Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minoosh said:
Not that I want to ascribe too much meaning to Trump's tweets, but I really gotta wonder what message "Behind closed doors the Dems are laughing!" is supposed to convey.
Click to expand...

I think he's trying to say that the public is being duped by the Democrats.
 
Ziggurat said:
First, the 1st amendment applies to both speech and the press. Second, the press is not a protected class, it is a protected activity, one which anyone can engage in with equal rights. And third, since Trump’s campaign is not alleged to have stolen anything, the comparison holds.
Click to expand...
First, I don't give a **** about what the First Amendment covers except that it protects the press publishing material that has a political implication. The press was not prosecutable for publishing the Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court ruled for the Times and Post.

Second, class vs activity in your argument is meaningless.

Third, the discussion was not about Trump's theft of the emails Russians stole.
 
Ziggurat said:
You aren’t doing your credibility any favors here.
Click to expand...
The posts that are not credible here are yours. Your posts are standing on some pedantic principles, but they miss the big picture. Your posts deny what actually went on and it is interfering with an honest discussion.

The Great Zaganza said:
Sorry, but is the big Trump defense here: "technically, what he and his campaign did might not have been illegal" ?
Is that really the standard you want to apply to all past, current and future Presidents?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
See folks? This exactly the gaslighting I was talking about.

Folks? Mueller is working with Barr and his staff to redact the statutorily required redactions.

These redactions are required by statute.

Mueller is working with Barr.

Maddow lied.

Resistance grifters are gaslighting you. Get angry "skeptics."
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of psychics, so I don't believe you know what Barr is doing any more than I do. But no, he doesn't need to redact what he gives Congress unless he's trying to hide something. Trumpers don't know but they also don't care. I see at least three words in your post that you don't seem to understand, and "skeptic" is one of them.

Maddow didn't lie, so make that four words.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The posts that are not credible here are yours. Your posts are standing on some pedantic principles, but they miss the big picture. Your posts deny what actually went on and it is interfering with an honest discussion.
Click to expand...

That's a major strategy of Trump loyalists.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I'm skeptical of psychics, so I don't believe you know what Barr is doing any more than I do. But no, he doesn't need to redact what he gives Congress unless he's trying to hide something. Trumpers don't know but they also don't care. I see at least three words in your post that you don't seem to understand, and "skeptic" is one of them.

Maddow didn't lie, so make that four words.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is no credible reason to redact things from congress.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I'm skeptical of psychics, so I don't believe you know what Barr is doing any more than I do. But no, he doesn't need to redact what he gives Congress unless he's trying to hide something. Trumpers don't know but they also don't care. I see at least three words in your post that you don't seem to understand, and "skeptic" is one of them.

Maddow didn't lie, so make that four words.
Click to expand...

The DoJ has a lot of power to invade a person's life in an effort to charge and convict them for crimes. If there isn't a charge, I think there is a moral reason to respect that level of power and not disclose it when there are no charges.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I'm skeptical of psychics, so I don't believe you know what Barr is doing any more than I do. But no, he doesn't need to redact what he gives Congress unless he's trying to hide something. Trumpers don't know but they also don't care. I see at least three words in your post that you don't seem to understand, and "skeptic" is one of them.
Click to expand...

If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear.

There is no reason not to release the full report to the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

WilliamSeger said:
Maddow didn't lie, so make that four words.
Click to expand...


OK, so I've just watched the Maddow segment in question

There is no way she "lied". Lying means "intentionally saying something false or untrue".

As she was saying what she did, the correct story was literally breaking as she was saying it. That is NOT lying, that is just not being informed in time.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
The DoJ has a lot of power to invade a person's life in an effort to charge and convict them for crimes. If there isn't a charge, I think there is a moral reason to respect that level of power and not disclose it when there are no charges.
Click to expand...

There are several moral reasons for providing the full Mueller report to the authorized oversight committees. What can or should be released publicly is a different matter, but our democracy is in deep **** if a president can make himself immune to Congressional oversight. If Barr won't tell them what's in the report, then those committees will need to dig into it themselves.
 
The Big Dog said:
Yes there is, as explained in Barr’s letter and given the fact that Mueller is helping with the redactions.
Click to expand...

********, the only thing Barr can't hand over to congress without court approval is the grand jury evidence, and since there's a precedent for that, there's no reason to think that approval wouldn't be granted. He just hasn't asked any court to rule on that, which would seem to be a clue that he's going to stonewall. That, and the fact that Barr is saying Congress only gets the same redacted report the public gets -- redacted by his own personal standards -- are further reasons for non-idiots to be suspicious, but suit yourself.
 
Childlike Empress said:
LOL you people are so lazy. So what I just asked google is "trump tower meeting music manager" and it all rolled out. First hit, a Daily Fail article actually from late 2018, so it might contain something I didn't know before. But I only read it so far to make sure who "Fred Flintstone" was. His real name is (of course) Rob Goldstone. Enjoy (again, first google search hit, why should I be less lazy than you):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Agalarov-set-Trump-Tower-meeting-useless.html
Click to expand...


Read it now and it is hilarious. So should you if you are a cultist thinking that this meeting is central to your CT. Because in the article it says Goldstone was interviewed extensively by the Mueller investigation so if you get your sweaty little hands on a copy without preparation, it could make you sad. "The email" is of course the one to Don Jr to which he replied that he would "love it", getting set-up by Fred Flintstone. I think I want to read his book.

Daily Fail said:
[...] And [Rob] wrote the email that he wrote that has probably become the most famous email in the world now. He just released a book that I've read about that email. [Goldstone's memoir, Pop Stars, Pageants & Presidents: How an Email Trumped My Life was released in September].

'The book has a great sense of humor. Because you know, the people that are in the inner circle that know how the meeting happened, who attended the meeting and what that meeting produced, understood that it's a total joke.'

Emin agreed that the email sent by Goldstone to Don Jr. was, most accurately, a 'stunt'.[...]
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
Getting it could mean receiving a gift. Or it could mean paying for it.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

If the "dirt" were obtained legally, would there be any crime at all, in paying for it?
Click to expand...

The question is whether receiving it is a crime.

But these questions are moot, since no "dirt" was given.
Click to expand...

Again, irrelevant. Seeking that information is a crime.
 
Fairly recent audio interview with Rob Goldstone by someone who seems to be a member of "The Resistance". Rob actually seems like a really likable guy but of course he is a jester so everything he says has to be taken with a grain of salt. Says Fred Flintstone about Orange Man: "I cringe a bit when I hear people say 'he's just like one of us' and I say 'yeah, and he would drive over you in his Rolls Royce to get to his gold-plated toilet" ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom