OT: Trump/Russians/Robert Mueller

184,531 Views | 3122 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by BearForce2
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is a small and unlikely chance that Barr's actions which are a clear cover up are also part of a negotiation with Trump for him to resign. It's a stretch, but perhaps the redactions ate legit because so much is being prosecuted elsewhere and the stall is part of buying time to see if Trump will resign and the communications with WH is the negotiation.

If not, it is full cover up and Barr needs to be investigated and perjury/impeachment explored.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS said:



Cuz Trump did all that shhheeet.
I hear he did the pee stuff as well...and he loves it!
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Impeachment will give Trump a win (in the Senate) going into the election.

I think they should impeach Barr


He is going to win anyway because the Dems are cannibalizing themselves so putting historical taint on the Clown Prince is enough for me. Barr is more of a Tier 1 Operator wetwork issue.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

There is a small and unlikely chance that Barr's actions which are a clear cover up are also part of a negotiation with Trump for him to resign. It's a stretch, but perhaps the redactions ate legit because so much is being prosecuted elsewhere and the stall is part of buying time to see if Trump will resign and the communications with WH is the negotiation.

If not, it is full cover up and Barr needs to be investigated and perjury/impeachment explored.
I would personally replace with "absolutely no chance."
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

There is a small and unlikely chance that Barr's actions which are a clear cover up are also part of a negotiation with Trump for him to resign. It's a stretch, but perhaps the redactions ate legit because so much is being prosecuted elsewhere and the stall is part of buying time to see if Trump will resign and the communications with WH is the negotiation.

If not, it is full cover up and Barr needs to be investigated and perjury/impeachment explored.
Ultimately I agree that things eventually get out but I think there's going to be a few weeks or months of hide the report. The consistent badgering by the Trumpies then the Barr letter, then the early celebration are indications they will try and continue the travesty of justice. They're going to throw everything at it...risk constitutional failure, try and further erode trust.

Basically their p*ssing in the fan to make it seem like rain....instead of the sh*t storm it really is.

It will be interesting how the Dems respond. Slow play or fire?

My guess is the full document will be leaked. Some patriot will bust this motherf*cker open. Then it'll be time..



blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know if I have been more disappointed with my country than watching 40% of Americans stand by and watch the lies and cover up and be okay with it because they chose their man and don't care. I never thought "we" would let something like this happen here. Only took two years for them to become blindly loyal.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Okay...it's on!

Judiciary chair lays out 4 charges against Bill Barr that sound like Articles of Impeachment


Quote:

House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler blasted Attorney General Bill Barr at a hastily-called Wednesday evening press conference.

"The Attorney General appears to be waging a media campaign on behalf of President Trump the very subject of the investigation at the heart of the Mueller report," Nadler said. "Rather than letting the facts of the report speak for themselves, the Attorney General is taking unprecedented steps to spin Mueller's nearly two-year investigation."

Nadler then laid out four arguments against Barr.

"One, he summarized the report and cherry-picked findings in his March 24th letter to Congress," he charged.

"Two, he withheld summaries written by the special counsel that were intended for public consumption," he continued.

"Three he briefed the white house before providing Congress a copy that helped them prepare a rebuttal response for the president," he said.

And now, the evening before the report's scheduled release, the Department of Justice has informed the committee that it will receive a copy between 11:00 and noon well after the Attorney General's 9:30 a.m. press conference," Nadler said. "This is wrong."
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Okay...it's on!

Judiciary chair lays out 4 charges against Bill Barr that sound like Articles of Impeachment


Quote:

House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler blasted Attorney General Bill Barr at a hastily-called Wednesday evening press conference.

"The Attorney General appears to be waging a media campaign on behalf of President Trump the very subject of the investigation at the heart of the Mueller report," Nadler said. "Rather than letting the facts of the report speak for themselves, the Attorney General is taking unprecedented steps to spin Mueller's nearly two-year investigation."

Nadler then laid out four arguments against Barr.

"One, he summarized the report and cherry-picked findings in his March 24th letter to Congress," he charged.

"Two, he withheld summaries written by the special counsel that were intended for public consumption," he continued.

"Three he briefed the white house before providing Congress a copy that helped them prepare a rebuttal response for the president," he said.

And now, the evening before the report's scheduled release, the Department of Justice has informed the committee that it will receive a copy between 11:00 and noon well after the Attorney General's 9:30 a.m. press conference," Nadler said. "This is wrong."



