The Mueller Report thread

[GMDino]

(04-22-2019, 09:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All of this to say we agree that it's Congress' role to act if anything is untoward. But yeah,kudos for the extra work. Who knows maybe they'll call you to testify if there's ever an impeachment hearing. 

The Left is so hurt about the report that all that's left (cool pun) is to strike out. It speaks volumes about them. The citizen police in this thread are absolutely hilarious. The Left in Congress state they don't have enough in this report and demand an un-redacted, but folks in Bengal Message Board PnR forum can pat themselves on the back for doing the "extra work" and slur those that did not.  Maybe you "extra workers" could get t-shirts or something.

Your opinion would mean something if you knew what was in the report.  But you admit you do not and will not until an "expert" tells you.

Except that you believe the AG.

Even though you didn't read the report (any of it) to see if he told you anything resembling the truth.

So all you're "left" with is more unfounded claims and crying about something you admit you absolutely nothing about but that you also say doesn't matter because you don't know anything about it.

[hollodero]

(04-22-2019, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Honesty time: How many have read the complete report?

That is a fair question. I for one failed doing so. I guess I got the jist of things though.

But even getting only the jist of things - it seems quite clear that Trump's behaviour is deeply unethical and possibly deeply unpatriotic. Whenever Russians come along and offer things, in the clear and unhidden hope to gain advantage from that, one might think that a presidential candidate, let alone a president, would be wary about that. However, the report lays out several instances where Trump aides were willing to accept anything that was recieved through a hack, through wikileaks, through any sources that never had America's best interest in mind. They were enthusiastic about it. Is that patriotic? Is it conservative?

Trump doesn't care. But you should. You have values, unlike that man Trump who has none of those, you also have principles, beliefs. But with that traits, you're getting a fringe element in the conservative movement you consider to be that adult. The only thing I can say is, be fair. What if it were a democrat? Joe Biden using dirt on say Pence using illegal Iranian hacking to get to his damning material? Not a scandal? Not disqualifying?

Russia made no attempt to hide their goals, and team Trump was well aware of their deeds and welcomed it. How conservatives can be ok with that, this I will never get. I consider it a moral failing to overlook that. I also consider it a moral failing to go after democratrs and dismiss the damaging stuff in Mueller's report. History, I'd hope, doesn't take kindly on that.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 10:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: That is a fair question. I for one failed doing so. I guess I got the jist of things though.

But even getting only the jist of things - it seems quite clear that Trump's behaviour is deeply unethical and possibly deeply unpatriotic. Whenever Russians come along and offer things, in the clear and unhidden hope to gain advantage from that, one might think that a presidential candidate, let alone a president, would be wary about that. However, the report lays out several instances where Trump aides were willing to accept anything that was recieved through a hack, through wikileaks, through any sources that never had America's best interest in mind. They were enthusiastic about it. Is that patriotic? Is it conservative?

Trump doesn't care. But you should. You have values, unlike that man Trump who has none of those, you also have principles, beliefs. But with that traits, you're getting a fringe element in the conservative movement you consider to be that adult. The only thing I can say is, be fair. What if it were a democrat? Joe Biden using dirt on say Pence using illegal Iranian hacking to get to his damning material? Not a scandal? Not disqualifying?

Russia made no attempt to hide their goals, and team Trump was well aware of their deeds and welcomed it. How conservatives can be ok with that, this I will never get. I consider it a moral failing to overlook that. I also consider it a moral failing to go after democratrs and dismiss the damaging stuff in Mueller's report. History, I'd hope, doesn't take kindly on that.

First of all join the lazy group; it appears they're is only 2 of us. From what I understand. Trump was not POTUS when Russia meddled in the election. I further believe we should punish Russia for their involvement. I'm just not going to fabricate things because I feel a certain way. 

I've tried to be fair and simply asserted I'll let Congress decide, but I don't have the secret decoder ring. If Trump committed a crime he should be punished. If Trump did some "bad things" folks should consider them. But there are 2 many liberals trying too hard to make too much out of too little. If it were more we'd know by now, unless the nation is waiting for Bengals PnR forum to finish reading the report. 

