2020 is in the bag wrote:
2020 is in the bag for Trump.
Yes, Trump will be in a body bag well before 2020.
2020 is in the bag wrote:
2020 is in the bag for Trump.
Yes, Trump will be in a body bag well before 2020.
Danny Democrat wrote:
Keep America Great 2020 wrote:
The democrats are pretty stupid if they think Americans are going to give a crap about their BS "investigations" after today.
The independents aren't going to be stupid enough to believe anything said by the democrats anymore. They all have egg on their faces.
Well, continual investigations of Hillary Clinton clearly swayed people (EMAILS! BENGHAZI!). She's corrupt, but then so is Trump.
I was hoping for a Biden/Beto ticket, but now I think Joe "Gaffe Machine" Biden is probably too old, and Beto has already started an apology tour. Sanders is too old as well, and frankly, whacked. I'm all in for Mayor Pete at this point. He's got my vote, if he gets far enough to need it.
It’s going to be Beto.
Alan
The Fokus wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
You presented it as if that's the only thing or even the biggest thing to win, and I disagree with both of those things. As I said and will do so again, "...that is not their plan to win."
It was until today and it's still likely a major part of the Dems strategy. However you can't see the forest through the trees anyway so there's little point to debating you.
I never said it was not a major part of their strategy. It is not THE plan to win. Elected Democrats know they can't rely on that as their only strategy or even the biggest strategy...as I said. This is why Democrats on the news have been trying to inject as much other things as they can when being interviewed.
The expression you tried to use is "...forest for the trees", not "through" the trees. Even if you wrote it correctly, it has no bearing on anything I said.
So, at least you have learned something here.
You can tell flagpole’s blood pressure is through the roof.
Careful, brother. You dont want to have a heart attack.
Runningart2004 wrote:
Gotcha Fokus, so you’re one of these old white men scared he’s losing his country to the brown folk? Or you’re just an typical older well off fiscal Republican who would never dream of supporting a Dem out of principle? So you vote Trump because the alternative is undesirable not because you actually support Trump.
Alan
How did you get any idea that I voted for Trump?
I may be "old" however I'm not your typical old white guy afraid of anyone who doesn't look like me. As I've said, I've voted both sides of the aisle throughout my lifetime. I realize today's defeat for the Dems is difficult to take but, if I can do it as an independent, you can do it as a Dem.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Needless to say this was a big win for Trump with his base. Less voters will abandon him because of this.
Obama didn't collude with Russia. Was that a big win for him?
Here's an award nominee.
Flagpole wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Grasping at straws. There will be no Trump indictments, no Trump collusion found, even in Mueller's HRC supporting, obviously biased team. Drain the swamp.
Flagpole is done.
Wow. You are delusional. Bob Mueller is a Republican. He was appointed to head the FBI by George W. Bush. When he was initially picked to head this investigation, Newt Gingrich tweeted, "Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity."
Gingrich now says Mueller is corrupt. Why did he tweet the former? Because he is under the same impression that Trump is that if you compliment someone that they will do things, see things in your favor. Now that Gingrich has realized that Mueller has integrity and is going after everyone in the Trump administration including Trump himself, he now says he is corrupt.
You just did the same thing...when the facts no longer support your wished-for view, you attack those who handle the facts...the media and the investigators. Just proof that it's getting to you and to Gingrich and to Trump and Trump supporters everywhere.
Trump is screwed.
Trump is done.[/quote]
You guy know nothing about everything, some really stupid prognostication on display ...... ?
Dunkin’ wrote:
You can tell flagpole’s blood pressure is through the roof.
Careful, brother. You dont want to have a heart attack.
1) I don't have high blood pressure.
2) I have a benign condition that greatly protects me from any cardiac issues, so heart attacks are not likely in my future.
3) I am as cool as the other side of the pillow...ALWAYS,
But did you really believe the Mueller report would show collusion? Did you really think Trump colluded with the Russians to swing the election? I hope not.
The only real threat remains with the SDNY.
As an independent, who admittandly has leaned left in recent years, there is no defeat for the Dems today. Or more importantly, for never Trumpers. This was Barr's spin on the report. It is not Mueller's report. If it was not damning to Trump, why not release it?
Read the details, as well. No collusion as it related to the hackers, but there are many other ways that the Trump campaign has been accused of colluding with Russia.
Regardless of your side of the issue, quit following CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. Search out better sources. This is not going to end well for Trump.