It's interesting how in some circumstances the Mueller investigation is characterized by BI posters as merely an investigation into Russian election interference and in some circumstances Trump is actually the subject of the investigation.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Another Bear said:

Okay...it's on!

Judiciary chair lays out 4 charges against Bill Barr that sound like Articles of Impeachment


Quote:

House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler blasted Attorney General Bill Barr at a hastily-called Wednesday evening press conference.

"The Attorney General appears to be waging a media campaign on behalf of President Trump the very subject of the investigation at the heart of the Mueller report," Nadler said. "Rather than letting the facts of the report speak for themselves, the Attorney General is taking unprecedented steps to spin Mueller's nearly two-year investigation."

Nadler then laid out four arguments against Barr.

"One, he summarized the report and cherry-picked findings in his March 24th letter to Congress," he charged.

"Two, he withheld summaries written by the special counsel that were intended for public consumption," he continued.

"Three he briefed the white house before providing Congress a copy that helped them prepare a rebuttal response for the president," he said.

And now, the evening before the report's scheduled release, the Department of Justice has informed the committee that it will receive a copy between 11:00 and noon well after the Attorney General's 9:30 a.m. press conference," Nadler said. "This is wrong."



It's interesting how in some circumstances the Mueller investigation is characterized by BI posters as merely an investigation into Russian election interference and in some circumstances Trump is actually the subject of the investigation.
An investigation into Russian interference can also potentially make Trump look bad. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

oski003 said:

Another Bear said:

Okay...it's on!

Judiciary chair lays out 4 charges against Bill Barr that sound like Articles of Impeachment


Quote:

House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler blasted Attorney General Bill Barr at a hastily-called Wednesday evening press conference.

"The Attorney General appears to be waging a media campaign on behalf of President Trump the very subject of the investigation at the heart of the Mueller report," Nadler said. "Rather than letting the facts of the report speak for themselves, the Attorney General is taking unprecedented steps to spin Mueller's nearly two-year investigation."

Nadler then laid out four arguments against Barr.

"One, he summarized the report and cherry-picked findings in his March 24th letter to Congress," he charged.

"Two, he withheld summaries written by the special counsel that were intended for public consumption," he continued.

"Three he briefed the white house before providing Congress a copy that helped them prepare a rebuttal response for the president," he said.

And now, the evening before the report's scheduled release, the Department of Justice has informed the committee that it will receive a copy between 11:00 and noon well after the Attorney General's 9:30 a.m. press conference," Nadler said. "This is wrong."



It's interesting how in some circumstances the Mueller investigation is characterized by BI posters as merely an investigation into Russian election interference and in some circumstances Trump is actually the subject of the investigation.
An investigation into Russian interference can also potentially make Trump look bad. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.


Absolutely.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?

blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Barr's press conference was itself an act of obstruction. How much you want to bet that Trump himself insisted that Barr use the phrase "no collusion." Disgusting.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No American should be okay with the actions of this president and his administration. Every act was to hide behavior they KNEW was unethical/illegal. How can any rational person defend this?

I go back to three simple things I have listed for over a year.

1) Show us your personal and corporate returns.
2) Release entire un-redacted report.
3) Testify to American public under oath an explanation for the behavior that any rational human would see as unethical and illegal. Can you tell us your version of what happened and why you are innocent of things when you look so guilty?

That is pretty simple and direct and almost everyone on these boards and in my life agrees that is a fair baseline. Why don't we have this? Without these three, he should not be president.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Welp...the American Century is over. The slide into full Banana Republic corruption and foreign interference says so. Many predicted the American Empire would end, just no one figured it would go down this way. Bill Barr was simply playing his part.

Oh well, it was a good run. Now it's over.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Telling Cohen to "stay strong" is all you need to know to say he should no longer be president.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Welp...the American Century is over. The slide into full Banana Republic corruption and foreign interference says so. Many predicted the American Empire would end, just no one figured it would go down this way. Bill Barr was simply playing his part.

Oh well, it was a good run. Now it's over.


Which signals the Fall of the American Empire more: the POTUS' Game of Thrones tweet or the fact that at least 40% of the electorate thinks it was a rip roaring idea?

"The country has to awaken every now and then to the fact that the people are responsible for the government they get," Harry Truman wrote. " "And when they elect a man to the presidency who doesn't take care of the job, they got nobody to blame but themselves." Jon Meacham, The Soul of America
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump's lack of curiosity about election interference and no moves to protect against it happening again, but rather totally worried about creating doubt about that interference and saying his win is legit is more than damning, it is total dereliction of duty and number one in a long list of reasons why he can no longer be president.

