Mueller report handed over

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

Just because he didn’t get indicted doesn’t mean he’s not a traitor
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's true. It's also true that no matter whatever proof might be shown that he is not a traitor, that wouldn't mean that you could not believe he is if you wanted to believe it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Just because he didn’t get indicted doesn’t mean he’s not a traitor
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

two years, three investigations, zero evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

two years, three investigations, zero evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Depends on your definition of evidence.

#1: you have no idea if there is/isn’t evidence, too many people have yet to complete ongoing investigations which are targeting a man who may not be able to be indicted. The house is only recently put into the hands of a group of people willing to dig into a mountain of evidence. The unfortunate part about this one is that the house happens to be run by people who are looking for it, not just those who will read through it and accept it if they don’t find anything. But there’s a lot that remains to play out.

#2: This is the same man who has cozied up to murderous dictators from some of our most direct enemies of state. North Korea tortured a US citizen to the brink of death and shipped him back home to die, and we’re talking about lifting sanctions because of a public image campaign promise. Russia hacked our election, and was proved to have done so early in the Mueller investigation, and Trump has repeatedly bucked our own domestic intelligence agencies (multiple) to side with the Russians that they didn’t do it. All the while revealing that he was conducting business dealings well into his candidacy for president to complete real estate deals with them.

Traitor? Maybe a little harsh.

Willing to sacrifice national interests in the name of his own? (A close, non criminal second) It’s sure as heck seems that way

If this had been Obama you guys would be lighting these boards on fire... I could probably make a movie about it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Ian

Just because he didn’t get indicted doesn’t mean he’s not a traitor
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is remarkable.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Depends on your definition of evidence.

#1: you have no idea if there is/isn’t evidence, too many people have yet to complete ongoing investigations which are targeting a man who may not be able to be indicted. The house is only recently put into the hands of a group of people willing to dig into a mountain of evidence. The unfortunate part about this one is that the house happens to be run by people who are looking for it, not just those who will read through it and accept it if they don’t find anything. But there’s a lot that remains to play out.

#2: This is the same man who has cozied up to murderous dictators from some of our most direct enemies of state. North Korea tortured a US citizen to the brink of death and shipped him back home to die, and we’re talking about lifting sanctions because of a public image campaign promise. Russia hacked our election, and was proved to have done so early in the Mueller investigation, and Trump has repeatedly bucked our own domestic intelligence agencies (multiple) to side with the Russians that they didn’t do it. All the while revealing that he was conducting business dealings well into his candidacy for president to complete real estate deals with them.

Traitor? Maybe a little harsh.

Willing to sacrifice national interests in the name of his own? (A close, non criminal second) It’s sure as heck seems that way

If this had been Obama you guys would be lighting these boards on fire... I could probably make a movie about it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sorry, when i say zero evidence, that’s only because after two years, theee investigations, and tens of millions of dollars spent, there is zero direct evidence ( zero meaning ‘none’, or ‘lack of any’) that Trump worked with russia to help win.

Maybe hilary lost because she never visited wisconsin?

i don’t like trump. Can’t stand him, actually. but the media spent two years lying. And obamas DOJ worked with the hilary campaign to make serious, fabricated charges against fellow
american citizens. That’s scary.

Trump 100, media 0. He wins again, they have egg on their faces and then
they all
stepped on a rake on their way out. it’s hilarious. and half beast Rachael Maddow in tears again. Glorious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

sorry, when i say zero evidence, that’s only because after two years, theee investigations, and tens of millions of dollars spent, there is zero direct evidence ( zero meaning ‘none’, or ‘lack of any’) that Trump worked with russia to help win.

Maybe hilary lost because she never visited wisconsin?

i don’t like trump. Can’t stand him, actually. but the media spent two years lying. And obamas DOJ worked with the hilary campaign to make serious, fabricated charges against fellow
american citizens. That’s scary.

Trump 100, media 0. He wins again, they have egg on their faces and then
they all
stepped on a rake on their way out. it’s hilarious. and half beast Rachael Maddow in tears again. Glorious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have Mike Donaghy keeping score for you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

You have Mike Donaghy keeping score for you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t know who that is. i do know that despite the economy roaring and the islamic caliphate brought to its knees, 100% of trump coverage is negative except on one tb station ( which has some
hosts who give him 100% favorable coverage). i know the media promised arrests and impeachment for two years. and i know that their hatred of him is making them completely self destruct, as every presidential candidate is doing their best Pol Pot impression, he is causing all of them to go bonkers. the gop reaction to obama was the tea party, which worked. the democrat response to trump is vagina hats, ocasio-cortez, liz warren and corey booker?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

if Pete wants a cut and paste project...he could cut and paste all of the Spence and Nebestrodamus predictions over recent history...I'd read that.....

