Barr said this to the Senate committee today, under penalty of perjury...

“He (Mueller) was very clear with me that he was not suggesting we had mispresented his report,” Barr said.

If Barr was lying, Mueller should say so, and we can arrest and impeach Barr. Short of that, there's nothing to see here, other than snowflakes with TDS unable to process the truth, unless it serves their political agenda.

The people shrieking that there is a cover-up here, have a great opportunity to prove their case and prove that Barr committed perjury. Short of that, they should move on, or else run the risk of sounding like birthers, and those who claim 9/11 was an inside job.

Just because Barr didn't arrest Trump, that alone isn't evidence of a cover-up. Mueller didn't charge him either.

Mueller didn't suggest indictments, nor did his report identify a smoking gun. So why is it so shocking, when Barr summarized the report the way he did?

We need to hear from Mueller.

Barr's account of the discussion doesn't jibe with what Mueller wrote. It looks like Barr may have lied to congress about it as well. Barr also has sought to color the public perception of the Report at just about every turn. He's acting as the President's defense attorney not a blind defender of the Law.

Barr is good, he's a master of distortion and obfuscation. At times he also sounds like my 15 year old trying to get out of trouble. Huh? What? Why do you care? We were sold a bill of goods that he was the real deal and perhaps he was 20 years ago. Turns out he's another Rudy Giuliani.

I love this gem at the end of the session this afternoon. Mueller didn't make a call on obstruction, Barr said there wasn't a case and yet today admitted he or Rosenstein never reviewed the underlying evidence.

Nope no cover up here. Move along.

oh please stop....:smash:

We need to hear from Mueller.

Barr's account of the discussion doesn't jibe with what Mueller wrote. It looks like Barr may have lied to congress about it as well. Barr also has sought to color the public perception of the Report at just about every turn. He's acting as the President's defense attorney not a blind defender of the Law.

Barr is good, he's a master of distortion and obfuscation. At times he also sounds like my 15 year old trying to get out of trouble. Huh? What? Why do you care? We were sold a bill of goods that he was the real deal and perhaps he was 20 years ago. Turns out he's another Rudy Giuliani.

I love this gem at the end of the session this afternoon. Mueller didn't make a call on obstruction, Barr said there wasn't a case and yet today admitted he or Rosenstein never reviewed the underlying evidence.

Nope no cover up here. Move along.

Mueller doesn’t seem to be saying that Barr contradicted his report. Wouldn’t he know?

And boy in the other thread, it seemed like you all had already concluded Barr contradicted the Mueller report.

Before we hear from Mueller, what’s the evidence Barr lies? we all know you want Barr to be
lying. Does that mean he’s lying?

Your post has a lot of vague accusations, zero specific evidence. All fizz and no gin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Barr was previously asked if Mueller and his team we're upset with him for his letter. He claimed they were not yet he had a letter contradicting that statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love this gem at the end of the session this afternoon. Mueller didn't make a call on obstruction, Barr said there wasn't a case and yet today admitted he or Rosenstein never reviewed the underlying evidence.

Nope no cover up here. Move along.

Barr said he and Rosenstein accepted Mueller's report as factual. Asking if he reviewed the underlying evidence is another way of asking if he investigated the investigation. He accepted Mueller's report as factual and complete. There would be no point in starting the investigation all over again in order to verify the facts. The investigation was thorough and complete and accepted as such.

Barr was previously asked if Mueller and his team we're upset with him for his letter. He claimed they were not yet he had a letter contradicting that statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought the letter said that Mueller didn't agree with the context of Barr's letter, not his conclusions. Brett Baier reported yesterday that Mueller specifically said that Barr's conclusions were not inaccurate.

Can we see the letter you are referring to?

Barr said he and Rosenstein accepted Mueller's report as factual. .

If that's true, and that's also what I heard, then we are done, move on.

Foxnews is saying that Mueller claimed Barr's conclusions were not inaccurate. All the other networks are saying that mueller claimed Barr was lying. This is what Spence, Got Stripers, and paul are saying. I don't have any idea what's true.

Either Fox, or everyone else, is going to look really, really stupid.

Everyone else still has egg dripping on their faces from claiming for 2 years that Mueller was going to indict Trump and his family.

Mueller's letter said Barr did not capture the "context, nature or substance" of the report. Mueller's letter in itself was unusual because in the justice department individuals don't normally write those type of letters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller's letter said Barr did not capture the "context, nature or substance" of the report. Mueller's letter in itself was unusual because in the justice department individuals don't normally write those type of letters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know what it means to "capture" context, nature, or substance. What ever it might mean, did he "capture" if the facts, the factual evidence, was sufficient to conclude either conspiracy or obstruction?

Can we see the letter you are referring to?

If you do a search there is a second letter that was just released from mueller.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know what it means to "capture" context, nature, or substance. What ever it might mean, did he "capture" if the facts, the factual evidence, was sufficient to conclude either conspiracy or obstruction?

If you thought I was stupid why would you ask me a question? Is this more of not being able to control your anger? Send me another one of those apologies and maybe I'll respond to you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller's letter said Barr did not capture the "context, nature or substance" of the report. Mueller's letter in itself was unusual because in the justice department individuals don't normally write those type of letters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Barr’s letter was released, as was the Mueller report. If there are glaring inconsistencies, we would
know about it. What is in the Barr letter, which is not supported by the Mueller report? thats the obvious first question. Did the Mueller
report recommend that the DOJ induct Trump? That would
be a serious inconsistency...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did the Mueller
report recommend that the DOJ induct Trump?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, into the Hall of Fame for driving leftists insane :rotf2:

Barr’s letter was released, as was the Mueller report. If there are glaring inconsistencies, we would
know about it. What is in the Barr letter, which is not supported by the Mueller report? thats the obvious first question. Did the Mueller
report recommend that the DOJ induct Trump? That would
be a serious inconsistency...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device The issue is that after Barr released Barr's letter, Mueller sent him a letter saying you didn't capture the substance of my report. Then Barr testified to Congress that he did not think Mueller was upset with Barr's letter. So he had the letter from Mueller yet he claimed Mueller was not upset (my word) with his letter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you thought I was stupid why would you ask me a question?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because it's fun to see what kind of nonsense you will come up with:uhuh:

you sound really angry...