[GMDino]

(04-22-2019, 11:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all join the lazy group; it appears they're is only 2 of us. From what I understand. Trump was not POTUS when Russia meddled in the election. I further believe we should punish Russia for their involvement. I'm just not going to fabricate things because I feel a certain way. 

I've tried to be fair and simply asserted I'll let Congress decide, but I don't have the secret decoder ring. If Trump committed a crime he should be punished. If Trump did some "bad things" folks should consider them. But there are 2 many liberals trying too hard to make too much out of too little. If it were more we'd know by now, unless the nation is waiting for Bengals PnR forum to finish reading the report. 

How would you know if you didn't read anything?  Oh, yeah...you believe the AG.  "Expert".  LMAO!

Any other things you want to give your opinion on that you never read about?  

At least watch the video of your boy Graham telling you that the POTUS doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached....

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 11:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: How would you know if you didn't read anything?  Oh, yeah...you believe the AG.  "Expert".  LMAO!

Any other things you want to give your opinion on that you never read about?  

At least watch the video of your boy Graham telling you that the POTUS doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached....

I've read plenty and yes I accept the AG's report and consider him an expert on such matters; unless proven otherwise by Congress. Perhaps not the experts that you and Dill are and maybe they will call on Dino to testify if it ever turns to impeachment, because you've read it all.

Laymen giving their "educated verdict" on the report, because they've "read it" are clowns at best, and it's amusing you don't realize it. Not one person's opinion in this forum has changed because they read the report

To be honest the most extreme anti-Trump poster (JJ) on this forum has given the most measured answer. 

[hollodero]

(04-22-2019, 11:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all join the lazy group; it appears they're is only 2 of us. From what I understand. Trump was not POTUS when Russia meddled in the election.

Still very unethical, still quite unpatriotic. He was a candidate and he was happy about all the Russian help he later denied ever having by lying to the country.

(04-22-2019, 11:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If Trump did some "bad things" folks should consider them.

That would be nice. There are things to consider, e.g. how only Trump's now fired people stopped him fom committing punishable offenses, how he betrayed toe country (by claiming again and again that he believes Putin) and how in the end he is not indicted for obstruction because Mueller thought a president can't be.
But many folks claim total exoneration instead and how everyone should apologize to Trump. Because he avoided criminal indictment by a whisker. A proud moment for everyone I'm sure.

(04-22-2019, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've read plenty and yes I accept the AG's report and consider him an expert on such matters;

He also lied and spun everything in Trump's favor and I don't trust his verdict, for he certainly isn't impartial.

Very much like I think a football ref is a football rules expert, but when he comes in Steelers clothes I still don't want him judging plays.

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've read plenty and yes I accept the AG's report and consider him an expert on such matters; unless proven otherwise by Congress. Perhaps not the experts that you and Dill are and maybe they will call on Dino to testify if it ever turns to impeachment, because you've read it all.

Laymen giving their "educated verdict" on the report, because they've "read it" are clowns at best, and it's amusing you don't realize it. Not one person's opinion in this forum has changed because they read the report

To be honest the most extreme anti-Trump poster (JJ) on this forum has given the most measured answer. 

This is a keeper.  A statement of your standards.

1. You've read "plenty" of an "expert on such matters" chosen by a president with a history of lying and now on the dock for obstruction.  I.e., reading ONE side of a political issue, YOUR side, is plenty, regardless of the trust issues generated by the behavior of Trump and his picked spokespersons. 

2.  On the other hand, citizens who read both Mueller and Barr, then compare to make their own legally consistent judgment, are "clowns at best." They don't realize . . . what . . . that trusting authorities with something to hide is better than informing themselves?   Unless you, yourself, are called upon to testify, there is no need for voting citizens to personally understand the legal case for obstruction against an official elected to the highest office in the land--beyond what HE tells them about it. 

3. If no one's mind is changed by looking closely at arguments for both sides, then . . . looking at both sides is pointless?  Pick the side you like and stand pat.   

