Jump to content

Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration


Dad

Recommended Posts

I don't support freedom of the press. I don't pretend I do till it helps me to not do so like you though

 

Okay, glad you confirmed that you don't support the First Amendment.

 

I'm pretending nothing. Julian Assange, as an individual, is a criminal, and I would like to see him charged as one. That has nothing to do with my support for the freedom of the press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 305
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Okay, glad you confirmed that you don't support the First Amendment.

 

I'm pretending nothing. Julian Assange, as an individual, is a criminal, and I would like to see him charged as one. That has nothing to do with my support for the freedom of the press.

This bone headed post says more about you than it does about me. You're basically saying supporting 80% of something ='s supporting 0% of it

 

Nice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bone headed post says more about you than it does about me. You're basically saying supporting 80% of something ='s supporting 0% of it

 

Nice

 

Freedom of the press is not some 20% that should just be ignored. Either you respect the First Amendment in all its forms, or not at all. You're trying to shame "the left" for somehow abandoning freedom of the press when you have no love for it yourself. Your attempt at tu quoque simply fell flat.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/mueller-report-to-be-released-on-thursday-1275974

 

In any case, the Mueller report will be released tomorrow, so we'll see what happens from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of the press is not some 20% that should just be ignored. Either you respect the First Amendment in all its forms, or not at all. You're trying to shame "the left" for somehow abandoning freedom of the press when you have no love for it yourself. Your attempt at tu quoque simply fell flat.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/mueller-report-to-be-released-on-thursday-1275974

 

In any case, the Mueller report will be released tomorrow, so we'll see what happens from there.

There's more to 1A than just the freedom of the press. I don't like the idea of large partisan organizations reporting as if they don't have an agenda. With the rise of social media, the traditional press is no longer needed given the power of individuals to expose their opinion. I'm well aware the concept of nuance is lost on you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the rise of social media, the traditional press is no longer needed given the power of individuals to expose their opinion. 

Haven't you also claimed that social media organizations are biased against certain political views? You can't have it both ways Winter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't you also claimed that social media organizations are biased against certain political views? You can't have it both ways Winter

 

I think social media is somehow exempt, because focusing exclusively on attacking the freedom of the press supports a suspicious precedent that Trump is following.

 

EDIT:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/william-barr-mueller-report-summary?verso=true

https://www.justsecurity.org/63635/barrs-playbook-he-misled-congress-when-omitting-parts-of-justice-dept-memo-in-1989/

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/30-years-ago-william-barr-misled-the-public-about-the-contents-of-a-legal-memo/

 

It appears that William Barr has a history of misleading the public with his so-called "summaries" of principal conclusions, so all the accusations that Barr is trying to deceive people has a historical precedent based on Barr's own actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1118639594692644864

 

Barr met with the White House first, then he will have a press conference, and only then will he released the redacted version of the report. But sure, there's nothing underhanded about this at all.

I agree, there is nothing underhanded about an executive branch reporting to the head of the executive 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Obama was under investigation, Loretta Lynch had a history of misleading the public by releasing a "summary" that completely left out several principal conclusions, then met with Obama about the investigation just before holding a press conference before releasing a report where she withheld information because entire pages were redacted with an excuse of "Harm to Ongoing Matter", you wouldn't think she was trying to cover things up? Especially when the President laments "I'm funked" because he said the Attorney General was supposed to protect him?

 

https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1118925790211497986

 

Oh hey, it seems like Trump did coordinate with WikiLeaks about stolen emails.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-sanders-lied-firing-comey-mueller-report-1400686

 

Sarah Sanders admitted that she lie to the media about why James Comey was fired. Seems that the problem isn't the media pushing any "agenda", but rather that the White House press secretary is openly lying to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I read that. You really need to stop being condescending for a change.

 

I also read the additional selections of the report that indicate he did coordinate with WikiLeaks, and I would appreciate if you took that under consideration.

 

https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1118907571337928704

 

Barr also advocated for putting black men in prison because it would supposedly benefit society. All I'm hearing from Barr is that Trump's feelings were hurt, and I'm not at all sympathetic. If your best defense is that Trump felt bad, then you're doing nothing to exonerate him from obstructing justice, especially when the report - even with its redactions - still contained enough to implicate him in crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/19/nadler-subpoena-full-mueller-report-1282969

 

Jerry Nadler has finally used his subpoena to get the full report, since even the redactions implicate Trump.

 

"In some instances, Mueller reported that Trump satisfied all the elements of an obstruction crime but emphasized that he drew no “ultimate conclusion” about his conduct because of Justice Department constraints on indicting a sitting president."

