Cliff this is another prime example of this report was written for the Attorney General. Little meaningless sentences get tossed out for public consumption that with out context mean nothing...and apparently meant nothing to the prosecutor as he said no collusion and no charges filed on obstruction.....which should mean something to all the pretend lawyers on the channels you watch....get some video of mark Levine and find out about the special prosecutor and the way the law is supposed to work V the way it worked this time
I've read the article behind the link a few times now, and I am having a little trouble.
Can someone explain to me why this is newsworthy? What factoid(s) in the article actually bear mentioning?
TIA.
Tim,
You didn't miss anything. I read it too.
There isn't anything there that made sense to me. I tried to use my imagination to speculate and even guess what somebody could spin this into but came up empty.
Maybe the cult has established secret code words/numbers that we don't understand (-:
Michigan = collusion
140= obstruction
Cliff - If I were you I'd give up with this group on MF. I did. Their minds are closed.
Over a 100 pages in the Muller report about factual evidence of Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.
Muller didn't indict Trump for obstruction, following DOJ guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted. NOT, as MF posters have asserted that he couldn't find evidence of obstruction. There is a lot of evidence.
Looking forward to Muller's testimony.
SO tell me JOJ. Do you feel that Manafort sharing general knowledge like "Michigan" is a battleground state with a Russian is in some form collusion? Or, does this somehow fit your definition of obstruction?
TIA.
"Cliff - If I were you I'd give up with this group on MF. I did. Their minds are closed."
joj,
My mind is wide open but please, just give me something, anything that I can put in there that resembles an authentic fact which shows crimes were commited by Trump.
Page 140 shows no crime. The mention of Michigan in the Detroit paper shows no crimes that I can find. The link to the 448 Mueller report shows no crimes. If it does, then you really are going to have to point it out specifically(not just provide a link to the entire report and claim that as evidence).
At least when you guys post climate crisis stuff, I can rebut it effectively with objective, authentic climate science data from dozens of sources.
On the border issue disagreement, there are numerous sources that show irrefutably, with NUMBERS that there really is a crisis.....which I have been able to show you.
On Trump committing crimes in the Mueller report, the burden of proof is entirely yours to show that there were crimes and to point them out specifically if you want us to understand what you are talking about.
How exactly did Trump impede the Mueller investigation with actions that included criminal intent?
Stating that he "wanted to" do this or "wanted to" do that or statements from individuals that are not backed up by criminal actions by Trump mean zilch(like my presidency is over, I'm f---d). Or speculation about something like firing Comey(when Trump fired dozens of people for dozens of reasons) is not authentic evidence of a crime that computes in this scientific brain.
joj: "There is a lot of evidence. "
Wonderful. I look forward to reading/seeing it from you. The facts please.
Stonewaller and Pub fixer Bill Barr is playing hide and seek with US citizens and getting caught.
http://www.yahoo.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-faces-205005580.html
Told you this was going to happen last week before the report was released:
I asked for an explanation related to an example from the report that was presented as evidence of a crime since I saw no evidence in the example.
There were two responses.
#1 was a generic "Don't bother, their minds are made up" sorta dodge. So apparently , not seeing evidence of a crime in a generic conversation involving the exchange of general knowledge indicates some sort of "Close mindedness". Seems to me that insisting there is evidence in this case indicates a rigid closed mindedness where nearly any exchange of information will be seen as evidence of a crime.
#2 was an indictment of Barr, which as MM predicted was predictable. Further, it does nothing to support the argument that "Page 140" presented any evidence.
There is a difference between crime and corruption.
Firing Comey to try to stop the investigation is not a crime. But it sure is an abuse of power, plain as day.
Having over a 100 meetings/communications between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives may not be a crime, because conspiracy is hard to prove, but it is corrupt in an unprecedented way in American politics. Lying about ALL these connections with Russians to the American people during the campaign and after the election may not be a crime but it is corrupt. Lying about it to investigators is a crime and we have guilty verdicts and pleas to prove it. Did Trump order such lying? Yes he did.
Statements by Trump like "Is he on the team" are code for ...does this player put me above playing straight with the law and/or norms.