"No Collusion? Yes Conspiracy!"
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The more I read, the guiltier he is. This is worse, and he is dumber and dirtier, than I even imagined.

All the posters on these threads (and all Trumpers) who defended and are part of the constituency that provided cover and blessing for this, should be ashamed. He depended on your hatred of Libs and your blind loyalty to not be held to account. It's time for you all to stop. In the conversations with friends and family or in your community or even here on BI, you need to be part of the solution by not letting any part of this be okay in our country and holding him to account as we redeem ourselves as a nation.

No more projecting on Libs or whatabouts, just hold this criminal to task and remove him from office because you are an American not a Trumper.

Can we finally be on the same team on doing what is clearly right?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
America is now in a fight for democracy and its soul. Either you're in or out. No fence sitting on this. This is NOT about party...this is about country.

To my conservative friends and family...buck up and fight for democracy or get the **** out of the way.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"This is the end of my Presidency" and "I'm ****ed," can only reasonably be interpreted as the reaction of an innocent man, right?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"This is the end of my Presidency" and "I'm ****ed," can only reasonably be interpreted as the reaction of an innocent man, right?
His saving grace on obstruction may be the fact that he was impotent and incompetent in its execution.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

bearister said:

"This is the end of my Presidency" and "I'm ****ed," can only reasonably be interpreted as the reaction of an innocent man, right?
His saving grace on obstruction may be the fact that he was impotent and incompetent in its execution.
I have thought for a while now that Trump was actually too incompetent to have pulled off any of these criminal schemes successfully.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He obviously obstructed the investigation but I'm most curious as to why he's not being criticized more for his continuous, repeated disingenuous statements that Putin didn't interfere with the election. Has Trump ever acknowledged what took place?

As far as I'm concerned that's still the big story and Trump still refuses to address it.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

I have thought for a while now that Trump was actually too incompetent to have pulled off any of these criminal schemes successfully.

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I knew this round of the Mueller Report would lead to more cluster****, and more ****ting in the pond by the RWNJs.

The only way this is resolved is the full report is leaked and someone with "the goods" steps forwards with a smoking gun and the location of the dead bodies.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?

is there any reason to believe the redacted report is missing anything critical? I'm not sure "leaking" the full report will make a difference. It is what it is - he obstructed justice (there are arguments on both sides) but there isn't really any new evidence to think that he or the campaign colluded.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


is there any reason to believe the redacted report is missing anything critical? I'm not sure "leaking" the full report will make a difference. It is what it is - he obstructed justice (there are arguments on both sides) but there isn't really any new evidence to think that he or the campaign colluded.
Perhaps more accurately, there isn't evidence that the campaign conspired with the Russians on anything, because that requires a level of organization that the Trump team doesn't have. Individuals within the campaign (Manafort) may well have colluded.
Calcupcakes
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

bearister said:

"This is the end of my Presidency" and "I'm ****ed," can only reasonably be interpreted as the reaction of an innocent man, right?
His saving grace on obstruction may be the fact that he was impotent and incompetent in its execution.
... and the fact that some of the more competent people surrounding him refused to go along with what he ordered them to do.


I am about as far right of the crazy, left-wing, crying-wolf mainstream media as one can get without being a Trump supporter. I have been skeptical of the stupid "collusion" charge from the very beginning. And I have downloaded the entire report and wasted many non-billable hours reading the damn thing. But I came away convinced that we have a crook in the WH surrounded "mostly" by crooks. I don't need a "full" unredacted report to learn more. This is report is NOT good for Trump by any means. He's indeed f*cked.

Part II of the report -- the Obstruction part -- is about as damning a declination to prosecute as one could be. Reading between the lines, Mueller & co. decided not to prosecute because they agreed with the OLC's opinion that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." Trump is about as innocent of obstruction as OJ following his criminal trial.

The question is: how are we going to replace him, and with whom?

It shouldn't be that tough, right? But somehow I'm sure the Dems will *****it up, in some way, some form, some fashion.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


is there any reason to believe the redacted report is missing anything critical? I'm not sure "leaking" the full report will make a difference. It is what it is - he obstructed justice (there are arguments on both sides) but there isn't really any new evidence to think that he or the campaign colluded.


