Summery in March (SCO v 31)

[glenwo2]

These commentaries conveniently focused on the portions of Mr. Barr’s summary of the report that ruled out the Trump team’s coordination with Russian operatives, and they disregarded the fact that the full report has not been released. Other important portions of the report, which reached the unequivocal conclusion — also supported by independent investigations, including in Russian media — that there were, indeed, Russian efforts to influence the 2016 American election, went completely ignored.

Oh Alexey..... shut the fuck up already with that! As if the full report will reveal anything counter to what Mueller concluded.

 

[kpt018]

I didn't say she said that. I'm saying she was against impeachment(and has been for a long while), even before the results of the investigation were known, meaning guilty or innocent she wasn't interested in entertaining impeachment proceedings.

He(and his campaign) were exonerated on collusion. They are not going to impeach him over an interpretation of OOJ into an investigation over a crime that was never committed.

Keep dreaming though, guys. It's really done you wonders over the past two years.

Who are you saying exonerated Trump then? If you meant Barr you should have added his name to avoid confusion.

Not sure what the fuck the last part is about. I've been saying for a long time he won't get impeached.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

One of the ways you can tell that you're dealing with someone that's been fooled into believing a conspiracy theory, is when information counter to that conspiracy theory is presented.

Any information that the conspiracy theorist is presented that is counter to their conspiracy theory, will immediately be considered part of the overall conspiracy.

This thread has provided several good examples:

Example: "Attorney General Barr has given a summary of Mueller's report. There's absolutely no evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia, and no further charges or indictments shall be handed down."

Conspiracy theorist answer: "Well, of course Attorney General Barr's summary would say that, he's an appointee of President Trump, he's in on it! The truth is out there, I want to believe!"

 

[hillelslovak87]

One of the ways you can tell that you're dealing with someone that's been fooled into believing a conspiracy theory, is when information counter to that conspiracy theory is presented.

Any information that the conspiracy theorist is presented that is counter to their conspiracy theory, will immediately be considered part of the overall conspiracy.

This thread has provided several good examples:

Example: "Attorney General Barr has given a summary of Mueller's report. There's absolutely no evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia, and no further charges or indictments shall be handed down."

Conspiracy theorist answer: "Well, of course Attorney General Barr's summary would say that, he's an appointee of President Trump, he's in on it! The truth is out there, I want to believe!"

That's not much of a conspiracy theory, given public and written memos by Barr, and the words of the President, coupled with his character, and clear ways of performing his business.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

If that's the case, Trump has a big dick then.

A big mushroom tip.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

What would be the point, though?

Senate is going to support "impeachment" anyway.


If they still go this route, it's just Political warfare for 2020.

The main point being getting the evidence to more than just Trump appointed officials.

 

[waiguoren]

CNN Host: Do you agree with your colleague Kevin McCarthy that Adam Schiff should resign from his post (as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee)?

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH): I really do believe that Adam Schiff's leadership as chair of the Intelligence Committee is compromised for three reasons. One is, he wasn't being straight with the American public or with you. When we would have hearings in the Intelligence Committee on the Trump campaign or coordination, we would hear witness after witness come in and say, 'I have no evidence of collusion and I don't know anyone else who has evidence of collusion.' Then he would walk out to the cameras and say, "we're getting close!" Then, the next reason we're concerned about his leadership is he would say, "Republicans are obstructing my ability to do this." Of course, the Republicans on the Committee were not. So it's very divisive. He's been dishonest with the American public as to what was actually happening in the Intelligence Committee....

CNN Host: So just to be clear, you actually heard him misrepresenting things that would happen behind closed doors, and then he would come out, and you heard him lying about it?

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH): Yes, and so have you. You can play the tape of him saying, "I have more than circumstantial evidence." In fact, if you go to Comey's hearing before the Intelligence Committee, I tried to signal to the media: it's not illegal for a member of Congress to sit in a classified briefing and then to come out and misrepresent what happened in that room. It's illegal for them to come out and say what did happen. Time after time, we would leave the hearings, the Republicans would file by, and Adam Schiff would run in front of the cameras and say outrageous and inflammatory things that just did not represent what happened in that room. But the second thing is just the divisiveness. He would blame the Republicans that he was somehow being constrained in finding collusion. We now know from the Mueller report that there is no collusion to find. The third thing is that he's transformed the Intelligence Committee. His staff---you've even reported---has been transformed into an investigative team instead of an intelligence team. Remember our committee is about national security---trying to ensure that our intelligence community has the tools they need.....

CNN Host: But don't you do some investigating? Isn't that part of what you're tasked with?

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH): Not the type of investigation that he has been directed toward. Remember, he has Felix Sater coming in just tomorrow to ask him more questions about collusion and collaboration with the Trump campaign. That's someone who has already been interviewed by the Mueller team....

