|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 08 2019 10:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. 1. Collusion isn't a crime. 2. Plenty of Trump's people went down for working with the Russians and actually committing crimes. 3. Impeachment can't happen because of Republicans in Congress, even if all Democrats were aligned.
Nope. None of Trump’s people was indicted for conspiring with Russians during the campaign, which was the entire basis for the investigation. That fact is incredibly telling about what this all was really about.
|
On June 08 2019 11:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 10:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. 1. Collusion isn't a crime. 2. Plenty of Trump's people went down for working with the Russians and actually committing crimes. 3. Impeachment can't happen because of Republicans in Congress, even if all Democrats were aligned. Nope. None of Trump’s people was indicted for conspiring with Russians during the campaign, which was the entire basis for the investigation. That fact is incredibly telling about what this all was really about.
Putting people in jail for crimes they did commit?
|
On June 08 2019 11:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 10:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. 1. Collusion isn't a crime. 2. Plenty of Trump's people went down for working with the Russians and actually committing crimes. 3. Impeachment can't happen because of Republicans in Congress, even if all Democrats were aligned. Nope. None of Trump’s people was indicted for conspiring with Russians during the campaign, which was the entire basis for the investigation. That fact is incredibly telling about what this all was really about. Because of the definition with-in the muller reportIn 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. The muller report goes into plenty of clearly unethical behavior for a presidential campaign to be doing. None of which fit the dentition perfectly.
It's the informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests that the Trump campaign did not have. In other words because they failed to properly reach out to russia; not for a lack of trying but ineptitude that they did not break the law. They certainly did try and Russia was responsive to cues set by the Trump campaign.
Trump's fake "drain the swap" a tagline that his campaign advisers gave him certainly surrounds himself during the campaign and filling positions with unethical and corrupt people. He currently only hires the best people.
On June 08 2019 09:33 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Mexico may have just bent the knee. Trump is tweeting that a deal has been reached.
Well what is this deal, is it like the amazing new trade deal USMCA which was just mostly NAFTA but with certina silly parts that congress wont ratify but now with Trump's signature on it so now it's solved, was a disaster before but now with some minor changes perfect. Maybe it's like mexico paying for that wall, fictional.
|
On June 08 2019 10:45 Danglars wrote:Instead, I see a lot of collusion truthers trying to take shortcuts. Well, we don't have to fairly weigh Barr's arguments, because we don't like Barr as a person. We don't have to look critically at what Mueller produced, because we judge him more trustworthy than others. We don't have to worry about illegal activity within the intelligence community, because Trump will always be a worse danger to democracy than them. Yet again you are mischaracterizing what others have said. People don't trust Barr and don't believe his arguments, not because we don't like him, but because he has, on multiple occasions throughout the years, behaved in such a way that makes him seem dishonest, and this has been outlined many times here. During key events he has deliberately prevented others from seeing information while instead offering to summarize the information. Then when people get the actual information he was summarizing they find that he has either mischaracterized or otherwise taken out of context key points or has left out information that would be harmful to his argument in his summary. Because of this past behaviour, it is reasonable to doubt what he says because there is no reason to trust that he is being fully truthful and forthcoming with all relevant information. He has shown that he prefers to steer narratives to be favourable to his arguments rather than be truthful and transparent. In the last few months he has not only misrepresented the findings of the Mueller Report, but also misled about communications between him and Mueller himself. Remember that Barr claimed under oath that Mueller had no objections to Barr's summary, and soon after a letter Mueller sent Barr about the summary was released that directly contradicted Barr's claim.
Here is a past post I wrote that provided an example of past Barr's past behaviour that is reason to not trust him:
On May 06 2019 12:51 Ben... wrote:I would suggest waiting and seeing what Mueller has to say before we start making the assumption that Barr's depiction of their communications is accurate given that Barr has already been caught being at the very least quite misleading about the content of his communications with Mueller. To be frank, after the recent incident involving the Mueller letter that contradicted Barr's previous testimony, I don't trust Barr to give an accurate depiction of any non-recorded communications with Mueller. His unwillingness to even consider giving any of the staff notes regarding his phone conversation with Mueller to quell the well-earned skepticism people have towards him only reinforces this. Given his behaviour in the last couple months along with the similar patterns of behaviour shown in his handling of the Iran Contra investigation and handling of being questioned by Congress on kidnapping 30 years ago, he should be given no benefit of the doubt. edit: Here's more on whole kidnapping thing and consequent "summary" thing that is basically identical to what he did with the Mueller Report: www.nytimes.comShow nested quote +In 1989, Barr, then assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, determined that the F.B.I could legally seize criminal suspects in foreign countries without consent from their governments. In doing so, Barr changed the department’s position — in a 1980 legal opinion, the government said that such kidnappings were unlawful.
It was a controversial opinion, especially given its key implication at the time — that the United States could abduct Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama, who had seized power that spring. In response, Congress called Barr to testify. “Kidnapping a suspect would make the U.S. into an international outlaw,” Representative Don Edwards of California said during the hearing, as he outlined the consequences for America’s reputation if federal authorities had free rein to kidnap. Congress also asked Barr to release his memorandum to the public, but he refused. Instead, he wrote a 13-page summary that he claimed contained its “principal” arguments and conclusions, something that should sound familiar to contemporary observers.
Except it didn’t. In 1991, Congress obtained a copy of the full memo. It contained several points not present in the summary, including the contention that the president of the United States could ignore the United Nations’ prohibition of state-sponsored kidnapping.
Barr misled Congress and the public through omission. But by then he was already on his way to confirmation as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, where he would recommend pardons for key figures in the Iran-contra scandal, which stymied a yearslong investigation into executive-branch lawbreaking that implicated the sitting president.
On the other hand, what specific, documented information or acts can you point to that Mueller has done over the course of this investigation or in his career that indicate he is either dishonest or biased against Trump? And no, don't link yet another opinion piece from The Hill. I don't care what their opinions are. I want documented evidence or events, not opinions. Mueller and his team went to extremes to avoid the media and avoid any possible situation that would make them appear biased. If he were truly acting dishonestly and was out to get Trump, I'm sure there were a ton of different pieces of information he or his team could have selectively leaked out that would have significantly harmed Trump or those around him. But they didn't do anything like that at all. They stayed quiet, kept their heads down and worked.
|
On June 08 2019 10:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 10:15 Fleetfeet wrote:On June 08 2019 07:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 06:41 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2019 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. When you quote the Mueller report you always seem to manage to get the words wrong. I've pointed this out in the past but it doesn't seem to change. I feel like if you'd read it you would manage to quote it correctly. Like when you misquote "does not exonerate" as "does exonerate". I don't cite anything wrong. I cite it accurately and in context to show how its conclusions are bullshit. Stated another way, I actually read it critically. You don't. No. You're just a liar. On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. Literal text of the Mueller report:
it also does not exonerate him. You clarified that what you meant was On May 25 2019 01:51 xDaunt wrote:
refuses to explicitly exonerate him on the obstruction charge Unfortunately that's also a lie. What the report does is explicitly refuses to exonerate him on obstruction. That's the difference between not explicitly stating that something is the case, ie leaving it implicitly stated, and explicitly stating that something is false. You have repeatedly and clearly lied about the content of the Mueller report over and over. You are a liar. And not just a liar, but one so foolish as to lie about the content of a public document that many people in this topic have read. What's even more confusing is that you are now in the process of lying about whether you told those previous lies in a public topic of which the people here are all readers. Stop lying xDaunt. You've literally nothing to gain from it. We all know you're a liar. Your lies aren't credible. Just stop. I haven't lied about anything in the Mueller report. Like I said, and which is apparently completely lost on you, the difference is that I am reading the Mueller report critically and you are simply reading it at face value. And compounding your error on this point, you, as usual, aren't demonstrating a competent understanding of what I have said about the Mueller report. So let's try again. To put it in overly simple and understandable (though crude) terms, when I say that the Mueller report exonerated Trump, what I am saying is that the sentence from Volume 2 of the Mueller report stating that "we do not exonerate" Trump is a lie. This conclusion flows from a complete understanding of the contents of the Mueller report, including 1) the failure of Mueller to determine that Trump did commit a crime, 2) the insufficiency of the evidence itself as stated in the Mueller report to support a chargeable crime, and 3) Mueller's contortion of the OLC guidelines. And as I have pointed out, this conclusion is fully corroborated by Barr and Rosenstein's determination that the Mueller report does not lay out evidence of a chargeable crime. Now, I fully understand that this argument is way over the heads of at least 90% of the posters here. But I have put it out there anyway because I think it's important that as many people as possible understand what's really going on here. And if people want help understanding it, I'm more than happy to oblige because I don't see this as a partisan issue. Abuse of governmental law enforcement power is deadly serious business. But what I find disappointing is that so many people around here continue to take Mueller's report at face value and without an ounce of criticism despite having countless reasons to question not only the contents of his report but the legitimacy of the entire investigation. Like I have pointed out many times already, there are many, important lies in Mueller's report. These lies constitute unethical prosecutorial conduct at best. And they potentially could constitute something far worse. So call me a liar if you really want. All you're doing is demonstrating your own shortcomings. Shame on me for wasting my time engaging you. And frankly, I encourage everyone else who thinks that I'm lying about this stuff to come out and say so. I don't feel like your argument is as hard to understand as you contend. The part people struggle with is embracing the idea that Trump is the victim of a grand conspiracy intended to convict him of crimes he has not committed. This makes your framing of your argument as not a partisan issue deeply ironic, because it requires buying into the conspiracy in the first place. Do you have an alternative explanation for the facts presented?