The issue is that after Barr released Barr's letter, Mueller sent him a letter saying you didn't capture the substance of my report. Then Barr testified to Congress that he did not think Mueller was upset with Barr's letter. So he had the letter from Mueller yet he claimed Mueller was not upset (my word) with his letter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


curious...:sleeps:

because it's fun to see what kind of nonsense you will come up with:uhuh:

you sound really angry...

Not at all I think he's funny. Now you sound snarky
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you thought I was stupid why would you ask me a question? Is this more of not being able to control your anger? Send me another one of those apologies and maybe I'll respond to you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You were too stupid to realize that it was a rhetorical question.

I'm smart enough to know that you're an angry man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm smart enough to know that you're an angry man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, this "angry" tic you keep repeating shows how really smart you are.

Yeah, this "angry" tic you keep repeating shows how really smart you are.

And yet you constantly insult people here. If that's not an angry man tell me what it is? Show me other posts where I've repeatedly claimed I'm smart? If you can I'll apologize. If you can't it proves you're an angry scummy liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The issue is that after Barr released Barr's letter, Mueller sent him a letter saying you didn't capture the substance of my report. Then Barr testified to Congress that he did not think Mueller was upset with Barr's letter. So he had the letter from Mueller yet he claimed Mueller was not upset (my word) with his letter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok. but it’s also reported, that before barr testified, that Mueller called Barr and told Barr that his conclusions were not inaccurate. If Mueller told Barr that directly, did Barr lie?

We have his report, we have Barrs letter. on what points do they contradict?

Spence said Barrs letter inappropriately exonerates trump. fine. let’s see the text of Muellers report, which contradicts Barrs letter?

i don’t care if Muellers report used the word “may”, and Barr used the word “shall”.
i don’t care about nuance. was Barrs letter an accurate, reasonable summary of the Mueller report, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Show me other posts where I've repeatedly claimed I'm smart? If you can I'll apologize.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you repeatedly repeat yourself...you should apologize for that :uhuh:

Spence said Barrs letter ....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence is always wrong....soooo

you repeatedly repeat yourself...you should apologize for that :uhuh:

I don't think I repeat myself any more than anybody else here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet you constantly insult people here. If that's not an angry man tell me what it is? Show me other posts where I've repeatedly claimed I'm smart? If you can I'll apologize. If you can't it proves you're an angry scummy liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said that you keep repeating this "angry" tic. Show me where I've said that you repeatedly claimed you are smart. If you can't you're a scummy angry twit.

I don't think I repeat myself any more than anybody else here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK...you and GS are tied for the lead.....

OUCH

More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.0bc5fd796b15

OUCH



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.0bc5fd796b15

quintessential deomcrap.... 347 former something or others have signed a letter blah...blah...blah.....the recycling of tactics is really amusing...OOOH Bill Weld...is he still alive?

I think it's over 400 now.

I think it's over 400 now.

"But Alan Dershowisz said..."

"But Alan Dershowisz said..."

You are confusing the collusion with the obstruction. Understandable, it’s hard to distinguish one liberal hissy fit from the next.

Dershowitz feels the push for the collusion probe ( have we forgotten about this already?) may have been purely political. i say, let’s find out. The probe was to see if Trump broke the law by colluding with Russia, and there’s insufficient evidence he did.

Whether or not Trump obstructed, is distinct. if he did, let’s impeach him. i see that even among house democrats, only the radical fringe is talking about impeachment. I presume there is a reason why Pelosi isnt on board.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

let’s impeach him.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please let it happen! :claps:

You are confusing the collusion with the obstruction.
Glad you are now referring to both in the affirmative.

Dershowitz feels the push for the collusion probe ( have we forgotten about this already?) may have been purely political. i say, let’s find out. The probe was to see if Trump broke the law by colluding with Russia, and there’s insufficient evidence he did.
The probe was launched to see if members of the campaign had links or coordination with Russia along with any other crimes that were a result of the investigation. In advance of the special council's appointment they already had evidence this was a possibility and needed to be investigated. There's just too much there there to claim this was a hit job.

Whether or not Trump obstructed, is distinct. if he did, let’s impeach him. i see that even among house democrats, only the radical fringe is talking about impeachment. I presume there is a reason why Pelosi isnt on board.
Pelosi is just hedging because isn't likely to move past the House and Trump is very good at playing the victim card. Even you buy his lies and spin.

New polls show 60% think Trump lied about the investigation and now 47% of Republicans say the'd consider a challenger for the nomination. Not good numbers.

Closing in on 500

spence nobody cares and every time you get all aroused like this you don't get a happy ending.....

Pelosi is just hedging



pelosi is insane

spence nobody cares and every time you get all aroused like this you don't get a happy ending.....

Truth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence nobody cares and every time you get all aroused like this you don't get a happy ending.....

He practices Tantric Politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He practices Tantric Politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

have to admit to not knowing what that word meant...does that say more about me or you? :laughs:

Closing in on 500

so what’s the magic
number? and if i get that many lawyers to
sign something saying that anyone other than hilary would
have been arrested for violating email security, would
that be good
enough to convince you? no it would
not. so this is exactly as meaningless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The probe was launched to see if members of the campaign had links or coordination with Russia along with any other crimes that were a result of the investigation. In advance of the special council's appointment they already had evidence this was a possibility and needed to be investigated. There's just too much there there to claim this was a hit job.




And how many people were indicted for actions related to the collusion? Z-E-R-O. Boy, there must have been a lot "there".

There's also a possibility that some DOJ and FBI officials had their thumbs on the scales, that also needs to be investigated.

have to admit to not knowing what that word meant...does that say more about me or you? :laughs:

Probably both
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And how many people were indicted for actions related to the collusion? Z-E-R-O. Boy, there must have been a lot "there".
Yea, well over 100 secret contacts with Russians. In every instance Trump or his people lied to the voters and the FBI. 100+ charges, 30+ indictments, guilty pleas and prison time.

You keep trying to move the goal posts Jim. Your standard for proper behavior is pretty low.