[Sea Dangles]

The resident gurus have all seemingly vanished. Spence hasn’t been so quiet since the election. PeteF. Is busy searching the web for a new cut n paste. Wayne is preparing his next speech about how he doesn’t hate Trump. PaulS simply put his head in the sand again. Oh the humanity!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

if Pete wants a cut and paste project...he could cut and paste all of the Spence and Nebestrodamus predictions over recent history...I'd read that.....

it’s hysterical.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i don’t know who that is. i do know that despite the economy roaring and the islamic caliphate brought to its knees, 100% of trump coverage is negative except on one tb station ( which has some
hosts who give him 100% favorable coverage). i know the media promised arrests and impeachment for two years. and i know that their hatred of him is making them completely self destruct, as every presidential candidate is doing their best Pol Pot impression, he is causing all of them to go bonkers. the gop reaction to obama was the tea party, which worked. the democrat response to trump is vagina hats, ocasio-cortez, liz warren and corey booker?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This roaring economy couldn’t scare a gazelle... so roaring the fed just had to announce rate freezes for the rest of ‘19
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

This roaring economy couldn’t scare a gazelle... so roaring the fed just had to announce rate freezes for the rest of ‘19
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re right it’s a weak economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you’re right it’s a weak economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was easier than I expected
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

That was easier than I expected
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's idiotic. Unemployment down, wages up, GDP growth up. None of that means anything to you, because you hate the guy in charge at the moment.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel prize-winning economist, who said that believing in 3% GDP growth, is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. Trump did it. He did, what they said couldn't be done. And not one of them conceded Trump was right and they were wrong.

Snack on that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul Krugman is a Nobel prize-winning economist, who said that believing in 3% GDP growth, is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. Trump did it. He did, what they said couldn't be done. And not one of them conceded Trump was right and they were wrong.

Snack on that.

Trump said sustained 3% growth which we're nowhere near and forecasts are for a continued decline.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Trump said sustained 3% growth which we're nowhere near and forecasts are for a continued decline.

Sounds familiar to previous predictions Jeff. Anyone can read. Anyone can make predictions. History tells us what actually happens. Trump is not the type to under promise and over deliver but so far the economy has exceeded expectations of your media.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Trump said sustained 3% growth which we're nowhere near and forecasts are for a continued decline.

you have zip
to say about Krugman suggesting the US economy won’t survive Trump, and you pivot immediately to bashing Trump.

Yawn.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Trump said sustained 3% growth which we're nowhere near and forecasts are for a continued decline.

were these forecasts generated by the same forecasters who forecasted that Hilary would win in a landslide? So you accidentally proved my point. When do YOU, Spence, conclude that these people are more driven by ideology than truth, how many times will you allow them to completely mislead you, before you stop listening to them?

You’re like Charlie Brown, confident that THIS TIME, Lucy won’t pull the football away from you at the last second.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's idiotic. Unemployment down, wages up, GDP growth up. None of that means anything to you, because you hate the guy in charge at the moment.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel prize-winning economist, who said that believing in 3% GDP growth, is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. Trump did it. He did, what they said couldn't be done. And not one of them conceded Trump was right and they were wrong.

Snack on that.

I was wrong, you got me there... wasn’t as easy as I thought.

My comments about the economy aren’t aimed at any particular party or person in charge, they’re aimed at the current state of the economy.

It’s funny to me how all these economic indicators switch with the person in charge in the White House. When Obama was in charge, unemployment being down just meant a ton of people stopped looking for jobs. Now it means the president is an economic genius.

Spare me... please
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

I was wrong, you got me there... wasn’t as easy as I thought.

My comments about the economy aren’t aimed at any particular party or person in charge, they’re aimed at the current state of the economy.

It’s funny to me how all these economic indicators switch with the person in charge in the White House. When Obama was in charge, unemployment being down just meant a ton of people stopped looking for jobs. Now it means the president is an economic genius.

Spare me... please
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t know who you’re referring to. i give obama credit constantly, for helping the economy. i can give credit or criticism when its deserved, regardless of party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

were these forecasts generated by the same forecasters who forecasted that Hilary would win in a landslide? So you accidentally proved my point. When do YOU, Spence, conclude that these people are more driven by ideology than truth, how many times will you allow them to completely mislead you, before you stop listening to them?

You’re like Charlie Brown, confident that THIS TIME, Lucy won’t pull the football away from you at the last second.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know of any economic models (except from the WH) that say we're going to maintain 3% growth.

[spence]

Another item from the investigation people seem to be glossing over. Mueller handed out indictments to 14 Russians over the election interference.