Sure! The not-at-all-dramatic "There were indications that collusion was a real concern, there was an investigation into said collusion that did not explicitly find collusion on Trump's part, but the report expressly does not exonerate Trump from said suspicions, and there are dirty politics involved (Both sides) because politics tend to be dirty."
Why can't it be as simple as that?
For what it's worth, I equally reject the "Barr is human filth and trying to prevent Trump from recieving the impeachment he deserves!" narrative, though it is worth pointing out that it feels apt to view your perspective as the polar opposite of it.
|
United States43255 Posts
Barr literally is trying to protect Trump though. Before the Mueller report came out Barr wrote an unsolicited letter to Trump's legal defence team saying that he believed the entire investigation was illegitimate and should be stopped. Trump then appointed Barr to Attorney General whereupon Barr misrepresented the contents of the Mueller report and claimed, without evidence, that it cleared Trump.
The conflict of interest in giving Trump the power to appoint the guy who chooses whether to prosecute Trump is unavoidable. There was never any doubt about what Barr was going to do, and had there been Barr wouldn't have been given the job. The guy didn't apply through conventional means, he filed his application with Trump's legal defence from a position of being able to help Trump if he got the job.
I know that centrism for its own sake can be appealing and that "both sides" sounds intellectually superior but you should find something else to both sides about. Barr is a walking failure of checks and balances.
|
On June 08 2019 13:19 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 10:45 Danglars wrote:Instead, I see a lot of collusion truthers trying to take shortcuts. Well, we don't have to fairly weigh Barr's arguments, because we don't like Barr as a person. We don't have to look critically at what Mueller produced, because we judge him more trustworthy than others. We don't have to worry about illegal activity within the intelligence community, because Trump will always be a worse danger to democracy than them. Yet again you are mischaracterizing what others have said. People don't trust Barr and don't believe his arguments, not because we don't like him, but because he has, on multiple occasions throughout the years, behaved in such a way that makes him seem dishonest, and this has been outlined many times here. During key events he has deliberately prevented others from seeing information while instead offering to summarize the information. Then when people get the actual information he was summarizing they find that he has either mischaracterized or otherwise taken out of context key points or has left out information that would be harmful to his argument in his summary. Because of this past behaviour, it is reasonable to doubt what he says because there is no reason to trust that he is being fully truthful and forthcoming with all relevant information. He has shown that he prefers to steer narratives to be favourable to his arguments rather than be truthful and transparent. In the last few months he has not only misrepresented the findings of the Mueller Report, but also misled about communications between him and Mueller himself. Remember that Barr claimed under oath that Mueller had no objections to Barr's summary, and soon after a letter Mueller sent Barr about the summary was released that directly contradicted Barr's claim. Here is a past post I wrote that provided an example of past Barr's past behaviour that is reason to not trust him:
Yes, and I've called what you've said here lies and misrepresentations, told you exactly on what basis I'm concluding that, and a whole lot of good that did me. Cite a billion quotes, and someone will always go "but Trump" and "it's all propaganda, dishonesty, and narrative." You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
You do have it right, by the way. It is a matter of belief to you. I need the rational brain online and engaged to have any hope here. It says that evidence not solely substantiated by the speaker must be considered, and the argument should be examined to see if it's logical. I do ask myself when reading posts, if the same post could be composed not having read a single word of the post being responded to. Yes, several lines attacking character and bemoaning narrative and misrepresentations fits that perfectly. Yes, deflect to all these other things that mean you can feel justified in doing so.
|
On June 08 2019 13:26 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 10:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 10:15 Fleetfeet wrote:On June 08 2019 07:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 06:41 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2019 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. When you quote the Mueller report you always seem to manage to get the words wrong. I've pointed this out in the past but it doesn't seem to change. I feel like if you'd read it you would manage to quote it correctly. Like when you misquote "does not exonerate" as "does exonerate". I don't cite anything wrong. I cite it accurately and in context to show how its conclusions are bullshit. Stated another way, I actually read it critically. You don't. No. You're just a liar. On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. Literal text of the Mueller report:
it also does not exonerate him. You clarified that what you meant was On May 25 2019 01:51 xDaunt wrote:
refuses to explicitly exonerate him on the obstruction charge Unfortunately that's also a lie. What the report does is explicitly refuses to exonerate him on obstruction. That's the difference between not explicitly stating that something is the case, ie leaving it implicitly stated, and explicitly stating that something is false. You have repeatedly and clearly lied about the content of the Mueller report over and over. You are a liar. And not just a liar, but one so foolish as to lie about the content of a public document that many people in this topic have read. What's even more confusing is that you are now in the process of lying about whether you told those previous lies in a public topic of which the people here are all readers. Stop lying xDaunt. You've literally nothing to gain from it. We all know you're a liar. Your lies aren't credible. Just stop. I haven't lied about anything in the Mueller report. Like I said, and which is apparently completely lost on you, the difference is that I am reading the Mueller report critically and you are simply reading it at face value. And compounding your error on this point, you, as usual, aren't demonstrating a competent understanding of what I have said about the Mueller report. So let's try again. To put it in overly simple and understandable (though crude) terms, when I say that the Mueller report exonerated Trump, what I am saying is that the sentence from Volume 2 of the Mueller report stating that "we do not exonerate" Trump is a lie. This conclusion flows from a complete understanding of the contents of the Mueller report, including 1) the failure of Mueller to determine that Trump did commit a crime, 2) the insufficiency of the evidence itself as stated in the Mueller report to support a chargeable crime, and 3) Mueller's contortion of the OLC guidelines. And as I have pointed out, this conclusion is fully corroborated by Barr and Rosenstein's determination that the Mueller report does not lay out evidence of a chargeable crime. Now, I fully understand that this argument is way over the heads of at least 90% of the posters here. But I have put it out there anyway because I think it's important that as many people as possible understand what's really going on here. And if people want help understanding it, I'm more than happy to oblige because I don't see this as a partisan issue. Abuse of governmental law enforcement power is deadly serious business. But what I find disappointing is that so many people around here continue to take Mueller's report at face value and without an ounce of criticism despite having countless reasons to question not only the contents of his report but the legitimacy of the entire investigation. Like I have pointed out many times already, there are many, important lies in Mueller's report. These lies constitute unethical prosecutorial conduct at best. And they potentially could constitute something far worse. So call me a liar if you really want. All you're doing is demonstrating your own shortcomings. Shame on me for wasting my time engaging you. And frankly, I encourage everyone else who thinks that I'm lying about this stuff to come out and say so. I don't feel like your argument is as hard to understand as you contend. The part people struggle with is embracing the idea that Trump is the victim of a grand conspiracy intended to convict him of crimes he has not committed. This makes your framing of your argument as not a partisan issue deeply ironic, because it requires buying into the conspiracy in the first place. Do you have an alternative explanation for the facts presented? Sure! The not-at-all-dramatic "There were indications that collusion was a real concern, there was an investigation into said collusion that did not explicitly find collusion on Trump's part, but the report expressly does not exonerate Trump from said suspicions, and there are dirty politics involved (Both sides) because politics tend to be dirty." Why can't it be as simple as that?For what it's worth, I equally reject the "Barr is human filth and trying to prevent Trump from recieving the impeachment he deserves!" narrative, though it is worth pointing out that it feels apt to view your perspective as the polar opposite of it.
Because that explanation does not account for any of the investigative malfeasance that is known. And that's the real rub here when it comes to people who unabashedly support Mueller and the FBI. They don't have an explanation for likely entrapment by Papadopoulos by western spies. They don't have an explanation for why law enforcement has repeatedly presented Mifsud as a Russian agent without explanation despite the fact that there is literally no evidence to support (not to mention Mueller is silent on this) and every indication is that he is a Western agent. They can't explain why the FBI has repeatedly lied about the origins of the investigation. They can't explain use of the unverified (and patently false) Steele dossier to fraudulently secure a FISA application. They can't explain why Mueller, in his report, misrepresented and omitted critical facts regarding at least two of the witnesses upon which he relied quite heavily. They can't explain why Mueller monkeyed around the OLC guidelines to create a tortured argument for not coming to a charging decision despite the fact that he was quite obviously allowed to do so, and instead opted to invert the prosecutorial standard of proof to make the quite incredible statement that he cannot exonerate Trump. And this is just the stuff that comes right off the top of my head that is directly related to the investigation itself. There's a ton of dirty laundry here.
Danglars said that the problem with the collusion truth is that they "take shortcuts" with their analysis. I think that's too nice of a way to put it. The people who blindly trust Mueller and accept his work without question are no better than ostriches with their heads in the sand. The extrinsic evidence casting doubt upon the propriety of the investigation is overwhelming, yet every criticism that I have seen of my posts here on this stuff has been laughably inadequate in its ability to reconcile that extrinsic evidence. So if you think that you can come up with a good theory for why Mueller and the FBI are not bad guys that also accounts for the actions described above, I'm all ears. You'll be the first to have done so.
|
sunshine: "If I were to ask the same thing about Hillary, what kind of answer would you give, or expect from a conservative? If your answer is something along the lines of "the justice system we have is riddled with flaws(corruption)", then there you go."