You keep trying to move the goal posts Jim.



absolutely hilarious after that answer....

Yea, well over 100 secret contacts with Russians. In every instance Trump or his people lied to the voters and the FBI. 100+ charges, 30+ indictments, guilty pleas and prison time.

You keep trying to move the goal posts Jim. Your standard for proper behavior is pretty low.

i’m not moving any goal posts.
i’m responding to your statement that there was a lot there. no there wasn’t, not if that exhaustive of an investigation led to zero indictments.

contacts with russians, is evidence of a crime, for a presidential candidate? i think everyone who has ever won a nomination, would
tell you that everyone wants to meet with you. Sure some meetings are unethical.

“ your standard for proper behavior is pretty low.”

Nope. you’re just not used to seeing someone apply the standard equally to both sides. Sure as hell not what you do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not moving any goal posts.
i’m responding to your statement that there was a lot there. no there wasn’t, not if that exhaustive of an investigation led to zero indictments
34 indictments isn't zero, it's a huge pile. If all those Trump campaign members didn't think they were doing something wrong why would they lie to the feds about it?

If Trump didn't think he was doing anything wrong why would he repeatedly work to obstruct justice?

Seriously, you have an administration that universally acted in a duplicitous manner, encouraged illegal behavior for personal gain, colluded with adversaries for personal gain, habitually lied to the American people, tried to obstruct the investigation into their behavior and is still working to obstruct investigations into their behavior.

Anyone got a flag to hug?

34 indictments isn't zero, it's a huge pile. If all those Trump campaign members didn't think they were doing something wrong why would they lie to the feds about it?

They weren't about the Russian conspiracy. It would have been an extreme aberration to have unlimited access into the lives of powerful people and not find something wrong. Everybody knew such things would be found, and was probably one of the reasons for expanding the investigation. It was expected. And some of the stuff was process "crime" not preexisting. And nearly half of the indictments were on Russians who everybody knew would never be brought to trial. Most of the indictments you refer to amounted to show asides to make the investigation seem worthwhile. If they hadn't occurred, the world would not have noticeably or relevantly changed or been affected.

If Trump didn't think he was doing anything wrong why would he repeatedly work to obstruct justice?

He knew that he was not guilty of conspiracy, and saw a concerted and powerful attempt to wrongly convict him and bring his Presidency to an end and a destruction of his and his family's life. In effect, he was trying to promote justice, not obstruct it.

Seriously, you have an administration that universally acted in a duplicitous manner, encouraged illegal behavior for personal gain, colluded with adversaries for personal gain, habitually lied to the American people, tried to obstruct the investigation into their behavior and is still working to obstruct investigations into their behavior.

Anyone got a flag to hug?

Sure, let's wave the flag high and proud. Your description describes the basic nature of most Presidential administrations after the first handful, or less. And any that had or would have had an attempt to wrongly bring them down, to destroy them, would not have acted much differently in trying to stop that.

34 indictments isn't zero, it's a huge pile. If all those Trump campaign members didn't think they were doing something wrong why would they lie to the feds about it?

If Trump didn't think he was doing anything wrong why would he repeatedly work to obstruct justice?

Seriously, you have an administration that universally acted in a duplicitous manner, encouraged illegal behavior for personal gain, colluded with adversaries for personal gain, habitually lied to the American people, tried to obstruct the investigation into their behavior and is still working to obstruct investigations into their behavior.

Anyone got a flag to hug?



ZERO indictments for collusion. Zero is less than 34. as stupid as trump is ( which is less stupid than your side makes him out to be), and after three seperate investigations into collusion, there were absolutely, precisely, exactly zero indictments ( against americans) for that act.

You want me to believe there was systemic collusion, and trump covered up all of it? no one could
nail anybody? and that's not exculpatory.

you cannot win on the facts or results, so you distract. Biden is telling blacks that the GOP wants to bring back Jim Crow. Which side celebrated low black unemployment at the SOTU, and which side sat on their hands with scowls in their faces?

trump beat your side again, he made you all look stupid again, and you can’t handle it.

and the democrats will probably respond by nominating one of the very few people on the planet, who make Trump look presidential.

the superior, highly evolved progressives, are getting repeatedly bitch slapped by a simpleton. And now he’s ticked off
and now it’s his DOJ, and get ready for his investigation. he has them
quivering.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, (for the 73rd time) there's no indictment for collusion. Over 250 contacts with Russians. Every one of those hidden is an incident of collusion.

I think we're up to 700 by the way.

ZERO indictments for collusion. Zero is less than 34. as stupid as trump is ( which is less stupid than your side makes him out to be), and after three seperate investigations into collusion, there were absolutely, precisely, exactly zero indictments ( against americans) for that act.

You want me to believe there was systemic collusion, and trump covered up all of it? no one could
nail anybody? and that's not exculpatory.

you cannot win on the facts or results, so you distract. Biden is telling blacks that the GOP wants to bring back Jim Crow. Which side celebrated low black unemployment at the SOTU, and which side sat on their hands with scowls in their faces?

trump beat your side again, he made you all look stupid again, and you can’t handle it.

and the democrats will probably respond by nominating one of the very few people on the planet, who make Trump look presidential.

the superior, highly evolved progressives, are getting repeatedly bitch slapped by a simpleton. And now he’s ticked off
and now it’s his DOJ, and get ready for his investigation. he has them
quivering.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Jim's getting wet

Jim, (for the 73rd time) there's no indictment for collusion. Over 250 contacts with Russians. Every one of those hidden is an incident of collusion.

I think we're up to 700 by the way.

Oh. So they did find collusion. Thanks for the alternate universe opinion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Jim's getting wet
He doesn't seem to understand much of the investigation.

He doesn't seem to understand much of the investigation.

That investigation is over. Another is coming. Maybe we all will "understand" much more when that is over. Even you.

They weren't about the Russian conspiracy. It would have been an extreme aberration to have unlimited access into the lives of powerful people and not find something wrong. Everybody new such things would be found. It was expected. And some of the stuff was process "crime" not preexisting. And nearly half of the indictments were on Russians who everybody knew would never be brought to trial. Most of the indictments you refer to amounted to show asides to make the investigation seem worthwhile. If they hadn't occurred, the world would not have noticeably or relevantly changed or been affected.
The Russian indictments are significant as they are the first detailed legal cases brought forth from an attack on our democracy that the President has encouraged, lied about and tried to assist Russia in covering up.

