Summery in March (SCO v 31)

[Farmer Br0wn]

You provided no facts,

Attorney general Barr has provided the facts.

You're refusing to believe the facts that have been presented, because you believe "he's in on it" in regards to this Russian collusion conspiracy theory hoax that you believe.

For a third time, you've proven me correct. While I appreciate it, it's starting to get a bit excessive.

 

[method115]

Barr releasing the full report mid April

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

I think DOJ has to talk to the FBI about what's redacted and what can be made available to the public. 3 weeks actually seems pretty short. I thought it would take longer.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Attorney general Barr has provided the facts.

You're refusing to believe the facts that have been presented, because you believe "he's in on it" in regards to this Russian collusion conspiracy theory hoax that you believe.

For a third time, you've proven me correct. While I appreciate it, it's starting to get a bit excessive.

The Attorney General release a summary memo, not "the facts", and the portion regarding no exoneration pertaining to obstruction seems to obfuscate the issue, which is why all this victory lapping by you guys is quite odd.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

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.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that's true. There was an actual investigation and if you obstruct it that's breaking the law.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

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.

WhatsApp has the best encryption. EVERYBODY is saying it, I hear it a lot. Believe me, believe me, it's so true.

 

[Seano]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that's true. There was an actual investigation and if you obstruct it that's breaking the law.

Well, the senate tries the impeached party and thats still controlled in by the right. I'm certain the left will impeach but it will be seen as sort of a joke and won't make it far in the senate.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Attorney general Barr has provided the facts.

You're refusing to believe the facts that have been presented, because you believe "he's in on it" in regards to this Russian collusion conspiracy theory hoax that you believe.

For a third time, you've proven me correct. While I appreciate it, it's starting to get a bit excessive.

Barr provided a 2 day summary of a 2 year investigation. He needs to redact the relevant information and disclose the evidence Mueller collected. Just like he said he would during his confirmation hearing.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Well, the senate tries the impeached party and thats still controlled in by the right. I'm certain the left will impeach but it will be seen as sort of a joke and won't make it far in the senate.

That depends on the evidence that's presented. We have seen politicians on both sides demonstrate they are above partisan politics.

 

[CrazyN8]

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.

Man, you're gonna cry rivers of tears until 2024. You want Trump impeached you have to provide the facts of his wrong doings. So far his accusers have found jack and shit and the possibility of something popping up now is slim to none. The only thing this investigation has done is tarnish the dems and throw any media integrity we had left down a black hole. Not to mention Russia is probably not fond of us basically calling them evil scumbags. This whole thing is a shit show.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

Democrats are going to get crushed in the 2018 election if they don't deny that Russia helped the Trump campaign and that the campaign actively courted or encouraged that help. There's no possible way they'll ever win a majority in the House.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Man, you're gonna cry rivers of tears until 2024. You want Trump impeached you have to provide the facts of his wrong doings. So far his accusers have found jack and shit and the possibility of something popping up now is slim to none. The only thing this investigation has done is tarnish the dems and throw any media integrity we had left down a black hole. Not to mention Russia is probably not fond of us basically calling them evil scumbags. This whole thing is a shit show.

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.

 

[vengeful]

Do you really not know the saying?

I want the actual definition of the world not some idiot's saying of what a word means. And yes I know the saying, but the saying isn't the actual definition, Bob.

 

[glenwo2]

Barr releasing the full report mid April

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

He probably needs time to get the necessary permissions on what to NOT reveal in terms of Grand Jury shit and National Security before "releasing the hounds"(giving the report).

 

[glenwo2]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that's true. There was an actual investigation and if you obstruct it that's breaking the law.

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."

 

[LangfordBarrow]

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."

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.

 

[waiguoren]

Huh? Schiff is super popular with Democrats.

How about with independents?

 

[kpt018]

How about with independents?

Who cares? I'm not trying to be a dick here but he's not running for president. Independents that aren't in his district probably don't know much about him.

I guess I just don't see what he's doing that hurts him or Democrats. He's been nothing but intelligent and rational about the whole situation.

 

[method115]

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.

Nah Brock won the war because he turned Mark Hunt into a whiner and I saw a lot of people on this site turn their back on him from all the crying he did after the fight.

 

[waiguoren]

Who cares? I'm not trying to be a dick here but he's not running for president. Independents that aren't in his district probably don't know much about him.

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

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.

He's been nothing but intelligent and rational about the whole situation.

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.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Nah Brock won the war because he turned Mark Hunt into a whiner and I saw a lot of people on this site turn their back on him from all the crying he did after the fight.

I'd say he lost because they overturned the decision. In terms of popularity maybe he gained more support. I have to support Hunt in this. He's a chubby guy that has accomplished a lot and fought more than his fair share of "enhanced" opponents.