I'm not sure what i'd do about Hillary, at the time I thought she was gonna win a landslide, I was never that invested in the story. I think she likely did something stupid/shady and got a helping hand from some friendly investigators, but then Comey also torpedo'd her at the last minute with the shes guilty but its okay we're gonna let it slide. What would you answer to that question "the justice system we have is riddled with flaws(corruption)", then there you go." ? I guess but I have not seen anyone on the left peddling that narrative but maybe I haven't followed closely enough.
Darkplasma: "3. Impeachment can't happen because of Republicans in Congress, even if all Democrats were aligned."
They should put their money where their mouth's have been for the last 2 years, get on record voting for it, if it fails so what at least they tried to do what it a appears the majority of their base / people on this forum want them to do. I don't think it can hurt there 20/20 chances, May even help them with the disillusioned base who's been convinced trump was Russian agent for 2+years now.
Kwark: " Barr is a walking failure of checks and balances "
Obviously your not a Barr fan, but frankly the guy seems fine to me, all his interview's have been fairly passive, he didn't write the Mueller report, he summarized it in 4 pages, If that bothers you its okay because you can now read the full report minus the redacted grand jury material. Mueller didn't recommend prosecution if he had i'm not beyond believing Barr would have gone ahead with it. If Mueller was un-willing to recommend it, doesn't that make you think its not there and Barr has done the only sensible thing.
One thing i'm still fuzzy on is why the democrat's like Nadler and i assume Schiff didn't take that time to read the un redacted report when they had the chance, or maybe they still can(not sure on that). Are they scared it might not be the golden goose or is it more of a fear that they wont be able to keep it to them selves?
sorry for the late replys had a long day and then the raptors game. I dunno how you guys keep up constantly and I feel for Xdaunt and danglers when everything they say literally invokes 10 poster's asking them questions, its a full time job to post anything right of center here.
|
United States43255 Posts
xDaunt tries to make a whole lot out of nothing with the origins of the investigation. There is a reason that there was discussion of Russian interference long before the Mueller investigation began, it was clear to everyone that Russia was intervening on Trump's behalf. The twitterbots weren't hidden. We have Russian agents emailing Trump's son during the campaign talking about Russia's support of the campaign. We have the DNC hack traced back to the GRU hq.
There was never not going to be an investigation as to why Russia was actively intervening in the US election because there was never any doubt that Russia was actively intervening in the election. The Mueller investigation wasn't based on the Steele dossier, it was based upon the publicly known intervention of a hostile state and the open courtship of that state by the candidate they favoured.
Trump isn't getting investigated because of the time that he let Russian hookers piss on him. He's getting investigated because of shit like asking Russia to release the hacked DNC emails on national tv.
|
United States43255 Posts
On June 08 2019 14:27 Taelshin wrote:
Kwark: " Barr is a walking failure of checks and balances "
Obviously your not a Barr fan, but frankly the guy seems fine to me, all his interview's have been fairly passive, he didn't write the Mueller report, he summarized it in 4 pages, If that bothers you its okay because you can now read the full report minus the redacted grand jury material. Mueller didn't recommend prosecution if he had i'm not beyond believing Barr would have gone ahead with it. If Mueller was un-willing to recommend it, doesn't that make you think its not there and Barr has done the only sensible thing.
Do you think Trump should have the power to appoint a guy to summarize the investigation into Trump and decide not to press charges?
If so, do you think Trump should use that power to appoint a guy who was selected by his legal defence team on the basis that he'd promised to exonerate him?
If so, do you think that guy, once appointed, should wholly mischaracterize the report in a way that clears Trump?
Barr sent his job application to Trump's legal defence team for fucks sake. There's no way he should ever have been in a position to clear Trump after he'd already promised that were he given that power he would do so.
If Trump were actually innocent he wouldn't even want Barr to be the one to say it because Barr has all the credibility of Trump's mum. Barr had been insisting the entire investigation was illegitimate before he knew any of the contents of the report. The only time it's advantageous to be defended by someone who everyone knows is always going to defend you, whether or not you did something wrong, is when they're the only person willing to defend you.