He knew that he was not guilty of conspiracy, and saw a concerted and powerful attempt to wrongly convict him and bring his Presidency to an end and a destruction of his and his family's life. In effect, he was trying to promote justice, not obstruct it.
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

Yea, that's why he said "I'm f*cked"

That investigation is over. Another is coming. Maybe we all will "understand" much more when that is over. Even you.
True, the House is just ramping up.

True, the House is just ramping up.

And then the Senate . . . And then the DOJ . . . and the forthcoming IG investigation. Lots to help us "understand" more, and keep us yapping. If we can sift through the spinning and politics and campaigning for 2020.

And it all began with a "hoax." It's kind of disgusting, actually.

The Russian indictments are significant as they are the first detailed legal cases brought forth from an attack on our democracy

The investigation results may be significant, but the indictments are not.

that the President has encouraged, lied about and tried to assist Russia in covering up.

The Mueller investigation didn't agree with your accusation that Trump helped to cover it up. If he had, that would have been conspiracy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

You could have added a hundred more HA's, but it still would be a hollow laugh.


Yea, that's why he said "I'm f*cked"

THAT'S your proof of something? You're a silly boy.

Let’s not forget why this investigation started, it’s due to Russian interference in our election and while Mueller didn’t find collusion; there was plenty of wrong doing. Even Barr stated previously the FBI should be contacted if a foreign power takes steps to influence an election, did that happen? The FBI knows the Russians are continuing their efforts and what does our president think about it; he believes they will no longer attempt to interfere, gee wiz I wonder why that is. Trump is enabling foreign powers and by his inaction actually encouraging them to ramp it up for 2020, so to me there are far more troubling things about this report and Trumps complete disregard for the facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s not forget why this investigation started, it’s due to Russian interference in our election and while Mueller didn’t find collusion; there was plenty of wrong doing. Even Barr stated previously the FBI should be contacted if a foreign power takes steps to influence an election, did that happen? The FBI knows the Russians are continuing their efforts and what does our president think about it; he believes they will no longer attempt to interfere, gee wiz I wonder why that is. Trump is enabling foreign powers and by his inaction actually encouraging them to ramp it up for 2020, so to me there are far more troubling things about this report and Trumps complete disregard for the facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it had stuck with Russian interference and not wandered off into investigating Trump when there was no concrete evidence that he was involved, and turning it into a political attempt to remove Trump, then we might more effectively have evolved into a solution.

On the other hand, there is probably not a whole lot we can do about Russian meddling. Maybe we could start by not doing our own meddling. Fat chance.

Probably, the best bet is to accomplish an economic community with the rest of the world rather than a political one. That takes agreement rather than war, cyber or otherwise.

True, the House is just ramping up.

Could they unearth the code red for you Jeff?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s not forget why this investigation started, it’s due to Russian interference in our election

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that is incorrect...it was due to leftist hissy fit

The Russian indictments are significant as they are the first detailed legal cases brought forth from an attack on our democracy that the President has encouraged, lied about and tried to assist Russia in covering up.




you look adorable in tin foil

Even Barr stated previously the FBI should be contacted if a foreign power takes steps to influence an election, did that happen?

I assume that Obama contacted the FBI, since the meddling started under his administration. Whatever he did certainly didn't do anything to stop it, or even slow it down. I also assume that the FBI is still aware and doing whatever it can.

The FBI knows the Russians are continuing their efforts and what does our president think about it; he believes they will no longer attempt to interfere, gee wiz I wonder why that is.

Has Trump told the FBI to stand down and do nothing about it? I doubt that the FBI will just leave it alone because someone reports that Trump thinks Russia won't continue.

Trump is enabling foreign powers and by his inaction actually encouraging them to ramp it up for 2020, so to me there are far more troubling things about this report and Trumps complete disregard for the facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump has not completely disregarded the facts. He may have a bit different idea of what some of the facts are, but overall, there seems to have been some initiatives to interfere with Russian interference. And, certainly the FBI will continue to do the important stuff it needs to do. Overall, it has been reported that Trump has actually been tougher, in all respects, on the Russians than Obama was. Not sure if there has been any "enabling," and if there was, not sure who was the one doing it.

Trump has not completely disregarded the facts. He may have a bit different idea of what some of the facts are, but overall, there seems to have been some initiatives to interfere with Russian interference. And, certainly the FBI will continue to do the important stuff it needs to do. Overall, it has been reported that Trump has actually been tougher, in all respects, on the Russians than Obama was. Not sure if there has been any "enabling," and if there was, not sure who was the one doing it.

That statement cracks me up, Trump constantly disregards the fact and if the facts staff show him in pretty pictures (he can’t read as you know), they are shown the door. He has put his foot in his mouth so many times over facts he denies or disregards, as the truth comes out and he does the Donnie walk back and his typical distraction ploy to divert attention from his latest BS.

Speaking of BS, if The NY Times reporting is true, I guess Trump isn’t as smart and the art of the deal is how to loose a billion dollars of daddy’s money in ten years. No wonder he is fighting to not release his tax records, his base thinks he is a brilliant businessman, that will be a shock to their reality, that he can do the same magic for America.

Said it before, follow the money.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, (for the 73rd time) there's no indictment for collusion. Over 250 contacts with Russians. Every one of those hidden is an incident of collusion.

I think we're up to 700 by the way.

Ahhh... if collusion isn’t a crime, what was the point? for two years, how many in the media predicted indictments? his son and
son in law we’re sure to get indicted!!



oh, 700. and if that many said hilary should have gone to prison, that would mean what to you, exactly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That statement cracks me up, Trump constantly disregards the fact and if the facts staff show him in pretty pictures (he can’t read as you know), they are shown the door. He has put his foot in his mouth so many times over facts he denies or disregards, as the truth comes out and he does the Donnie walk back and his typical distraction ploy to divert attention from his latest BS.

