOW, proud boy shit......

 

[GSP_37]

Kinsinger also siding with cocksucking Republicans. He's parroting all the Trump talking points.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/politics/barr-mueller-report.html

Barr will release report and appear before congress to testify about it.


But muh Trump pawn!

 

[CrazyN8]

More nonsense on the part of you guys. The truth is most likely in the report, which has not been released. You guys are taking a victory lap alongside the president who screams about total exoneration while his hand picked AG even explicitly states he has not been exonerated, whatever that means.

Everyone seems capable of waiting but you guys.

If all of you are so.....premature, it would seem obvious as to why the right wing is infested with this incel, MGTOW, proud boy shit......

Id wager you want the report so you can find talking points you can spin in your head to justify your position and continue to believe. Trumps fine now, he will be fine after the full report is released. When you find something in that report, and I know you will, that convinces you collusion was happening or something just as bad, guess what, he will still be fine. That's why people are celebrating, wars over.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are any of you guys capable of discourse absent this odd hyperbolic dualism? So many goddamn assumptions about others on your part.

That's exactly how it is. Some of us have a legitimate interest in getting things right in an objective sense, and people like @CrazyN8 and @waiguoren just see it as a partisan issue, and they think it's their duty to blindly defend their party at all times. It's pathetic.

Incessant congressional investigations and reckless rhetoric pointed at the president hurt the Republicans badly in 1998, a year the Republicans should have picked up seats.

This is weird analysis. You can't think of any other reason that 1998 would be a good year for incumbents (in both parties, BTW)? And what about 2016? I think the incessant, partisan investigations into Benghazi can be shown to have been pretty effective, even though, unlike the Mueller investigation, it turned up no evidence of any wrongdoing (and note that Republicans who are now insisting that no more indictments other than the many that have already gone down means the issue is totally closed were singing quite a different tune then).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Id wager you want the report so you can find talking points you can spin in your head to justify your position and continue to believe. Trumps fine now, he will be fine after the full report is released. When you find something in that report, and I know you will, that convinces you collusion was happening or something just as bad, guess what, he will still be fine. That's why people are celebrating, wars over.

@hillelslovak87, see? The guy is not even interested in whether he's right or not. He's not seeing the issue in terms of objective truth or in terms of what is best for America; he's going to defend his "team" to the death and show how submissive he can be, morals or facts be damned.

 

[CrazyN8]

@hillelslovak87, see? The guy is not even interested in whether he's right or not. He's not seeing the issue in terms of objective truth or in terms of what is best for America; he's going to defend his "team" to the death and show how submissive he can be, morals or facts be damned.

Are you calling me a partisan hack? That is hilarous. I bet you just assume everyone who disagrees with you had to be a partisan hack. I remember you arguing that CNN was biased for Republicans, honestly I just assume you have some form of asbergers.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Id wager you want the report so you can find talking points you can spin in your head to justify your position and continue to believe. Trumps fine now, he will be fine after the full report is released. When you find something in that report, and I know you will, that convinces you collusion was happening or something just as bad, guess what, he will still be fine. That's why people are celebrating, wars over.

I want the public to be able to see the report because transparency is important, and I don't like even the sniff of a coverup when it comes to our leaders, end of story.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are you calling me a partisan hack? That is hilarous.

You have an odd sense of humor. Anyway, I'm observing that you're not looking at this issue from the perspective of wanting to know the truth, you're just looking at it from the perspective of advancing a party and showing your tribe that you're willing to sacrifice your individuality and reason.

I bet you just assume everyone who disagrees with you had to be a partisan hack. I remember you arguing that CNN was biased for Republicans, honestly I just assume you have some form of asbergers.

Your view that only someone with a mental disorder of some type would question GOP dogma is consistent with my earlier observations, as is your seeming unfamiliarity with a view widely shared by media analysts (that is, you don't seem to even be aware that a perspective that differs from the one the GOP advances is even held).

I want the public to be able to see the report because transparency is important, and I don't like even the sniff of a coverup when it comes to our leaders, end of story.

One would think that "wrongdoing by elected leaders should be revealed to the public" is a position that would get universal assent. But partisanship is a powerful drug.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/politics/barr-mueller-report.html

Barr will release report and appear before congress to testify about it.


But muh Trump pawn!

I'm not saying he's a pawn. He also shouldn't be the sole arbiter interpreting the meaning of the Mueller investigation. If Mueller himself didn't want to make a determination on such a politically charged case it wasn't to leave it up to Barr. Congress and the public should be able to see the evidence that was collected and be able to make up our own minds. The details are in the underlying documents so those should be made available.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Id wager you want the report so you can find talking points you can spin in your head to justify your position and continue to believe. Trumps fine now, he will be fine after the full report is released. When you find something in that report, and I know you will, that convinces you collusion was happening or something just as bad, guess what, he will still be fine. That's why people are celebrating, wars over.

You should be talking into a mirror.