In authoritarian states, be they feudal, theocratic or totalitarian, the populace are expected to trust political authority to do their political and legal thinking for them.  

Call that Faith-based politics?

Representative governments hold forth a very different ideal--one in which the informed citizen keeps watch on government--whether the citizens are going to testify in hearings or not. "Informed" means a basic understanding how law and government work, and the arguments on both sides of national political issues/cases.

You are clearly disparaging the democratic ideal and those who practice it, while affirming the authoritarian model of trust in  authority and obedience, the model in which thinking for oneself is above the citizen's pay grade.

[Dill]

(04-23-2019, 06:46 AM)hollodero Wrote: Very much like I think a football ref is a football rules expert, but when he comes in Steelers clothes I still don't want him judging plays.

Yes, that would be going way to far.  I say let Tomlin appoint the refs--ones he has personally interviewed.

That's a closer approximation to Barr making a call on Trump's obstruction. 

No harm no foul?  Pick up the flag.

And leave it with the refs. They know more about football than the fans.

[hollodero]

(04-23-2019, 08:38 AM)Dill Wrote: Yes, that would be going way to far.  I say let Tomlin appoint the refs--ones he has personally interviewed.

After he fired the former ones for not protecting his team enough. Yep, that sounds fair.

(04-23-2019, 08:38 AM)Dill Wrote: And leave it with the refs. They know more about football than the fans.

Also, the fans are biased and rooted for a certain outcome from the start, so what they think about certain calls is not relevant.

There are times I really would like to see Trump shooting someone, just to see the adult arguments made afterwards. I suppose a major point against liberals would be "you were against him before that incident" and that no one's opinion about him has changed by it, so there's no need to have a debate about this.

Also, I'm very much in favor of Bernie Sanders - or say Mayor Pete - getting some stolen unflattering Pence emails from Iran. He can use them, quote them, also deny the Iran involvement despite all evidence, call everyone who talks about this angry, hateful, fake news and an enemy of the people and demand an apology from everyone having an issue with that. That is all ok now, right?

[GMDino]

(04-22-2019, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've read plenty and yes I accept the AG's report and consider him an expert on such matters; unless proven otherwise by Congress. Perhaps not the experts that you and Dill are and maybe they will call on Dino to testify if it ever turns to impeachment, because you've read it all.

Or unless someone reads what Mueller put in the final report.

(04-22-2019, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Laymen giving their "educated verdict" on the report, because they've "read it" are clowns at best, and it's amusing you don't realize it. 

Such slurs!

(04-22-2019, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not one person's opinion in this forum has changed because they read the report.

No denying the amount of bias in those who believe DJT was "fully exonerated" and should only be impeached if he broke a law.

Although I'd add some people won't read the report because it might change their view, IMHO.

(04-22-2019, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be honest the most extreme anti-Trump poster (JJ) on this forum has given the most measured answer. 

Good for JJ!

[GMDino]

Another thing getting more traction is how many stories about the Trump administration that he and his minions said were "fake news" were in fact 100% accurate.

This "man" lies and has people lie for him.

If nothing else the MUeller report should show the non-cult members who still felt the press was overstepping that they were rather doing good work and printing accurate stories for the most part.

[*bfine32*]

(04-23-2019, 06:46 AM)hollodero Wrote: Still very unethical, still quite unpatriotic. He was a candidate and he was happy about all the Russian help he later denied ever having by lying to the country.



That would be nice. There are things to consider, e.g. how only Trump's now fired people stopped him fom committing punishable offenses, how he betrayed toe country (by claiming again and again that he believes Putin) and how in the end he is not indicted for obstruction because Mueller thought a president can't be.
But many folks claim total exoneration instead and how everyone should apologize to Trump. Because he avoided criminal indictment by a whisker. A proud moment for everyone I'm sure.



He also lied and spun everything in Trump's favor and I don't trust his verdict, for he certainly isn't impartial.

Very much like I think a football ref is a football rules expert, but when he comes in Steelers clothes I still don't want him judging plays.