Speaking of BS, if The NY Times reporting is true, I guess Trump isn’t as smart and the art of the deal is how to loose a billion dollars of daddy’s money in ten years. No wonder he is fighting to not release his tax records, his base thinks he is a brilliant businessman, that will be a shock to their reality, that he can do the same magic for America.

Said it before, follow the money.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have this impressive and colorful way of expressing what seems to be a wealth of knowledge. Ronnie Reagan may have had you in mind when he said: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

Boom
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have this impressive and colorful way of expressing what seems to be a wealth of knowledge. Ronnie Reagan may have had you in mind when he said: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
And you have a mind like a sieve, because apparently you have no recollection of the countless lies and facts brought to light forcing the classic Trump walk back or narrative to change the public view of what he said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you have a mind like a sieve, because apparently you have no recollection of the countless lies and facts brought to light forcing the classic Trump walk back or narrative to change the public view of what he said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I recollect the various narratives. I look at results. The negative narratives and positive results don't square.

Ahhh... if collusion isn’t a crime, what was the point? for two years, how many in the media predicted indictments? his son and son in law we’re sure to get indicted!!

In the report it basically states the reason Don Jr didn't get indicted was that he was too stupid to realize he was breaking campaign finance laws for his coordination with WikiLeaks. Just because there's no indictment doesn't mean there's not wrongdoing. Read the report.

Remember there are still a dozen outstanding investigations we don't have any visibility to. This is likely one of the big reasons Trump desperate to keep the full report under wraps.

The idea that this is all over is laughable.

You have this impressive and colorful way of expressing what seems to be a wealth of knowledge. Ronnie Reagan may have had you in mind when he said: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
Oh ouch, I, I can't breathe...

Oh ouch, I, I can't breathe...

Are you just being a drama queen . . . or are you actually a closet Trumpian liar.

In the report it basically states the reason Don Jr didn't get indicted was that he was too stupid to realize he was breaking campaign finance laws for his coordination with WikiLeaks.

The reason that he didn't get indicted is that his lack of intent to do so didn't meet the criteria for indictment. That you use that as an occasion to call him stupid demonstrates your politically driven lack of class.

Remember there are still a dozen outstanding investigations we don't have any visibility to. This is likely one of the big reasons Trump desperate to keep the full report under wraps.

Yup, there are a lot of investigations forthcoming. And lots of attempts to keep information under wraps. Of course you seem to give a nod to, and salivate over, only those that may get Trump. But . . . . there are several others that may bring tears to your eyes and dry up your spittle.

The idea that this is all over is laughable.

You might insert here another one of your lengthy and hollow HAHA'S. Who said "this" is all over?

The idea that this is all over is laughable.

Oh, I agree it's not over. The next step is investigating the people who started the hoax, to see if Obama's justice department broke rules by becoming political campaign operatives. It's not over by a long shot, I cannot wait for the next stage, I yearn for the next stage. You might not be as excited as I am, you might want to take a sabbatical to whatever spa you went to after the election.

Do you remember the left's reaction when Trump said his campaign was being spied on? Everyone laughed, everyone called him a liar. How many of those critics have admitted on air, that he was 100% correct? Has a single person done that?

Do you remember the left's reaction when Trump said his campaign was being spied on? Everyone laughed, everyone called him a liar. How many of those critics have admitted on air, that he was 100% correct? Has a single person done that?

Christopher Wray would disagree that he was spied on, but then again, what does he know...

Christopher Wray would disagree that he was spied on, but then again, what does he know...

Oh FFS Bryan, Wray admitted that there was eavesdropping on the campaign, and we know the FBI inserted undercover operatives to infiltrate the campaign. Wray didn't like the use of the word "spying", is that not splitting hairs?

In your words Bryan, what's the difference between "spying", and what was done to the Trump campaign?

And the Attorney General, I believe, is Christopher Wrays boss, and he did use the term "spying" what does he know...

Oh FFS Bryan, Wray admitted that there was eavesdropping on the campaign, and we know the FBI inserted undercover operatives to infiltrate the campaign. Wray didn't like the use of the word "spying", is that not splitting hairs?

In your words Bryan, what's the difference between "spying", and what was done to the Trump campaign?

And the Attorney General, I believe, is Christopher Wrays boss, and he did use the term "spying" what does he know...

I would call it an investigation on suspicious contacts between a campaign and a foreign adversary.

As far as Barr, forgive me for distrusting a guy who auditioned in public for this job by writing an unsolicited memo for an audience of one on why president's can't be indicted....

I would call it an investigation on suspicious contacts between a campaign and a foreign adversary.



ok. if the fbi used wiretaps
to eavesdrop on the campaign, and if they used undercover operatives to infiltrate, how is that different from spying?

electronic surveillance isn’t spying?

when you are resorting to suggesting that wiretaps and undercover agents are not the tools
of spying, then you have serious, serious TDS.

i cannot believe you are differentiating between spying and surveillance. this is where rational conversation isn’t possible anymore.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i cannot believe you are differentiating between spying and surveillance. this is where rational conversation isn’t possible anymore.
The Director of the FBI just made a clear public distinction admonishing his boss and his bosses boss in the process.

Perhaps he's got TDS also?

The Director of the FBI just made a clear public distinction admonishing his boss and his bosses boss in the process.

Perhaps he's got TDS also?

so how did you conclude who was correct? and how is it not spying?

going off
the rails a bit. when i read
my 12 year olds texts to make sure he’s safe, that’s spying.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so how did you conclude who was correct? and how is it not spying?

going off
the rails a bit. when i read
my 12 year olds texts to make sure he’s safe, that’s spying.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Did you actually listen to Wray's remarks?