No, none. There is sufficient information to begin impeachment charges on obstruction. My own view is that the Democrats will use the " full report" issue to keep from doing this
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Calcupcakes said:

golden sloth said:

bearister said:

"This is the end of my Presidency" and "I'm ****ed," can only reasonably be interpreted as the reaction of an innocent man, right?
His saving grace on obstruction may be the fact that he was impotent and incompetent in its execution.
... and the fact that some of the more competent people surrounding him refused to go along with what he ordered them to do.


I am about as far right of the crazy, left-wing, crying-wolf mainstream media as one can get without being a Trump supporter. I have been skeptical of the stupid "collusion" charge from the very beginning. And I have downloaded the entire report and wasted many non-billable hours reading the damn thing. But I came away convinced that we have a crook in the WH surrounded "mostly" by crooks. I don't need a "full" unredacted report to learn more. This is report is NOT good for Trump by any means. He's indeed f*cked.

Part II of the report -- the Obstruction part -- is about as damning a declination to prosecute as one could be. Reading between the lines, Mueller & co. decided not to prosecute because they agreed with the OLC's opinion that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." Trump is about as innocent of obstruction as OJ following his criminal trial.

The question is: how are we going to replace him, and with whom?

It shouldn't be that tough, right? But somehow I'm sure the Dems will *****it up, in some way, some form, some fashion.
Why is it only on the Dems to fix this?
Calcupcakes
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Unit2Sucks said:


is there any reason to believe the redacted report is missing anything critical? I'm not sure "leaking" the full report will make a difference. It is what it is - he obstructed justice (there are arguments on both sides) but there isn't really any new evidence to think that he or the campaign colluded.


No, none. There is sufficient information to begin impeachment charges on obstruction. My own view is that the Democrats will use the " full report" issue to keep from doing this

I agree with you here. I was against impeachment all along but now think that it should be commenced on the obstruction issue based on this report. (By the way, Mueller & Co left the determination of that issue to Congress, NOT to Barr or Rosenstein.)

But I think Nancy and the Dems will use the full report excuses to not pull the trigger. They have been reading to polls and realizing that the public won't be warming up to it. They'd rather spend resources on 2020.

It's like the Republicans claiming ad nauseum that Obamacare ought to be repealed, but when they had a chance to do it, they backed off.



Calcupcakes
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:



Why is it only on the Dems to fix this?

Because Trump's base of 35% or so won't change their minds no matter what, so if the Dems just stopped the infighting and turned out to vote, he would be gone in 2020.

Because at the end of the day, it's still a beauty contest to most voters, and it will be Trump vs. _____. If the Dems nominated someone crazier and less palatable then Trump, then we may have a repeat of 2016. People might choose to stay home again. There might not be more things American despise than a Commie, for instance.

Because for many "independents" the "Anyone but Trump" chant might not be enough. It might depend on who that "anyone" is, and the Dems control who that "anyone" is.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Calcupcakes said:

Anarchistbear said:

Unit2Sucks said:


is there any reason to believe the redacted report is missing anything critical? I'm not sure "leaking" the full report will make a difference. It is what it is - he obstructed justice (there are arguments on both sides) but there isn't really any new evidence to think that he or the campaign colluded.


No, none. There is sufficient information to begin impeachment charges on obstruction. My own view is that the Democrats will use the " full report" issue to keep from doing this

I agree with you here. I was against impeachment all along but now think that it should be commenced on the obstruction issue based on this report. (By the way, Mueller & Co left the determination of that issue to Congress, NOT to Barr or Rosenstein.)

But I think Nancy and the Dems will use the full report excuses to not pull the trigger. They have been reading to polls and realizing that the public won't be warming up to it. They'd rather spend resources on 2020.

It's like the Republicans claiming ad nauseum that Obamacare ought to be repealed, but when they had a chance to do it, they backed off.
If there is a way to play this, you use the House's powers to begin an "investigation" into obstruction, without actually starting impeachment proceedings. Basically start laying out the case for impeachment without calling it that. Hope that something comes out of these investigations that changes public sentiment enough to support impeachment. It's tricky, and I'm no legal expert so maybe there are reasons why this can't happen. But on first glance that's what I'd try to do, if I were serious about being a check on the president.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Calcupcakes said:

There might not be more things American despise than a Commie, for instance.
IMO there is a big generational difference on this (older Americans still do, younger Americans don't care), and the coming elections over the next decade or so will bear that out.

In 2020 I suspect there are still enough of the "despise Commies" types where it could make a difference, though I'm not 100% sure about that.
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.