Trump has no monopoly on this. Many Presidents have Executive Privilege and often have to be counseled on where it stops. As to bias AG's we've always had that. Do you really believe Clinton and Lynch only talked about Grandchildren on that tarmac the night before the release of the email report? Do you think I cannot provide a laundry list of BS Eric Holder did? Do you think Obama found out the same day the rest of America did that Hills was using a personal server. 

How many here, now claiming you must read or you're lazy read the email report page by page or were they satisfied with the results of "no intent"? I know I didn't read the report, took it at it's word, and hoped if those more learned than me in Congress chose to dig deeper they did so. It's known as checks and balances and last I checked the Bengals PnR board was not part of that no matter how much they look in the mirror and claim themselves to be. 

As I said we will spend the next 4-8 years being who we have hated for the last 8 and the  reactions of both the Hillary and Collusion investigations are a perfect example. 

[GMDino]

(04-23-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump has no monopoly on this. Many Presidents have Executive Privilege and often have to be counseled on where it stops. As to bias AG's we've always had that. Do you really believe Clinton and Lynch only talked about Grandchildren on that tarmac the night before the release of the email report? Do you think I cannot provide a laundry list of BS Eric Holder did? Do you think Obama found out the same day the rest of America did that Hills was using a personal server. 

How many here, now claiming you must read or you're lazy read the email report page by page or were they satisfied with the results of "no intent"? I know I didn't read the report, took it at it's word, and hoped if those more learned than me in Congress chose to dig deeper they did so. It's known as checks and balances and last I checked the Bengals PnR board was not part of that no matter how much they look in the mirror and claim themselves to be. 

As I said we will spend the next 4-8 years being who we have hated for the last 8 and the  reactions of both the Hillary and Collusion investigations are a perfect example. 

Ah...Clinton.  Thank goodness for them of we'd have to look at what the guy who WON the election did and is doing.  


Did you even read the summary in the report that Barr misrepresented?  At all?

Do you know how the lack of "intent" you mentioned was explained?

No.

That you keep saying you "believe" anything without ANY verification on your own by using readily available resources is amazing.

[Vas Deferens]

It will be interesting to see how Daddy simultaneously props up and denigrates this report. "Yes, I've been fully exonerated." "No, these people didnt say that." "No, I am in full control" "No, it still wasn't Russia" Which one is it? Is the report true false?

A real patriot would have been tough with Russia on this when it was shown they were ***** with the cornerstone of our democracy. Daddy put his interests ahead of the country and continues to overcome dry mouth to spit shine putin's shoes. A real man wouldnt cower like that. Hell even Hills in her dress barn geriatric pantsuit would have puckered her bitchy self-entitled lips and declared full blown economic war.

Attempted obstruction is as bad obstruction, but whatever, move forward on this one. Keep investigating his finances and just generally rub this dog's nose in his own mess. Get some carpet pilings in those nostrils and punish his lineage until they all change their surname out of shame. But impeachment seems pointless and would generally play into the narrative the right would like to see.

I would think EVERYONE here would want to some actionable mandates against a foreign attack on our institutions. All I see us doing recently is playing netanyahu's bottom ***** with the promise of salten sea front development deals down the road? Pathetic.

[GMDino]

“He doesn’t have to say ‘go lie for me,’ for it to be a crime. You don’t have to say ‘let’s obstruct justice’ for it to be a crime. You judge people on their conduct, not magic phrases” Lindsey Graham #RepublicansForImpeachment pic.twitter.com/1nF7FfCSxn

— Democratic Coalition (@TheDemCoalition) April 23, 2019

 

[hollodero]

(04-23-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump has no monopoly on this. Many Presidents have Executive Privilege and often have to be counseled on where it stops. As to bias AG's we've always had that.

Well, maybe. But then they are not the ones who should make the prosecutorial decisions about the president. That would be up to Congress, right, to hold a president responsible.
And if said biased AGs made the call nonetheless, a citizen does not need to be content with it.

(04-23-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you really believe Clinton and Lynch only talked about Grandchildren on that tarmac the night before the release of the email report? Do you think I cannot provide a laundry list of BS Eric Holder did?