Did you actually listen to Wray's remarks?

i read that he said
it wasn’t spying. i didn’t see him differentiate between spying and what happened.

did you read my question? I asked YOU why eavesdropping and use of informants, is different from spying. please explain the difference between what they did to trump, and spying?

we’re in the twilight zone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's surveillance when "We" do it, it's spying when "They" do it. :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i read that he said
it wasn’t spying. i didn’t see him differentiate between spying and what happened.

did you read my question? I asked YOU why eavesdropping and use of informants, is different from spying. please explain the difference between what they did to trump, and spying?

we’re in the twilight zone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Watch the full video and report back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Watch the full video and report back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

read: you can’t tell me why it wasn’t spying, but you aren’t honest enough to say so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they love trying to change word meanings out of any historical usage of the word

spying is associated with the word Espionage


surveillance is associated with prevention of crime, or the investigation of crime ya know like a stake out ...

they love trying to change word meanings out of any historical usage of the word

spying is associated with the word Espionage


surveillance is associated with prevention of crime, or the investigation of crime ya know like a stake out ...

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

boy when you put it that way, it makes this look like a stupid argument.

We are literally at a point, where those with TDS, are denying that surveillance and spying are remotely synonymous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For Spence and WDMSO, here is the miriam webster definition of a spy - "one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information".

Now, we would all appreciate it, if you could
explain specifically, how that’s not what happened to trump?

I’m all ears.



,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

boy when you put it that way, it makes this look like a stupid argument.

We are literally at a point, where those with TDS, are denying that surveillance and spying are remotely synonymous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, they Re-Defined the word "Racist", so......

Well, they Re-Defined the word "Racist", so......

racist - anyone who disagrees with me on anything, especially if I cannot intelligently respond
to their point so I need to silence them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The truth can be painful for some of these people.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The truth can be painful for some of these people.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

which is exactly why they choose to deny truth, rather than face it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For Spence and WDMSO, here is the miriam webster definition of a spy - "one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information".

Now, we would all appreciate it, if you could
explain specifically, how that’s not what happened to trump?

I’m all ears.



,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep ignoring how words are traditionally used in the English language... but we all know how often you see everything as the same .. would you consider a murder the same as someone convicted of manslaughter the end result is the same .. .. but your all about easy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The truth can be painful for some of these people.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems your having trouble yourself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep ignoring how words are traditionally used in the English language... but we all know how often you see everything as the same .. would you consider a murder the same as someone convicted of manslaughter the end result is the same .. .. but your all about easy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lots and lots of people, before Trump became part of it, used "spying" and "surveillance" synonymously. And now we know that the Mirriam Webster dictionary defines they in a similar way. But on order to make Trump look like a liar, you are willing to ignore all that.

When I read my 12 year-old's text messages to make sure he's safe, am I spying on him? HELL YES. When I follow my 9 year-old as he walks to his friends house so I can make sure he stays on the sidewalk, am I spying on him? HELL YES.

You are denying the Webster definition of a word, in order to make Trump look like a liar. That's literally what you're doing.

TDS...

"would you consider a murder the same as someone convicted of manslaughter the end result is the same "

The end result isn't even close to the same. Murder is far more serious.

But if Trump said "someone murdered so-and-so", but the killer was actually convicted of manslaughter and not murder, does that make Trump a liar? You would say yes. A sane person would say no.

Take off the tin foil hat for Christs sake, and breathe some fresh air.

I understand clearly, the distinction between murder and manslaughter. I have no idea what the difference is, between secret surveillance and spying.

Orange Man Bad, that's what matters.

The word spy generally denotes it's against an enemy or opponent. That's why Christopher Wray said the agency doesn't use it. Barr used it for a specific and highly partisan purpose with no evidence that the investigation was improper. He has in short order already lost all credibility as AG.

FBI Director Wray says surveillance not the same as ‘spying’ I guess he is wrong also .. why am I not surprised you and the usual suspects keep trying to put a round peg in a square hole .. funny

The Same Republicans Who Pushed for Invasive Surveillance Are Complaining About It Now. But they call it spying because they look bad... shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The word spy generally denotes it's against an enemy or opponent. That's why Christopher Wray said the agency doesn't use it. Barr used it for a specific and highly partisan purpose with no evidence that the investigation was improper. He has in short order already lost all credibility as AG.

Then you must therefore believe that the Merriam Webster dictionary is also "highly partisan", since it defined spying as secretly watching someone to gather information, which is exactly what happened with Trump.

Anything that doesn't serve your agenda must be dismissed as "highly partisan".

Barr said very specifically, that he wasn't saying the spying was improper, but he was going to look into it. You are literally making up bullsh*t as you go along. Getting a little desperate?

FBI Director Wray says surveillance not the same as ‘spying’ I guess he is wrong also .. why am I not surprised you and the usual suspects keep trying to put a round peg in a square hole .. funny

The Same Republicans Who Pushed for Invasive Surveillance Are Complaining About It Now. But they call it spying because they look bad... shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wray's boss, the AG, said it iS spying, and more importantly, SO DOES THE MIRRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY. Look it up. Is the Webster dictionary a Trumplican outfit as well?

Then you must therefore believe that the Merriam Webster dictionary is also "highly partisan", since it defined spying as secretly watching someone to gather information, which is exactly what happened with Trump.

Anything that doesn't serve your agenda must be dismissed as "highly partisan".

Barr said very specifically, that he wasn't saying the spying was improper, but he was going to look into it. You are literally making up bullsh*t as you go along. Getting a little desperate?
The DoJ is supposed to be impartial Jim, spying is a loaded word and it was used intentionally for partisan gain. His entire testimony was intended for partisan gain, not to promote justice. The brazen nature of it all is really shocking.

About the only reasonable thing the senate Republicans have done on this issue is subpoena Trump Jr. Case closed! :rotflmao:

The DoJ is supposed to be impartial Jim, spying is a loaded word and it was used intentionally for partisan gain. His entire testimony was intended for partisan gain, not to promote justice. The brazen nature of it all is really shocking.

About the only reasonable thing the senate Republicans have done on this issue is subpoena Trump Jr. Case closed! :rotflmao:

"spying is a loaded word "

For Gods sake, read the definition from the Webster dictionary that I posted. I'm sorry that Trump was correct when he said he was spied on. I'm sorry everyone on your side looks foolish for saying he was lying. I'm sorry that the Webster definition absolutely supports the way Trump and Barr used the word.

Last month, if I told you that surveillance was far different from spying, you'd have laughed at me.