 

And there you have it. Mueller did in fact have everything necessary, and only that restriction stopped him.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/obstruction-charge-trump-mueller/index.html

 

You can stop pretending that Trump is innocent now, especially considering how Barr took Mueller's words out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/don-mcgahn-subpoena-trump-white-house/index.html

 

Don McGahn has been subpoenaed to provide documents and testify before Congress next month about Trump's obstruction of justice.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/former-trump-campaign-chair-paul-manafort-now-federal-prison-n997511

 

Paul Manafort, who lost all credit of cooperating with investigators, and remains the subject of other ongoing investigations, is finally in prison.

 

God this has been so much fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So from what i'm seeing, no charges so far, and no spaghetti is sticking to the wall. All in all, pretty happy that the head of the country isn't actually working for the Russians, so we've all come out winners so far as that goes. as for the rest, we'll see the end result quite soon. so far there's a lot of smoke and mirrors, it looks once more, like something may be there if you point the floodlights at it long enough, but so far it's just been nothing. What make this one all that different? We may see something, but i'm betting it amounts to the same thing as literally everything else that's come out. nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you didn't bother to read at all where Mueller pointed out that Trump did in fact commit obstruction of justice in six counts, and the only reason he wasn't charged was because of the Justice Department's internal policy? Where he flat-out stated that he wanted to preserve evidence so that a case could be made against Trump once he was no longer in office?

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484965/mueller-report-trump-no-collusion

 

Once more, you're completely disregarding the evidence. You can keep claiming that it's nothing, but now you're just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring what we know for a fact. We've already seen plenty, so you can bet it would amount to nothing, but that's making a bet you'd somehow be proven right after you've already been proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been right so far. collusion is nonexistent so far, obstruction is not being pushed because he doesn't believe there to be enough to surmount the ever important "beyond a reasonable doubt." my own prediction is still spot on, seeing as they're once more targeting his taxes, and the news of the Muller report has been slowing down in favor of flat out tax return demands. I'm still on track for a full bingo card. my next call is that nobody brings anything to court, the muller report gets beaten like the dead horse that it now is, and the reveal of his bank accounts comes out the same way his last tax reveal did. aka, on par, if not better than, your average politician. I'll be back once that prediction comes true or gets shot down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484731/mueller-report-trump-barr-obstruction-legal-experts
 
You really haven't. Again, the Mueller report did establish obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, it did as much as possible to destroy the very idea that Trump was somehow "exonerated", so it doesn't seem like your prediction was anywhere close. His taxes are being demanded in addition to the Mueller report maintaining momentum, considering the subpoenas for the full report, as well as additional evidence and documents. In other words, more things are expected to be brought to court. Impeachment talks have gained more traction, though the caution is more on investigating Trump in general. The Mueller report is in no way a "dead horse", because it's only accelerating further investigations against Trump.
 
When Congress is investigating Trump because there is more than enough evidence to implicate him, it is false to claim that obstruction is not being pushed.

 

EDIT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/donald-trump-subpoenas.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 

Speaking of "stonewalling", Trump just promised to block subpoenas. Contempt of Congress is another crime unto itself, so good on Trump for committing another form of obstruction.

 

I'd say the Streisand Effect is operating in full force right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already read that article. I would still like to know what he was convicted of? those lawyers accounts cite the exact same thigs we already knew in every single one of their sections. and as we already know, that is nowhere near enough to even remotely get him convicted, because when viewed in context, none of it was actually anything worth caring about.  as far as taxes, again, there's no reason to beleive he is evading taxes, as the IRS goes harder than even muller, and were he evading taxes in any illegal capacity, they would likely have ripped him a new one long before muller got a hold of the russia case. he has already said he uses loopholes, but evading is something on a completely different level. as far as obstruction, to quote another person; the clearest case of obstruction of justice was committed by President Nixon regarding Watergate. In none of the articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee was the charge of firing Special Prosecutor Cox mentioned. I say this because one of the examples of obstruction given here was the proposed firing of Mueller. Proposing something and actually having it done are completely different. In Nixon's case, two members of the Justice Department resigned rather than carry out the order to fire Cox; yet, this still was not included in the actual articles of impeachment. I don't think that the direction (not followed) to fire Mueller would rise to the level of impeachment. The most damning piece against Trump is the attempt to encourage Manafort not to cooperate. If there was more detail about actual events (not simply accusations) this would clearly rise to the level of obstruction. The articles brought against Clinton had similar charges, but again with far more detail about what and how these occurred. In any event, even if the detail was established, Clinton was acquitted very decisively, and Trump likely would be as well if this was the substance of the charges brought by the House. In short, these charges would likely come appear politically motivated, since Republicans would not approve, and the Senate would acquit him.