|
|
|
On June 08 2019 14:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 13:19 Ben... wrote:On June 08 2019 10:45 Danglars wrote:Instead, I see a lot of collusion truthers trying to take shortcuts. Well, we don't have to fairly weigh Barr's arguments, because we don't like Barr as a person. We don't have to look critically at what Mueller produced, because we judge him more trustworthy than others. We don't have to worry about illegal activity within the intelligence community, because Trump will always be a worse danger to democracy than them. Yet again you are mischaracterizing what others have said. People don't trust Barr and don't believe his arguments, not because we don't like him, but because he has, on multiple occasions throughout the years, behaved in such a way that makes him seem dishonest, and this has been outlined many times here. During key events he has deliberately prevented others from seeing information while instead offering to summarize the information. Then when people get the actual information he was summarizing they find that he has either mischaracterized or otherwise taken out of context key points or has left out information that would be harmful to his argument in his summary. Because of this past behaviour, it is reasonable to doubt what he says because there is no reason to trust that he is being fully truthful and forthcoming with all relevant information. He has shown that he prefers to steer narratives to be favourable to his arguments rather than be truthful and transparent. In the last few months he has not only misrepresented the findings of the Mueller Report, but also misled about communications between him and Mueller himself. Remember that Barr claimed under oath that Mueller had no objections to Barr's summary, and soon after a letter Mueller sent Barr about the summary was released that directly contradicted Barr's claim. Here is a past post I wrote that provided an example of past Barr's past behaviour that is reason to not trust him: Yes, and I've called what you've said here lies and misrepresentations, told you exactly on what basis I'm concluding that, and a whole lot of good that did me. Cite a billion quotes, and someone will always go "but Trump" and "it's all propaganda, dishonesty, and narrative." You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You do have it right, by the way. It is a matter of belief to you. I need the rational brain online and engaged to have any hope here. It says that evidence not solely substantiated by the speaker must be considered, and the argument should be examined to see if it's logical. I do ask myself when reading posts, if the same post could be composed not having read a single word of the post being responded to. Yes, several lines attacking character and bemoaning narrative and misrepresentations fits that perfectly. Yes, deflect to all these other things that mean you can feel justified in doing so. You are projecting pretty hard right now. And yet again you haven't actually answered my question I asked you (you always curiously cut that part out when you quote me), but instead have chosen to personally attack me. It's almost like you know you can't actually point to anything that shows Mueller has truly been dishonest or biased other than unfounded conspiracies.
Wanting to see all of the evidence before taking Barr at his word on literally anything is the rational thing to do. This is what you aren't understanding. Barr's MO is to selectively put out only evidence that supports his positions. He has done this multiple times in the past. If a person is documented as being a known liar, the rational way to handle them is to not believe them unless all of the facts back up their claims. Barr has lied or at the very least misled multiple times. There is hard evidence of it in the form of documents, hearing videos, and hearing transcripts. Whether you choose to believe the evidence is on you, but that does not change that it happened. What did that dumb fuck Ben Shapiro say? Facts don't care about your feelings? I have never once argued against the current investigation Barr is in charge of, and neither has anyone else here because we know that it will likely end up just like Benghazi, Her Emails, Uranium One, or any of the other investigations of the ridiculous conspiracies peddled by Republicans and conservative media.
And I am capable of putting aside my opinion of Barr and judging what he has done recently. Nothing I have seen or read however, has suggested that Barr is doing anything other than abdicating his responsibilities as Attorney General. It appear he instead has moved forward with being a personal lawyer for Trump. He doesn't even attempt to look impartial anymore, and instead goes on Fox News and pushes talking points that curiously align quite well with the administration's.
Here's a question for you. Is Trump a liar? You brought up the concept of a "rational brain". Any rational person would say yes. The evidence in favour of Trump being a liar overwhelms any argument against. I've seen both you and xDaunt dodge this question an untold number of times. It is almost like both of you are incapable of ever admitting you might be wrong about something.
edit: Well said, Kwark.
|
Norway28712 Posts
Danglars admits that Trump is a liar and he's stated that he has big problems with that aspect of him in the past. xDaunt on the other end claims that 'Trump isn’t particularly more dishonest than any other politician'.
Which is an obviously ridiculous statement. If you can't see that Trump lies significantly more than other politicians then I question your ability to assess anything, to be honest.
|
On June 08 2019 15:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Danglars admits that Trump is a liar and he's stated that he has big problems with that aspect of him in the past. xDaunt on the other end claims that 'Trump isn’t particularly more dishonest than any other politician'.
Which is an obviously ridiculous statement. If you can't see that Trump lies significantly more than other politicians then I question your ability to assess anything, to be honest. Fair enough. I may very well have missed that discussion, so I stand corrected on this.