Spying on someone, means secretly gathering watching them to gather intelligence. That's the common definition. If that bothers you now for political reasons, then the problem is your politics, not everyone's common understanding of the word.

Barr used the word spying to spin and help his boss, pretty clear to most; unless your in the Trump camp. FISA warrants aren’t given out like free samples, Jim I fear you have beaten that Webster dead horse to death.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The DoJ is supposed to be impartial



:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

it's pretty shameful what the democraps are up to...

Andy McCarthy(another guy with much more credibility than spence)

"In gross violation of Justice Department policy and constitutional norms, a prosecutor neither charges nor recommends charges against a suspect, but proceeds to smear him by publishing 200 pages of obstruction allegations. Asked to explain why he did it, the prosecutor says he was just trying to protect the suspect from being smeared.


This is the upshot of the Mueller report’s Volume II. It might be thought campy if the suspect weren’t the president of the United States and the stakes weren’t so high.

The smear-but-don’t-charge outcome is the result of two wrongs: (1) Mueller’s dizzying application of Justice Department guidance, written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), holding that a president may not be indicted while he is in office; and (2) the media-Democrat complex’s demand that only laws they like — those that serve their anti-Trump political purposes — be enforced.

On the matter of the OLC guidance, the Mueller report exhibits the same sleight-of-hand that I detailed in Monday’s column regarding its account of the George Papadopoulos saga — in which Mueller obscures the fact that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation (“Crossfire Hurricane”) was opened on the false pretense that a Russian agent named Joseph Mifsud confided to Trump adviser Papadopoulos that Russia had thousands of Clinton emails, which Papadopoulos told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer the Kremlin planned to publish in a manner timed to damage Clinton for Trump’s benefit. To the contrary, if you wade through the fine print of Mueller’s report, you learn that Mifsud was not a Russian agent; there’s a good chance he did not tell Papadopoulos anything about emails; in relating to Downer that Russia might have damaging information on Clinton, Papadopoulos said nothing about emails or about Russia trying to help Trump; but, two months after they spoke and the hacked DNC emails were published, Downer (in consultation with the Obama State Department) leapt to the overwrought conclusions that Papadopoulos must have been referring to those emails (he wasn’t) and that Russia and the Trump campaign must be collaborating to undermine the election (they weren’t).

The narrative head fakes and legal mumbo-jumbo make you wonder what’s going on here. Who is running this show, Mueller — or some of his notoriously aggressive staffers, recruited from the Obama Justice Department and private practice stints representing the Clintons?

But the politics have landed us in the place, not the law. Democrats and their echo chamber have insisted that Mueller must write a report because the special-counsel regulations require one. Yet the same regulations require the report to be confidential: just between the special counsel and the attorney general, to resemble how charging decisions are always made in the Justice Department — non-publicly, by prosecutors and their supervisors. If Barr had followed those supposedly binding federal regulations, House Democrats would already have impeached him — just as they now ridiculously propose to hold him in contempt for redacting from Mueller’s report grand-jury information he is legally obligated by congressional statute to withhold.

The closer you look at this fiasco, the worse it seems."

Barr used the word spying to spin and help his boss, pretty clear to most; unless your in the Trump camp. FISA warrants aren’t given out like free samples, Jim I fear you have beaten that Webster dead horse to death.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Would "unauthorized surveillance" or "improper surveillance" be more acceptable words to you? And would it have not helped his boss if he had used those terms rather than "spying"?

Because it was unauthorized or improper surveillance (would that be equivalent to "spying"?) that he was concerned about and that he wanted to investigate.

I love how the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s have simply broken it down to semantics. Shakespeare said it best...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love how the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s have simply broken it down to semantics. Shakespeare said it best...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



The National Security Agency’s mass surveillance has greatly expanded in the years since September 11, 2001.

But now you and the party who passed it want to call it spying

and blame semantics .. but only jim and you are the only ones here using semantics to fit your argument and the only ones intertwining surveillance and spying..

seem logic and the historical use of the 2 words has little meaning to the by any means necessary crowd

Would "unauthorized surveillance" or "improper surveillance" be more acceptable words to you? And would it have not helped his boss if he had used those terms rather than "spying"?

Because it was unauthorized or improper surveillance (would that be equivalent to "spying"?) that he was concerned about and that he wanted to investigate.

you assume it was unauthorized or improper surveillance

and it was already investigated and determined to be authorized proper surveillance .. prior to Barr

What the right need conspiracy to keep the base involved

The National Security Agency’s mass surveillance has greatly expanded in the years since September 11, 2001.

But now you and the party who passed it want to call it spying

and blame semantics .. but only jim and you are the only ones here using semantics to fit your argument and the only ones intertwining surveillance and spying..

seem logic and the historical use of the 2 words has little meaning to the by any means necessary crowd

When did I say that I want to call it spying. I don’t care what you call it,it is what it is. Try not to be so shallow and restore the integrity that seems to be lacking in your narrative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso, for the tenth time, I’m not using semantics, i’m using the webster definition. Are you saying the webster dictionary has a right wing political bias?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you assume it was unauthorized or improper surveillance

and it was already investigated and determined to be authorized proper surveillance .. prior to Barr

What the right need conspiracy to keep the base involved

I didn't assume that it was unauthorized or improper. Barr, in response to questioning his use of "spying" said that he was concerned with unauthorized or improper surveillance. I think that it is very clear what he meant by "spying."

You're the one who's "assuming" he meant something else.

BTW, I find it telling (not assuming anything) that you're perfectly fine with SCOTUS Judges applying totally different meanings to words in the Constitution than the original meanings of those words when it was written. But in this far, far, far, less important synonymous (not actually different in substance) usage of a word you get all high and mighty about it not being what the supposedly traditional meaning is.

I didn't assume that it was unauthorized or improper. Barr, in response to questioning his use of "spying" said that he was concerned with unauthorized or improper surveillance. I think that it is very clear what he meant by "spying."

You're the one who's "assuming" he meant something else.

BTW, I find it telling (not assuming anything) that you're perfectly fine with SCOTUS Judges applying totally different meanings to words in the Constitution than the original meanings of those words when it was written. But in this far, far, far, less important synonymous (not actually different in substance) usage of a word you get all high and mighty about it not being what the supposedly traditional meaning is.

common sense is hard for you isn't it :jump:

common sense is hard for you isn't it :jump:

No, it isn't. But nonsense, as you've demonstrated here, comes very easily to you, almost an automatic knee-jerk.