CNN Host: Well, I think that it's because he wanted to know more about the Moscow Trump Tower, where there are still some questions about why we didn't know the right timeline of that and why Donald Trump as candidate and president didn't own up to that business.

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH): The Mueller investigation interviewed Felix Sater. There is no more work for the Intelligence Committee to do with respect to any aspect of Trump and collusion...

CNN Host: Hang on one second, Congressman. You have a duty separate and apart from the Mueller investigation. You all have investigative and oversight powers even if Robert Mueller didn't exist.

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH): Right. But there are other committees to pursue other issues. We're supposed to be focusing on your national security. What's China doing? What's Russia doing? What's Iran, North Korea doing? What's our intelligence community doing? What resources do they need? What information do we have that needs to be processed? Are there silos in between the intelligence community that we can help them with legislation and regulation. This is a personal vendetta from Adam Schiff at this point. He will continue to come on your show and say there is collusion even though we all know there is no collusion as long as you let him.

Spoiler: Full

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

That's not much of a conspiracy theory, given public and written memos by Barr, and the words of the President, coupled with his character, and clear ways of performing his business.

Thank you for proving me correct.

Your reason for not believing the facts that have been presented to you, are your subjective opinions of "character".

What reasonable standard of evidence would it take for you to admit that you're wrong?

If you're unable to articulate a reasonable standard, then it's a very good sign that you fallen prey to a conspiracy theory.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Thank you for proving me correct.

Your reason for not believing the facts that have been presented to you, are your subjective opinions of "character".

What reasonable standard of evidence would it take for you to admit that you're wrong?

If you're unable to articulate a reasonable standard, then it's a very good sign that you fallen prey to a conspiracy theory.

Yeah, you don't know what a conspiracy theory is. Cool.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Yeah, you don't know what a conspiracy theory is. Cool.

I'll ask again, because you dodged the first time:

What reasonable standard of evidence would it take for you to admit that you're wrong?

If you're unable to articulate a reasonable standard, then it's a very good sign that you fallen prey to a conspiracy theory.

P.S.

Thanks for proving my argument correct in the first reply! It usually takes a few more posts to get there, I appreciate the efficiency!

 

[hillelslovak87]

I'll ask again, because you dodged the first time:

What reasonable standard of evidence would it take for you to admit that you're wrong?

If you're unable to articulate a reasonable standard, then it's a very good sign that you fallen prey to a conspiracy theory.

My reasonable standard is the recognition of a political strategy by a willfully corrupt president appointing a Bush guy.Recognizing a pretty plausible situation is not conjecture, nor a proposition by me.

You're the one insisting this is some conspiracy theory, and the onus lies upon you to show how it is.

 

[andnowweknow]

CNN Host: Do you agree with your colleague Kevin McCarthy that Adam Schiff should resign from his post (as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee)?

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH): I really do believe that Adam Schiff's leadership as chair of the Intelligence Committee is compromised for three reasons. One is, he wasn't being straight with the American public or with you. When we would have hearings in the Intelligence Committee on the Trump campaign or coordination, we would hear witness after witness come in and say, 'I have no evidence of collusion and I don't know anyone else who has evidence of collusion.' Then he would walk out to the cameras and say, "we're getting close!" Then, the next reason we're concerned about his leadership is he would say, "Republicans are obstructing my ability to do this." Of course, the Republicans on the Committee were not. So it's very divisive. He's been dishonest with the American public as to what was actually happening in the Intelligence Committee....

CNN Host: So just to be clear, you actually heard him misrepresenting things that would happen behind closed doors, and then he would come out, and you heard him lying about it?

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH): Yes, and so have you. You can play the tape of him saying, "I have more than circumstantial evidence." In fact, if you go to Comey's hearing before the Intelligence Committee, I tried to signal to the media: it's not illegal for a member of Congress to sit in a classified briefing and then to come out and misrepresent what happened in that room. It's illegal for them to come out and say what did happen. Time after time, we would leave the hearings, the Republicans would file by, and Adam Schiff would run in front of the cameras and say outrageous and inflammatory things that just did not represent what happened in that room. But the second thing is just the divisiveness. He would blame the Republicans that he was somehow being constrained in finding collusion. We now know from the Mueller report that there is no collusion to find. The third thing is that he's transformed the Intelligence Committee. His staff---you've even reported---has been transformed into an investigative team instead of an intelligence team. Remember our committee is about national security---trying to ensure that our intelligence community has the tools they need.....

CNN Host: But don't you do some investigating? Isn't that part of what you're tasked with?

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH): Not the type of investigation that he has been directed toward. Remember, he has Felix Sater coming in just tomorrow to ask him more questions about collusion and collaboration with the Trump campaign. That's someone who has already been interviewed by the Mueller team....

CNN Host: Well, I think that it's because he wanted to know more about the Moscow Trump Tower, where there are still some questions about why we didn't know the right timeline of that and why Donald Trump as candidate and president didn't own up to that business.

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH): The Mueller investigation interviewed Felix Sater. There is no more work for the Intelligence Committee to do with respect to any aspect of Trump and collusion...

CNN Host: Hang on one second, Congressman. You have a duty separate and apart from the Mueller investigation. You all have investigative and oversight powers even if Robert Mueller didn't exist.

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH): Right. But there are other committees to pursue other issues. We're supposed to be focusing on your national security. What's China doing? What's Russia doing? What's Iran, North Korea doing? What's our intelligence community doing? What resources do they need? What information do we have that needs to be processed? Are there silos in between the intelligence community that we can help them with legislation and regulation. This is a personal vendetta from Adam Schiff at this point. He will continue to come on your show and say there is collusion even though we all know there is no collusion as long as you let him.

Spoiler: Full

The Republicans didn't do their jobs when they had a chance. They can stfu and enjoy the back seat.

 

[waiguoren]

The Republicans didn't do their jobs when they had a chance. They can stfu and enjoy the back seat.

Schiff is a political liability for the Democrats at this point. The only interesting political question is whether or not it would be politically advantageous for the Democrats to force him out. The "optics" of the resignation of a chairman in these circumstances are also not good.

Putting the political analysis aside, the HPSC has almost infinitely more important matters to attend to. The Committee spends taxpayer dollars to provide oversight of the intelligence agencies, which is extremely important when we consider all the messes CIA/FBI/NSA have gotten us into.

HPSC is not an investigative committee. Schiff has the ability to make his own, separate committee if he wants to continue barking up that tree.

 

[andnowweknow]

Schiff is a political liability for the Democrats at this point. The only question is whether or not it would be politically advantageous for the Democrats to force him out. The "optics" of the resignation of a chairman in these circumstances are also not good.

It's a political joke asking him to resign.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

My reasonable standard is the recognition of a political strategy by a willfully corrupt president appointing a Bush guy.Recognizing a pretty plausible situation is not conjecture, nor a proposition by me.

You've proved me correct again.

You're refusing to believe the facts presented to you, because you personally believe the people presenting those facts are "in on it" in regards to this conspiracy theory you believe.

You're the one insisting this is some conspiracy theory, and the onus lies upon you to show how it is.

The Russian collusion conspiracy theory has already been disproven.

I'm not the one making assertions of conspiracy theories, you are.

 

[kpt018]

Schiff is a political liability for the Democrats at this point. The only interesting political question is whether or not it would be politically advantageous for the Democrats to force him out. The "optics" of the resignation of a chairman in these circumstances are also not good.

Putting the political analysis aside, the HPSC has almost infinitely more important matters to attend to. The Committee spends taxpayer dollars to provide oversight of the intelligence agencies, which is extremely important when we consider all the messes CIA/FBI/NSA have gotten us into.

HPSC is not an investigative committee. Schiff has the ability to make his own, separate committee if he wants to continue barking up that tree.

Huh? Schiff is super popular with Democrats.

 

[glenwo2]

The main point being getting the evidence to more than just Trump appointed officials.

shit. I meant to say :

"Senate *ISN'T* going to support "impeachment" anyway."

I hate it when I don't notice typos until it's way too late. <Lmaoo>






And the bolded (what you just said) still doesn't make sense, though.

Okay....so everyone gets the report, you know the Dems are going to cherry-pick shit that they will use against Trump just like the Republicans will cherry-pick themselves.




Now that said, let's forget Barr for a bit here.

The bottom line is this :

If there was no Conspiracy/Collusion, per Mueller's final conclusion, then there was no wrongdoing.

If there was no wrongdoing, there was no crime.

And if there was no crime, the prerequisite of Obstruction being possible is eliminated.

 

[hillelslovak87]

You've proved me correct again.

You're refusing to believe the facts presented to you, because you personally believe the people presenting those facts are "in on it" in regards to this conspiracy theory you believe.



The Russian collusion conspiracy theory has already been disproven.

I'm not the one making assertions of conspiracy theories, you are.

You provided no facts, and you seem to want to simply gloss over the myriad ties between Trump's team and Russian entities. And this says nothing about the multiple investigations currently into the guy, some of which have to do with the Russia question.

But by all means, keep cock gobbling a Family Operation ran by dipshits who communicate with world leaders on phones lacking encryption.

 

[glenwo2]

A big mushroom tip.

Stormy Daniels approves this post.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Barr releasing the full report mid April

Is DoJ responsible for any necessary redactions? Why the weird 3 week delay?