Please do provide that laundry list. So I can check if it amounts to misinforming the public about the contents of a special counsel report into the president's conduct.
I can see the parallels quite clearly. Obama got help by a foe, lied about it, fired the people looking into it, firing the old AG, then getting a non-exoneration exoneration and a grossly favorable view from his newly appinted AG and then demand apologies. While said AG holds a PK and says poor president was angered by leaks and bad press and we please need to all understand his bad behaviour because of this - in that state of mind, it's ok for him to lie and he can't possibly be guilty of obstruction.

Well, maybe there is something similar in those Holder files of yours. But as someone recently said to me, no innuendos.

(04-23-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: How many here, now claiming you must read or you're lazy read the email report page by page or were they satisfied with the results of "no intent"?

No one ever demanded page by page reading. The question itself I do not really get. Guessing what you ask, I'd respond that a result of "the president and his people didn't willfully break any law, they just didn't know better", as it is in regard of the Trump tower meeting, is pretty devastating.

As for the rest of your post, I find it amazing how you would mock people that show an interest in such things. When they as well could just know their limits, become adult conservatives and follow your explanatory lead on anything.

[*bfine32*]

(04-23-2019, 01:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, maybe. But then they are not the ones who should make the prosecutorial decisions about the president. That would be up to Congress, right, to hold a president responsible.
And if said biased AGs made the call nonetheless, a citizen does not need to be content with it.

Pretty sure that's what I've been saying all along.

Please do provide that laundry list. So I can check if it amounts to misinforming the public about the contents of a special counsel report into the president's conduct.
I can see the parallels quite clearly. Obama got help by a foe, lied about it, fired the people looking into it, firing the old AG, then getting a non-exoneration exoneration and a grossly favorable view from his newly appinted AG and then demand apologies. While said AG holds a PK and says poor president was angered by leaks and bad press and we please need to all understand his bad behaoviour because of this - in that state of mind, it's ok for him to lie and he can't possibly be guilty of obstruction.
Well of course over 3,000 emails were deleted after a CPU was subpoenaed  so we really don't know the full extent of the parallels. But the point made more than the similarities of the situations is the hypocrisy in the reaction. The same folks that accept that Slick Willy and Lynch talked about grandkids and Hill's emails were about yoga, now cry you must read the report and draw your own conclusions as it is your civic duty.  The report went against what the Libs hoped for and much like the popular vote; they cannot let it go. It is never OK for anyone to lie

Well, maybe there is something similar in those Holder files of yours. But as someone recently said to me, no innuendos.
Start with this: "fast and furious"
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/fast-furious-obama-first-scandal/

You'll see congress did something it had never done before: "Holder in Contempt"
https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/holder-contempt/index.html

and when you're versed on that you can simply google "Eric Holder scandals"

Of course you don't have to do this and I'll not call you lazy if you choose not to do so.

No one ever demanded page by page reading. The question itself I do not really get. Guessing what you ask, I'd respond that a result of "the president and his people didn't willfully break any law, they just didn't know better", as it is in regard of the Trump tower meeting is pretty devastating.

So how much of the report should someone read? Anything worth doing is worth doing well amiright? I simply defer to those whose job it is to read and interpret such things

As for the rest of your post, I find it amazing how you would mock people that show an interest in such things. When they as well could just know their limits, become adult conservatives and follow your explanatory lead on anything.

I have no problem with folks being interested in things. 

[Bengalzona]

A summation of U.S. politics in the 21st century:

[fredtoast]

(04-23-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  As to bias AG's we've always had that.

So basically you knew he was biased yet you refused to look at any other source?

Let me ask you this.  Why did you even bother to wait for Barr's summary before making your decision on the investigation.  

[fredtoast]

(04-23-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you really believe Clinton and Lynch only talked about Grandchildren on that tarmac the night before the release of the email report?

Maybe.

But unlike you I am aware that Clinton could have spoken to Lynch anytime he wanted to.  He had no reason to wait for a brief meeting on a plane.