I didn't assume that it was unauthorized or improper. Barr, in response to questioning his use of "spying" said that he was concerned with unauthorized or improper surveillance. I think that it is very clear what he meant by "spying."

You're the one who's "assuming" he meant something else.

BTW, I find it telling (not assuming anything) that you're perfectly fine with SCOTUS Judges applying totally different meanings to words in the Constitution than the original meanings of those words when it was written. But in this far, far, far, less important synonymous (not actually different in substance) usage of a word you get all high and mighty about it not being what the supposedly traditional meaning is.
A Trump supporter believing Barr, that’s shocking, Trumps newly appointed AG ( cough cough personal defense lawyer) it must be so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumps other attorney is headed to the Ukraine to request election help from a foreign power, any similarity there?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A Trump supporter believing Barr, that’s shocking, Trumps newly appointed AG ( cough cough personal defense lawyer) it must be so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree.

I agree, 280 characters from our supreme leader, or statements from his insiders should be accepted as the truth.

Fixed it, not sure everyone understands your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed it, not sure everyone understands your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like it.

dummies desperate for attention....

More than 20 House Democrats will stage a marathon public reading of the entire redacted Mueller report beginning Thursday at noon, and likely ending in the early morning hours of Friday.

dummies desperate for attention....

More than 20 House Democrats will stage a marathon public reading of the entire redacted Mueller report beginning Thursday at noon, and likely ending in the early morning hours of Friday.
If it were Hillary and the Congress was held by republicans you would be one of the head cheer leaders on this board. Are you suggesting Congress shouldn’t be allowed to do it’s job? If there is nothing to find why is the executive branch obstruction continuing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it were Hillary and the Congress was held by republicans you would be one of the head cheer leaders on this board. Are you suggesting Congress shouldn’t be allowed to do it’s job? If there is nothing to find why is the executive branch obstruction continuing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I encourage the democrats to read it 24 hours a day until trump's reelection...I also encourage impeachment proceedings and any other lunacy they want to engage in(doing their job) :jester:

Conrad Black: Trump pardons ex-media baron 'friend'

Trumps found a new toy called the pardon :angel:

I don’t recall the outrage when Obama used this toy over 60 times. Hmmm.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t recall the outrage when Obama used this toy over 60 times. Hmmm.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shocking you missed the big picture.. yet again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shocking you missed the big picture.. yet again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again,differing perspectives. But there was no outrage with some of the curious choices Obama decided on for pardons. Yet a bolt of lightning goes through you at the mere mention of Trump. I know you said he doesn’t bother you and blame his base. But seriously...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again,differing perspectives. But there was no outrage with some of the curious choices Obama decided on for pardons. Yet a bolt of lightning goes through you at the mere mention of Trump. I know you said he doesn’t bother you and blame his base. But seriously...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Wayne's problem is he thinks there is only one big picture--his. So he cannot be convinced that his picture is messed up.

Interesting twist just reveled. The federal judge handling the Flynn case just ordered the government unredact any of the mueller report having to do with the Flynn case and publish it. It will be interesting to see how far the White House will go to obstruct justice in this order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again,differing perspectives. But there was no outrage with some of the curious choices Obama decided on for pardons. Yet a bolt of lightning goes through you at the mere mention of Trump. I know you said he doesn’t bother you and blame his base. But seriously...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
There was plenty of outrage from the right about Obama's commuting drug offenses or Jeff sessions calling abuse of power for allowing no violent drug offender to apply for presidential clemency

I guess you missed it

It's not about the ability to pardon it's the merits of the who he chooses to pardon .. seems thats to Cryptic of an idea for you and the rest of trumpland .. let's see .. one the author and friend who praised him in a book .. ones buddies with Jared and another killed an unarmed prisoner in Iraq ...
Joe Arpaio scooter libby dinesh d Souza..
So we have criminal contempt perjury and obstruction of justice x2 arson murder campaign finance violation and racketeering
All reinforcing they got screwed by the deep state and I fixed it

In a nutshell Trump pardons are for future use
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe he find a cross dressing traitor to pardon next time
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe he find a cross dressing traitor to pardon next time
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

President Obama commuted the sentence of famed Chelsea Manning.

You do know there is a difference correct ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try Oscar Lopez Rivera...nothing to see here,right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

President Obama commuted the sentence of famed Chelsea Manning.

You do know there is a difference correct ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Big Whoop, out of prison is out of prison
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Big Whoop, out of prison is out of prison
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Typical once again everything's the same ... and details only matter when it comes to spelling errors or math. Unless you agree shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try Oscar Lopez Rivera...nothing to see here,right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You mean the
74-year-old Oscar Lopez Rivera, the Puerto Rican nationalist who had served 35 years of a 55 year sentence.. i agree a questionable choice bet seems your unwilling or just cant distinguish between clemency and pardon ... and who Trump is using this power for.

Must be my TDS telling me its inappropriate to pardon friends and political allies ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess the details only apply to Trump. It’s can be good to have friends in high places. Ask Jussie Smollet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Typical once again everything's the same ... and details only matter when it comes to spelling errors or math. Unless you agree shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhh, so you’re saying that if Trump commuted his sentence, you wouldn’t have started this thread. Got it. :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhh, so you’re saying that if Trump commuted his sentence, you wouldn’t have started this thread. Got it. :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we get it you have no issues with Trump giving his friends pardons ... just say it ... you'll feel better

I guess the details only apply to Trump. It’s can be good to have friends in high places. Ask Jussie Smollet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thanks for another example of THE FBI is bad and Obama's got him off .... what else does your crystal ball see??

we get it you have no issues with Trump giving his friends pardons ... just say it ... you'll feel better

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-health/finding-a-therapist-who-can-help-you-heal.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thanks for another example of THE FBI is bad and Obama's got him off .... what else does your crystal ball see??

I see you are having trouble with reading comprehension.

AGAIN🙄
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device