As one reporter said this morning, Trump asked for help from Russia, Russia helped, Trump benefited in the election and Russia benefited from Trump helping to cover it up. This may not meet the legal standard for conspiracy which requires a clearly established agreement, but I'd like to see anyone who thinks this is how our democracy should function. It's a betrayal.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Another item from the investigation people seem to be glossing over. Mueller handed out indictments to 14 Russians over the election interference.

As one reporter said this morning, Trump asked for help from Russia, Russia helped, Trump benefited in the election and Russia benefited from Trump helping to cover it up. This may not meet the legal standard for conspiracy which requires a clearly established agreement, but I'd like to see anyone who thinks this is how our democracy should function. It's a betrayal.

Jeff,when Hillary was given questions from Donna Brazile did it bother you at all? When she deleted 30,000 emails was that an example of how democracy should function? Why does filthy politics only upset you when there is an (R) next to the name? Just curious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't know of any economic models (except from the WH) that say we're going to maintain 3% growth.

Are you still focused on believing models that have let you down already. That’s insanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Jeff,when Hillary was given questions from Donna Brazile did it bother you at all? When she deleted 30,000 emails was that an example of how democracy should function? Why does filthy politics only upset you when there is an (R) next to the name? Just curious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why not bring up that Trump was given questions by Roger Ailes?

Longtime Fox News president Roger Ailes fed Donald Trump debate questions, according to a lengthy new investigation from the New Yorker.
The piece, written by Jane Mayer and published on Monday in advance of their March issue, says that even Megyn Kelly’s famously tough question to Trump about his past remarks toward women were slipped to the billionaire in advance.
“A pair of Fox insiders and a source close to Trump believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question,” Mayer said. “Two of those sources say that they know of the tipoff from a purported eyewitness. In addition, a former Trump campaign aide says that a Fox contact gave him advance notice of a different debate question, which asked the candidates whether they would support the Republican nominee, regardless of who won.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Another item from the investigation people seem to be glossing over. Mueller handed out indictments to 14 Russians over the election interference.

As one reporter said this morning, Trump asked for help from Russia, Russia helped, Trump benefited in the election and Russia benefited from Trump helping to cover it up. This may not meet the legal standard for conspiracy which requires a clearly established agreement, but I'd like to see anyone who thinks this is how our democracy should function. It's a betrayal.

"As one reporter said"--there's your problem. Other reporters have said that Trump's asking Russia for help (in front of the entire nation and the context in which it was "asked") was pure sarcasm. That you would stoop to this sarcastic Trumpism as a "betrayal" makes you more insidious and dangerous than what you want Trump to be.

[Jim in CT]

Spence, how about Hilary’s getting help from foreigners and foreign governments to put together the Steele dossier, which was used to get a FISA surveillance warrant on Carter Page? Hilary paid for that garbage dossier, and Obamas DOJ used it to spy on an American. If you have no problem with that, you have no reason to be worried about Trumps relationship with Russia.

Naked hypocrisy.

God we all need to start nominating differwnt kinds of people.

I like Ike.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Jeff,when Hillary was given questions from Donna Brazile did it bother you at all? When she deleted 30,000 emails was that an example of how democracy should function? Why does filthy politics only upset you when there is an (R) next to the name? Just curious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Brazile gave the campaign maybe two questions, it's not ethical certainly but not worth freaking out over.

Hillary didn't delete any emails either. Her SysAdmin forgot to purge them before the investigation even started and mistakenly did it later when they should have been preserved. FBI investigation came up clean.

How you think his has parity with a US President actively covering up illegal election meddling by an adversary is beyond me.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"As one reporter said"--there's your problem. Other reporters have said that Trump's asking Russia for help (in front of the entire nation and the context in which it was "asked") was pure sarcasm. That you would stoop to this sarcastic Trumpism as a "betrayal" makes you more insidious and dangerous than what you want Trump to be.

He was briefed as a candidate that Russia was trying to influence the election yet he consistently and publicly claimed otherwise, likely because he knew it would benefit his chances or perhaps other areas of compromise. He was briefed as President that Russia the same and yet stood on stage with Putin and claimed otherwise for what reason we don't know. It's hard to fathom a legitimate reason.

I had thought the Mueller report was looking into Russian influence over Trump, probably one of the most concerning issues, yet Barr made zero mention in his summary.

Why?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, how about Hilary’s getting help from foreigners and foreign governments to put together the Steele dossier, which was used to get a FISA surveillance warrant on Carter Page? Hilary paid for that garbage dossier, and Obamas DOJ used it to spy on an American. If you have no problem with that, you have no reason to be worried about Trumps relationship with Russia.

The campaign paid for opposition research to a US firm who hired an ex spy. Nothing wrong with that. The FISA thing has been gone over a thousand times. If you think Obama was able to get the DOJ and numerous Republican appointed judges to conspire against Trump you're crazy. Carter Page was being watched by the FBI for his Russia contacts long before the Dossier.