And FFS, obstruction of justice alone should be enough to impeach. As I've said many times, same investigation, but with Obama as president and he would have already been impeached (or lynched).
Here here wrote:
L L wrote:
Let’s backup to see what we have here.
Sessions was the AG at the beginning of this presidency.
Right away there was evidence of Russian interference and talks of an investigation of the election.
Sessions resused himself because he was part of Trump’s campaign.
Rosenstein appointed Mueller to investigate the election, Russian influence and any potential campaign ties and anyhing elese that came up.
Trump was pissed at Sessions recusal.
This past fall Trump fires sessions because of his recusal and installs Whitaker and then nominates Barr who is confirmed an a small margin, most party lines.
Trump’s recent appointee is the one in charge of giving us a summary of Mueller’s report.
We don’t see the report. Congress has not seen the report.
They will get Barr’s summary.
We only know that this investigation will have no further indictments.
Barr made the determination to have no conspiracy or obstruction charges. And he’s possibly part of the possible conspiracy as Trump’s appointee.
Mueller would have to be subpoenaed by Congress to say anything further.
Correct. The House is going to roast Mueller when he testifies before them.
No collusion my a$$.
Gonna have to call BS.
Mueller is a professional among professionals. If he is called before congress and folks try to "roast" him, Mueller will stand out like a giant among midgets, on intelligence, integrity, and command of the facts.
Mr. Katyal wrote the special counsel rules.
Opinion
The Many Problems With the Barr Letter
By unilaterally concluding that Mr. Trump did not obstruct justice, the attorney general has made it imperative that the public see the Mueller report.
By Neal K. Katyal
Mr. Katyal is a law professor at Georgetown. He drafted the special counsel regulations under which Robert Mueller was appointed.
March 24, 2019
On Sunday afternoon, soon after Attorney General Bill Barr released a letter outlining the Mueller investigation report, President Trump tweeted “Total EXONERATION!” But there are any number of reasons the president should not be taking a victory lap.
First, obviously, he still faces the New York investigations into campaign finance violations by the Trump team and the various investigations into the Trump organization. And Mr. Barr, in his letter, acknowledges that the Mueller report “does not exonerate” Mr. Trump on the issue of obstruction, even if it does not recommend an indictment.
But the critical part of the letter is that it now creates a whole new mess. After laying out the scope of the investigation and noting that Mr. Mueller’s report does not offer any legal recommendations, Mr. Barr declares that it therefore “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” He then concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey.
Such a conclusion would be momentous in any event. But to do so within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American.
The special counsel regulations were written to provide the public with confidence that justice was done. It is impossible for the public to reach that determination without knowing two things. First, what did the Mueller report conclude, and what was the evidence on obstruction of justice? And second, how could Mr. Barr have reached his conclusion so quickly?
Mr. Barr’s letter raises far more questions than it answers, both on the facts and the law.
His letter says Mr. Mueller set “out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.” Yet we don’t know what those “difficult issues” were, because Mr. Barr doesn’t say, or why Mr. Mueller, after deciding not to charge on conspiracy, let Mr. Barr make the decision on obstruction.
On the facts, Mr. Barr says that the government would need to prove that Mr. Trump acted with “corrupt intent” and there were no such actions. But how would Mr. Barr know? Did he even attempt to interview Mr. Trump about his intentions?
What kind of prosecutor would make a decision about someone’s intent without even trying to talk to him? Particularly in light of Mr. Mueller’s pointed statement that his report does not “exonerate” Mr. Trump. Mr. Mueller didn’t have to say anything like that. He did so for a reason. And that reason may well be that there is troubling evidence in the substantial record that he compiled.
Furthermore, we do not know why Mr. Mueller did not try to force an interview with the president. The reason matters greatly. Mr. Mueller could have concluded that interviews of sitting presidents for obstruction matters are better done within the context of a congressional impeachment investigation (perhaps because a sitting president cannot be indicted, the Barr letter says this legal argument didn’t influence Mr. Barr’s conclusion but again is pointedly silent as to Mr. Mueller).
Or Mr. Barr could have concluded that the attorney general, not a special counsel, should carry out such an interview. The fact that Mr. Barr rushed to judgment, within 48 hours, after a 22 month investigation, is deeply worrisome.
The opening lines of the obstruction section of Mr. Barr’s letter are even more concerning. It says that the special counsel investigated “a number of actions by the president — most of which have been the subject of public reporting.” That suggests that at least some of the foundation for an obstruction of justice charge has not yet been made public. There will be no way to have confidence in such a quick judgment about previously unreported actions without knowing what those actions were.