 

trump telling them to bug off after two years of investigation is pretty appropriate to me. multiple departments conducted multiple investigations, and looked into everything they could. they don't have the ammo to take him down, and have wasted millions doing so. he is suing them to block said subpoenas, as well he should, because they are wasting time and money looking for the conclusion they want, instead of the conclusion there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roxas you don't understand the Streisand Effect. Hillary demanded he release them on the funking debate state. In front of most of America he refused. Now you think cummings or deal being sore losers after Mueller found him innocent of collusion will be a greater motivator? Get out of here lol

 

There's noting for the public to see. It's a man's personal taxes that you nor I have any right to see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vla1ne, you are fully aware that the Justice Department has an internal policy against indicting a sitting president. You're demanding what Mueller convicted Trump of doing, even though you know that Mueller cannot do so. You also said charges before, which is far different from conviction, so it's clear that you're either moving the goalposts regardless, or you cannot tell the difference between the two. That is why this now passes on to Congress, who has every right to begin impeachment proceedings. It is also grossly inappropriate to block subpoenas. "Proposing something and actually having it done are completely different" means jack sheet. For example, if you intimidate a witness, but the witness refuses to be intimidated, you can still be charged with witness intimidation, regardless of how effective it was. Likewise, suborning perjury is its own crime, regardless of whether you actually got the perjury you asked for. If Trump asked for something to be done to obstruct justice, then he committed a crime, regardless of whether the other person complied. As such, the Mueller investigation gave Congress plenty of ammo to take Trump down. This is a direct parallel to the Starr report (Which actually cost at least twice as much as what the Mueller report is estimated to cost, not counting any assets seized), not to the articles of impeachment brought against Nixon or Clinton.
 

You may not like that the investigation is ongoing, but you're making the same weak argument that Barr made; that it's somehow okay for Trump commit a crime because his feelings were hurt. The White House backed only backed down because they were threatened with charges of contempt.
 
Winter, I do understand the Streisand Effect. Like Nunes and his petty lawsuit, Trump is trying to bury something, but only making it worse for himself. It's not 100% exactly the same as the Streisand Effect if you want to split hairs, but it's pretty damn close. Though you seem to be focusing on his taxes, so your argument doesn't even come close to addressing what I was actually talking about, which was about testifying about Trump committing obstruction, and had nothing to do with his taxes beyond a passing mention in that article. Please refrain from confusing two entirely separate arguments. My comment about the Streisand Effect were in response to Trump vowing to stonewall the subpoenas regarding obstruction, and had nothing to do with my comment about the taxes beforehand.

 

"Mr. McGahn was the main witness to several of Mr. Trump’s actions that appear to most clearly meet the criteria Mr. Mueller laid out for attempted obstruction of justice. Among those was an episode last year when Mr. Trump pressured Mr. McGahn to create an internal White House document that would falsely deny that the president had ordered him to have Mr. Mueller fired."
 
Trump pressuring McGahn to lie in the investigation is pretty damning. Trump is trying to block a subpoena for a testimony about obstruction, and in doing so, he gave an even stronger case for obstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/441253-pelosi-barr-will-be-obstructing-congress-if-he-does-not-appear-before-house

 

Barr is expected to testify before Congress on Thursday. However, Barr, who is afraid of being put into a situation he cannot control would be forced to be honest because he has to uphold his duties as Attorney General instead of serving as Trump's personal defense lawyer, has threatened that he may not appear in court. Democrats may issue a subpoena, which would be the latest subpoena in this investigation that Trump has desperately tried to bury so he could avoid accountability.

 

Barr and Trump deserve no mercy. Keep the subpoenas coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that even ignoring the inability to drag trump before congress, nobody at all, has been arrested on charges of collusion for the 2016 election. that is what we're getting at. nobody, not trump, nor anybody below him, has been hit with anything for 2016 election collusion. they have all been hit with things that lie that russia outside of the current question of whether or not there was russian collusion in the 2016 election. The question at the start of all of this, is whas there collusion on trumps part, with the russians during the 2016 election. so far, there is none. and no, things like trump saying on air, that he would love it if russia pulled up dirt on hillary do not count as planned collusion. the question at the base of this, has been answered with a no. there is not enough evidence to support the allegation. at that point, the rest of it really doesn't matter. the current line of arrests were either for events from long before the people in question were affiliated with trump on the political stage, or for false statements. both types are legitimate offenses, neither is something that puts the initial question any closer to a yes. taxes don't matter, as they are a private question that only the people looking for anything at all to attack with are after, and are not something that is 2016 russia related. The IRS has been up his ass for years, as far as taxes go, as they are with most billionaires. I have no doubt he abused loopholes, but the question is completely irrelevant to the topic of russia, as looking for any money ties to russia means little as far as taxes are concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...