He's so much more corrupt than any politician we've ever had in American politics all the way down to dog catcher.
PS - I'm only on page 28. Read the report. It's shocking!
the report may be shocking to someone foolish enough to forget where, how and what is in the fake dossier...even the NY times yesterday finally admitted there is only horsecrap there
Mcfarm, I usually don't respond to your posts because they are so over the top vapid.
Don't call me a fool. YOU are the fool for hanging your hat on one error. Why not just say the syntax of the report has errors in it therefore Trump isn't as corrupt as he appears to be in plain sight. Did Trump fire Comey and lie about all his Russian contacts because Steel made an error in his report?
Good grief!
JOJ, Your righteous indignation is duly noted.. But on at least two occasions, I have asked you to explain how/why Page 140 describes/proves a crime. You have certainly given the impression that you think it does, yet, it appears you are not willing or able to support that impression.
IMO, if you see some sort of crime on page 140, I am willing to bet that you are deeply shocked by several other excerpts within the report. I am equally willing to bet that you will be reluctant to atempt to explain the "Crimes" that you find so shocking.
I encourage you to prove me wrong.
It's spoon feeding time again... so open wide.
http://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/mueller-report-paul-manafort.html
Let's do a quick recap.
Cliff starts a thread indicating that Manafort telling a Russian that Michigan will be a battle ground state is proof of a crime.
I ask why this is a crime.
Cliff replies with an article indicting Barr.
JOJ discusses how shocked he is over all the crimes contained in the report and he's barely a 3rd of the way through it.
I ask why Manafort telling a Russian that Michigan will be a battle ground state is a crime.
Cliff responds with a Slate Spin on why Manafort is guilty.
I could supply a Fox spin on why Manafort is innocent I suppose.. Or I could once again ask.. why is Manafort telling a Russian that Michigan will be a battle ground state a crime. Either is likely to yield similar results.
I doubt we'll ever know why Cliff and JOJ consider Manafort telling a Russian that Michigan is a battleground state is a crime.
BTW guys, the consensus on both sides of the aisle is that there was no collusion, and I guess the only conceivable crime in the above example would be some stretch of the definition of collusion. But the current "witchhunt" has shifted focus to "OBSTRUCTION". You're gonna make your team look kinda dumb if you don't all get on the same page :-)
joj, no wonder you are struggling with this ....the NY time admitted the dossier was fraudulent,,,,,,the entire dossier...not one mistake,,,,,not one misprint,,,,not one error...the very document that this entire mess was predicted upon was fraudulent....get it...fake...not true...made up...a 10 million dollar lie that could not be verified a fake agent sold to Hillary which certain people like McCain and the deep state thought they could stab Trump with
Tim your Smugness is duly noted.
I never said Trump was guilty of a crime. Although, given he is surrounded by criminals and that he has run the mob he surrounds himself with all his life, it does stretch one's gullibility to think that he is not guilty of any crimes. My main message in this thread and all others that I've posted is that he is the most corrupt president, or politician of any office in our nations history.
He's too stupid to have been guilty of conspiracy and perhaps too incompetent to be guilty of obstruction, although he did try very hard to.
For the record. As I have also said repeatedly. Don't impeach him. Investigate deliberatively, find the truth and the facts and then put them before the people to pass judgement in 2020.
Cliff,
Yahoo and Slate are left biased sources. Yahoo is a joke!
I was going to let this go, I really tried. And anyone who knows me knows how hard that is for me... Soooo.
Sam says there is not enough evidence to state that Trump is guilty of a crime. "I never said Trump was guilty of a crime."
Sam also says that Trump is the most corrupt president/Politician in history. " My main message in this thread and all others that I've posted is that he is the most corrupt president, or politician of any office in our nations history. " Side question: Does Sam still endorse/defend Hillary?
So, I guess Sam is saying that Trump is engaging in legal corruption, some form of non-criminal corruption.
Does anyone else have a problem with the concept of legal corruption? I am sure anyone left of center is perfectly comfortable with the idea. So I guess I need to direct my question to conservatives.