On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year.
That memo made the argument that the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president. Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can commit murder. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel had previously concluded that such an argument to interpret another criminal statute, the bribery law, was wrong.
As such, Mr. Barr’s reference to the office raises the question of whether he tried to enshrine his idiosyncratic view into the law and bar Mr. Trump’s prosecution. His unsolicited memo should be understood for what it is, a badly argued attempt to put presidents above the law. If he used that legal fiction to let President Trump off the hook, Congress would have to begin an impeachment investigation to vindicate the rule of law.
Sometimes momentous government action leaves everyone uncertain about the next move. This is not one of those times. Congress now has a clear path of action. It must first demand the release of the Mueller report, so that Americans can see the evidence for themselves. Then, it must call Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller to testify. Mr. Barr in particular must explain his rationale for reaching the obstruction judgment he made.
No one wants a president to be guilty of obstruction of justice. The only thing worse than that is a guilty president who goes without punishment. The Barr letter raises the specter that we are living in such times.
Also, if this is over, why did Flynn and others get sweet deals? Who did they squeal on? Why are Cohen and Gates continue to cooperate in ongoing investigations?
The Fokus wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
Gotcha Fokus, so you’re one of these old white men scared he’s losing his country to the brown folk? Or you’re just an typical older well off fiscal Republican who would never dream of supporting a Dem out of principle? So you vote Trump because the alternative is undesirable not because you actually support Trump.
Alan
How did you get any idea that I voted for Trump?
I may be "old" however I'm not your typical old white guy afraid of anyone who doesn't look like me. As I've said, I've voted both sides of the aisle throughout my lifetime. I realize today's defeat for the Dems is difficult to take but, if I can do it as an independent, you can do it as a Dem.
My bad man. I’m just trollin.
I would say I’m a left leaning independent. Or maybe an Independent leaning Democrat lol. I’ve voted for and supported Rs too. ‘08 I probably would have voted for McCain had they not dragged out Sara Palin from the crazy shed. In general I can’t get behind the GOPs continued use of religion as a political tool and can’t get behind the gay marriage bans and other forms of “moral” legislation plus their desire to eventually cut entitlement programs.
Alan
Flagpole wrote:
Dunkin’ wrote:
You can tell flagpole’s blood pressure is through the roof.
Careful, brother. You dont want to have a heart attack.
1) I don't have high blood pressure.
2) I have a benign condition that greatly protects me from any cardiac issues, so heart attacks are not likely in my future.
3) I am as cool as the other side of the pillow...ALWAYS,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Flagpole HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Laughing in your face!!!!!!!!!
He now resorts to letting everyone know how smart he is. Love it! You can’t be that smart if you have to talk about it.
https://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2019/03/22/164262?fbclid=IwAR3huENVZU6-Fl_zYY2xdgdg6Q2EY2qaxLcfhwHUTpWIjR9eMHJ4mm67w1YRunningart2004 wrote:
Danny Democrat wrote:
Well, continual investigations of Hillary Clinton clearly swayed people (EMAILS! BENGHAZI!). She's corrupt, but then so is Trump.
I was hoping for a Biden/Beto ticket, but now I think Joe "Gaffe Machine" Biden is probably too old, and Beto has already started an apology tour. Sanders is too old as well, and frankly, whacked. I'm all in for Mayor Pete at this point. He's got my vote, if he gets far enough to need it.
It’s going to be Beto.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
My bad man. I’m just trollin.
I would say I’m a left leaning independent. Or maybe an Independent leaning Democrat lol. I’ve voted for and supported Rs too. ‘08 I probably would have voted for McCain had they not dragged out Sara Palin from the crazy shed. In general I can’t get behind the GOPs continued use of religion as a political tool and can’t get behind the gay marriage bans and other forms of “moral” legislation plus their desire to eventually cut entitlement programs.
Alan
No prob. Someone referring to me as the old white person who doesn't like that the world has changed since 1975 is about as far removed from me as you can get. We're not that far away from each other politically although neither party represents me very well at all since the party's are being run by the extremes.
As far as the Mueller report is concerned and as much as I think a lot of people are just tired of any investigations, we'll know a lot about things by whether the report is released in full. If it isn't, we'll know we've been handed a bs job by Barr.
There was collusion (conspiracy), and once that is proven, it will make me right about a lot of things including the 2016 election.
Note this -- It will be proven that Trump and his Administration colluded (conspired) with Russia to help him win the election.