I still stand by the rest of my post though.
|
On June 08 2019 15:44 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 14:10 Danglars wrote:On June 08 2019 13:19 Ben... wrote:On June 08 2019 10:45 Danglars wrote:Instead, I see a lot of collusion truthers trying to take shortcuts. Well, we don't have to fairly weigh Barr's arguments, because we don't like Barr as a person. We don't have to look critically at what Mueller produced, because we judge him more trustworthy than others. We don't have to worry about illegal activity within the intelligence community, because Trump will always be a worse danger to democracy than them. Yet again you are mischaracterizing what others have said. People don't trust Barr and don't believe his arguments, not because we don't like him, but because he has, on multiple occasions throughout the years, behaved in such a way that makes him seem dishonest, and this has been outlined many times here. During key events he has deliberately prevented others from seeing information while instead offering to summarize the information. Then when people get the actual information he was summarizing they find that he has either mischaracterized or otherwise taken out of context key points or has left out information that would be harmful to his argument in his summary. Because of this past behaviour, it is reasonable to doubt what he says because there is no reason to trust that he is being fully truthful and forthcoming with all relevant information. He has shown that he prefers to steer narratives to be favourable to his arguments rather than be truthful and transparent. In the last few months he has not only misrepresented the findings of the Mueller Report, but also misled about communications between him and Mueller himself. Remember that Barr claimed under oath that Mueller had no objections to Barr's summary, and soon after a letter Mueller sent Barr about the summary was released that directly contradicted Barr's claim. Here is a past post I wrote that provided an example of past Barr's past behaviour that is reason to not trust him: Yes, and I've called what you've said here lies and misrepresentations, told you exactly on what basis I'm concluding that, and a whole lot of good that did me. Cite a billion quotes, and someone will always go "but Trump" and "it's all propaganda, dishonesty, and narrative." You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You do have it right, by the way. It is a matter of belief to you. I need the rational brain online and engaged to have any hope here. It says that evidence not solely substantiated by the speaker must be considered, and the argument should be examined to see if it's logical. I do ask myself when reading posts, if the same post could be composed not having read a single word of the post being responded to. Yes, several lines attacking character and bemoaning narrative and misrepresentations fits that perfectly. Yes, deflect to all these other things that mean you can feel justified in doing so. You are projecting pretty hard right now. And yet again you haven't actually answered my question I asked you (you always curiously cut that part out when you quote me), but instead have chosen to personally attack me. It's almost like you know you can't actually point to anything that shows Mueller has truly been dishonest or biased other than unfounded conspiracies. Wanting to see all of the evidence before taking Barr at his word on literally anything is the rational thing to do. This is what you aren't understanding. Barr's MO is to put out only selective evidence that supports his positions. He has done this multiple times in the past. If a person is documented as lbeing a known liar, the rational way to handle them is to not believe them unless all of the facts back up their claims. Barr has lied or at the very least misled multiple times. There is hard evidence of it in the form of documents, hearing videos, and hearing transcripts. Whether you choose to believe the evidence is on you, but that does not change that it happened. What did that dumb fuck Ben Shapiro say? Facts don't care about your feelings? I have never once argued against the current investigation Barr is in charge of, and neither has anyone else here because we know that it will likely end up just like Benghazi, Her Emails, Uranium One, or any of the other investigations of the ridiculous conspiracies peddled by Republicans and conservative media. And I am capable of putting aside my opinion of Barr and judging what he has done recently. Nothing I have seen or read however, has suggested that Barr is doing anything other than abdicating his responsibilities as Attorney General. It appear he instead has moved forward with being a personal lawyer for Trump. He doesn't even attempt to look impartial anymore, and instead goes on Fox News and pushes talking points that curiously align quite well with the administration's. Here's a question for you. Is Trump a liar? You brought up the concept of a "rational brain". Any rational person would say yes. The evidence in favour of Trump being a liar overwhelms any argument against. I've seen both you and xDaunt dodge that question an untold number of times. It is almost like both of you are incapable of ever admitting you might be wrong about something. edit: Well said, Kwark.
I fully understand that each one of us will think the other is projecting their full-on swallow of propaganda and lies onto the other. It didn't take hundreds of pages of the same thread on the same general subject to get that across. I've done my piece laying out the facts as I see them and what may be fairly gathered from them, particularly on the undisputed parts between Barr and Mueller. Now I'm moving on to other aspects, since no budging seems possible from where I sit. The third repetition of just what you're missing, glazed over, refused to confront, or wholly missed reading won't do a lick of good. It's going to involve people you despise, though the factual basis won't hinge on trusting them at their word, and you've already proven to me you will reject the inconvenient parts on a matter of belief and character evaluation.
It'll just get more heated doubling and redoubling down on how you shouldn't arrive at rational consideration of arguments, because that road's closed at a bottleneck further up. I think much more is possible in dialogue even with unreliable and suspected partisan figures. From over here, it looks like [Ben...] bemoaning people misled by Fox News is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. I don't need to trust Barr's word, because he's drawing upon facts attested to my multiple others and reported on for several years in some cases. Which, frankly, you'd know if you cared to glance over the past month's quotes, unresponded to and mostly dismissed prematurely. He makes an eloquent case, and you're treating it like the entirety is composed of "From what I've personally seen and you haven't, ..." You have the right to characterize arguments and facts from people you distrust to be solely dependent on your appreciation of their honesty. You're just saying the answer to Fox News is to become a lefty version: politicians and political appointees lie, so all you need to know is not to trust the people with (R) in front of their name or whoever appointed them.
I hope you demonstrate your ability to put aside your opinion of Barr to form opinions on stuff like the conduct of our intelligence agencies and the relative capabilities of Trump & various politicians and bureaucrats. I frankly don't see a shred of that now ... "nothing I have seen or read, however, has suggested [it]." But these forums carry a valuable longitudinal study over years to re-evaluate people's openness in considering conflicting viewpoints and inconvenient facts.
And if you do read my posts in the future, you will discover the several times I deplore his obvious lying and it's affect on important matters.
|
On June 08 2019 15:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Danglars admits that Trump is a liar and he's stated that he has big problems with that aspect of him in the past. xDaunt on the other end claims that 'Trump isn’t particularly more dishonest than any other politician'.
Which is an obviously ridiculous statement. If you can't see that Trump lies significantly more than other politicians then I question your ability to assess anything, to be honest.
XDaunt: I am a lawyer with perfect legal understanding and everyone else knows nothing. Trust me.
Also XDaunt: Trump has never told a significant lie. I'd know, I'm a lawyer. Trust me.
It's the same principle as the distrust in Barr. He outright stated that he would fight in Trump's corner before getting the post, and has done so. Of course nobody trusts him. He said from the get go that he was biased. I don't know if all of this reflects how Republicans view the government (as a fundamentally politically biased organisation that is always 100% on the side of the President) or it's literal hypocrisy and they only care when they perceive Democrats doing it, but everybody in America should be upset with Barr. This is how the government falls apart; pure partisanship without any interest in governing fairly or justly.
The number of times Republicans justify Trump's shit with 'lol he offends lefties' is sickening. The President's job shouldn't be to piss off 50% of the country. That might be a side effect of how he governs, but that's not the point. Trump actively using his platform to pick fights with citizens should be something that both sides are offended by.
This entire Presidency has dragged the very office of the President into the dirt.
|
On June 08 2019 21:15 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 15:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Danglars admits that Trump is a liar and he's stated that he has big problems with that aspect of him in the past. xDaunt on the other end claims that 'Trump isn’t particularly more dishonest than any other politician'.
Which is an obviously ridiculous statement. If you can't see that Trump lies significantly more than other politicians then I question your ability to assess anything, to be honest. XDaunt: I am a lawyer with perfect legal understanding and everyone else knows nothing. Trust me. Also XDaunt: Trump has never told a significant lie. I'd know, I'm a lawyer. Trust me. It's the same principle as the distrust in Barr. He outright stated that he would fight in Trump's corner before getting the post, and has done so. Of course nobody trusts him. He said from the get go that he was biased. I don't know if all of this reflects how Republicans view the government (as a fundamentally politically biased organisation that is always 100% on the side of the President) or it's literal hypocrisy and they only care when they perceive Democrats doing it, but everybody in America should be upset with Barr. This is how the government falls apart; pure partisanship without any interest in governing fairly or justly. The number of times Republicans justify Trump's shit with 'lol he offends lefties' is sickening. The President's job shouldn't be to piss off 50% of the country. That might be a side effect of how he governs, but that's not the point. Trump actively using his platform to pick fights with citizens should be something that both sides are offended by. This entire Presidency has dragged the very office of the President into the dirt.
Of course if your end goal is to turn people against the idea of government then Trump is somewhat useful, no??
|
On June 08 2019 14:27 Taelshin wrote:
Darkplasma: "3. Impeachment can't happen because of Republicans in Congress, even if all Democrats were aligned."
They should put their money where their mouth's have been for the last 2 years, get on record voting for it, if it fails so what at least they tried to do what it a appears the majority of their base / people on this forum want them to do. I don't think it can hurt there 20/20 chances, May even help them with the disillusioned base who's been convinced trump was Russian agent for 2+years now.
And lets see how that will run on fox "news". My guess is something along the lines of:
"Impeachment procedure in senate proves that Trump is completely innocent of everything!"
When all that would really be proven is that republican senators would never vote against a republican president, not matter what is going on. Kind of pointless to give republicans that kind of ammunition, after you see how they can twist and spin everything already.
|
This agreement with Mexico may actually be a positive development. It seems to have some concrete measures to be taken by Mexico that, if they actually take them, could have a real impact in reducing the abnormal northward tide of immigrants that we currently have. I don't think many people would really disagree with the notion that illegal immigration needs to be kept to a minimum.
Plus, we need to have some existing enforcement in place with Mexico for when the northward flow of climate change immigrants begins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
