Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Mueller Report Out Next Week?

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

If you're proved to be correct, I'll admit it. However, until then, I think your opinion of the man's intellect is very short-sighted. I'll bet his IQ is 50 points higher than Devin Nunes'. Of course, yours and mine are probably 30 points higher than that nitwit.

I didn't question his intellect. I'm sure he's a smart guy.  I do question his honesty.  

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I want us to think about this from a logical, and hopefully dispassionate point of view.

So for a minute, let's try to remove partisanship from this. Rather, let's look at the Executive as an entity removed from party, which is how the founders envisioned the office.

The report states that the executive seriously attempted obstruction, welcomed help from a hostile power, and knew of the release of data breaches before they happened.

We also know that:

  • The Executive was accused of a crime
  • The Executive forced out/fired key members of the investigation
  • The Executive wanted others to fire more of them
  • The Executive hired on as AG a man who has a history of covering up crimes and stated a year prior that he did not believe the Executive could be charged with obstruction
  • The AG released a four page summary of the investigations saying "all clear", while citing 4 partial sentences. 
  • The AG does not want to hand the full report over to Congress, who has the right to see it as part of their oversight duties.
  • The Executive weaponized the four page summary to "prove" that they were "completely exonerated", despite the fact that the report had not been released to anyone by the AG.
  • The day that the redacted report was released, the AG held a press conference and appeared to say that there was "full exoneration" for the Executive.
  • The report instead claims that the Executive tried to obstruct, welcomed help from a foreign power, and has been negligent in preventing further attacks on our elections and infrastructure. It also revealed that the executive repeatedly lied to the public about key details. 

So when we remove parties, names, and presumptions and try to view this from an objective point of view, is this type of behavior acceptable for arguably the most powerful person in the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, retrofade said:

So, I want us to think about this from a logical, and hopefully dispassionate point of view.

So for a minute, let's try to remove partisanship from this. Rather, let's look at the Executive as an entity removed from party, which is how the founders envisioned the office.

The report states that the executive seriously attempted obstruction, welcomed help from a hostile power, and knew of the release of data breaches before they happened.

We also know that:

  • The Executive was accused of a crime
  • The Executive forced out/fired key members of the investigation
  • The Executive wanted others to fire more of them
  • The Executive hired on as AG a man who has a history of covering up crimes and stated a year prior that he did not believe the Executive could be charged with obstruction
  • The AG released a four page summary of the investigations saying "all clear", while citing 4 partial sentences. 
  • The AG does not want to hand the full report over to Congress, who has the right to see it as part of their oversight duties.
  • The Executive weaponized the four page summary to "prove" that they were "completely exonerated", despite the fact that the report had not been released to anyone by the AG.
  • The day that the redacted report was released, the AG held a press conference and appeared to say that there was "full exoneration" for the Executive.
  • The report instead claims that the Executive tried to obstruct, welcomed help from a foreign power, and has been negligent in preventing further attacks on our elections and infrastructure. It also revealed that the executive repeatedly lied to the public about key details. 

So when we remove parties, names, and presumptions and try to view this from an objective point of view, is this type of behavior acceptable for arguably the most powerful person in the world?

He's gonna make Starbucks tell me "Merry Christmas," not "Happy Holidays" or "Feliz Navidad." So who cares about any of that?

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smltwnrckr said:

He's gonna make Starbucks tell me "Merry Christmas," not "Happy Holidays" or "Feliz Navidad." So who cares about any of that?

Actually, he gets one more appointment to the SCOTUS :) 

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, retrofade said:

So, I want us to think about this from a logical, and hopefully dispassionate point of view.

So for a minute, let's try to remove partisanship from this. Rather, let's look at the Executive as an entity removed from party, which is how the founders envisioned the office.

The report states that the executive seriously attempted obstruction, welcomed help from a hostile power, and knew of the release of data breaches before they happened.

We also know that:

  • The Executive was accused of a crime
  • The Executive forced out/fired key members of the investigation
  • The Executive wanted others to fire more of them
  • The Executive hired on as AG a man who has a history of covering up crimes and stated a year prior that he did not believe the Executive could be charged with obstruction
  • The AG released a four page summary of the investigations saying "all clear", while citing 4 partial sentences. 
  • The AG does not want to hand the full report over to Congress, who has the right to see it as part of their oversight duties.
  • The Executive weaponized the four page summary to "prove" that they were "completely exonerated", despite the fact that the report had not been released to anyone by the AG.
  • The day that the redacted report was released, the AG held a press conference and appeared to say that there was "full exoneration" for the Executive.
  • The report instead claims that the Executive tried to obstruct, welcomed help from a foreign power, and has been negligent in preventing further attacks on our elections and infrastructure. It also revealed that the executive repeatedly lied to the public about key details. 

So when we remove parties, names, and presumptions and try to view this from an objective point of view, is this type of behavior acceptable for arguably the most powerful person in the world?

Regarding the putting partisanship aside thingy, you should try again.  Should I wait?

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pokebball said:

Actually, he gets one more appointment to the SCOTUS :) 

And that's why the next constitutional amendment will be overturning the second amendment. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Actually, he gets one more appointment to the SCOTUS :) 

Y'all would elect David Duke if it meant you got another Federalist Society justice on SCOTUS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, modestobulldog said:

2017 "We must accept Muller's findings"

2019 "We don't accept Muller's findings"

What's not being accepted?

The report says no "collusion" and that he did not criminally obstruct.  

I think the people you are trying to zing around here accept those facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

And that's why the next constitutional amendment will be overturning the second amendment. 

Not gonna happen.  Not in my lifetime anyway.  What you loons do after that is up to you.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, toonkee said:

What's not being accepted?

The report says no "collusion" and that he did not criminally obstruct.  

I think the people you are trying to zing around here accept those facts.

The report actually says no criminal conspiracy and no criminal obstruction... the obstruction part was because of the OLC opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pokebball said:

Not gonna happen.  Not in my lifetime anyway.  What you loons do after that is up to you.

Us loons? I'm a fan of gun control? This is news to me.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, retrofade said:

The report actually says no criminal conspiracy and no criminal obstruction... the obstruction part was because of the OLC opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

I thought it said the whole sitting president stuff was not considered with regards to an obstruction charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Schiff's investigation has barely begun and that is because the single dumbest member of Congress chaired that committee until three months ago and refused to subpoena numerous prospective witnesses that the Democrat members thereof wanted to hear from. Of course, that single dumbest member of Congress has lately appeared regularly on FoxNews.

You are dangerously close to Retro / Akkula / 2001 territory.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, toonkee said:

I thought it said the whole sitting president stuff was not considered with regards to an obstruction charge.

No, Barr's letter stated that he didn't consider that while "clearing" Trump of obstruction. If you go and read the report, it actually says on Page 2 of Section 2 that they were operating under the belief that a sitting President cannot be indicted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...