(03-26-2019 12:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I liked what Lindsey Graham had to say today.

Yup

(03-26-2019 07:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This almost feels like one side of the political spectrum is in a Kubler Ross cycle.

(03-26-2019 08:09 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I’ve pointed out from the beginning that Mueller is highly respected on both sides of the aisle as a consummate professional. Unlike Trump and his supporters, I’m not going to change my tune on that because I didn’t like his conclusions.

Quote:So, I’ll accept his conclusions, though I’d like to see the report/hear from him. I do NOT trust Barr.

Quote:It’s important to note that Barr points out no collusion was found, defined as an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

Quote:Why did Manafort give proprietary data to people with ties to Russian intelligence? Why was Trump Jr.’s response to say “I love it!” instead of reporting it to authorities?

Quote:That’s another key point. Mueller has apparently established that 1) Russia DID try and influence and meddle in the election and 2) they approached the Trump campaign.

Quote:So why has the Trump administration been denying Russian influence, most notoriously when he stood in Helskinki and sided with a former KGB operative over the CIA, FBI, and the rest of the US law enforcement and intelligence communities? (If Obama or Hillary had done that, the GOP would be shouting “Treason!”)

Quote:Anyway, all else aside the investigation was necessary and worthwhile for establishing Russian interference alone. Trump and the GOP can no longer pretend it didn’t happen and maybe we can move forward on election integrity in a bipartisan way.

Quote:It’s also worth noting that Trump’s campaign manager is going to jail. Trump’s personal lawyer of 10+ years is going to jail. His National Security advisor pled guilty to federal crimes, as did multiple campaign aides and advisors.

Quote: We now have separate investigations of 1) felony campaign violations and 2) an investigation into influence peddling regarding his inauguration, 3) at least one other investigation into financial crimes by Trump and Trump Org, and 4) Trump Foundation shut down for being a phony charity.

Quote:Oh, and we also know that Trump WAS pursuing business in Russia during the campaign and blatantly lied to the American people about it repeatedly.

(03-26-2019 07:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  disappointed

"The sense of mourning started to take hold over the weekend, after Attorney General William Barr said that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, had not found coordination between President Trump’s campaign and the Russian government’s election interference in 2016."

Sense of mourning?

Jennifer Taub, a Vermont Law School professor who had become known for punchy anti-Trump columns with titles like “Yes, Collusion. Now What?” said, “There are definitely people who thought that Mueller would save us.”

save?

Ms. Taub said she remained hopeful that Mr. Mueller’s full findings, which have not yet been made public, would somehow contradict the summary given by Mr. Barr.

...

“We just have Barr’s word, and we knew from the beginning that Barr was determined that nothing would happen. I’m pretty sure that’s why he is now the attorney general.”

As we are seeing, the conspiracy theory has shifted to Mr. Barr.

Quote: Over the nearly two years of the Mueller investigation, a segment of liberals and activists built up fervent hopes that it would bring Mr. Trump down.

(03-26-2019 08:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 07:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This almost feels like one side of the political spectrum is in a Kubler Ross cycle.

they will never get to acceptance.

(03-26-2019 08:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='JustAnotherAustinOwl' pid='16013107' dateline='1553605753']

Quote:Anyway, all else aside the investigation was necessary and worthwhile for establishing Russian interference alone. Trump and the GOP can no longer pretend it didn’t happen and maybe we can move forward on election integrity in a bipartisan way.

I think we could have established that without a two year, $25M investigation. In fact, wasn't it established very early on?

(03-26-2019 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 07:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  disappointed

"The sense of mourning started to take hold over the weekend, after Attorney General William Barr said that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, had not found coordination between President Trump’s campaign and the Russian government’s election interference in 2016."

Sense of mourning?

Jennifer Taub, a Vermont Law School professor who had become known for punchy anti-Trump columns with titles like “Yes, Collusion. Now What?” said, “There are definitely people who thought that Mueller would save us.”

save?

Ms. Taub said she remained hopeful that Mr. Mueller’s full findings, which have not yet been made public, would somehow contradict the summary given by Mr. Barr.

...

“We just have Barr’s word, and we knew from the beginning that Barr was determined that nothing would happen. I’m pretty sure that’s why he is now the attorney general.”

As we are seeing, the conspiracy theory has shifted to Mr. Barr.

Quote: Over the nearly two years of the Mueller investigation, a segment of liberals and activists built up fervent hopes that it would bring Mr. Trump down.

Just like how some on the right were overly eager/reliant on X, Y, or Z to take down Obama/Clinton, there were similarly some on the left that viewed Mueller as this weird savior-type figure that was going to take down Trump. There was a whole ecosystem that lived of it as a sort of anti-media to the Limbaugh - idiots like Louise Mensch who suggested that Banon was going to receive the death penalty.

(03-26-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 07:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  disappointed

"The sense of mourning started to take hold over the weekend, after Attorney General William Barr said that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, had not found coordination between President Trump’s campaign and the Russian government’s election interference in 2016."

Sense of mourning?

Jennifer Taub, a Vermont Law School professor who had become known for punchy anti-Trump columns with titles like “Yes, Collusion. Now What?” said, “There are definitely people who thought that Mueller would save us.”

save?

Ms. Taub said she remained hopeful that Mr. Mueller’s full findings, which have not yet been made public, would somehow contradict the summary given by Mr. Barr.

...

“We just have Barr’s word, and we knew from the beginning that Barr was determined that nothing would happen. I’m pretty sure that’s why he is now the attorney general.”

As we are seeing, the conspiracy theory has shifted to Mr. Barr.

Quote: Over the nearly two years of the Mueller investigation, a segment of liberals and activists built up fervent hopes that it would bring Mr. Trump down.

Just like how some on the right were overly eager/reliant on X, Y, or Z to take down Obama/Clinton, there were similarly some on the left that viewed Mueller as this weird savior-type figure that was going to take down Trump. There was a whole ecosystem that lived of it as a sort of anti-media to the Limbaugh - idiots like Louise Mensch who suggested that Banon was going to receive the death penalty.

Damn big segment. pretty loud too.

Did Schiff lie when he said the evidence was clear? Do you condone that style f character assassination?

Not sure which Clinton you mean. If you mean Bill, everybody knows he was guilty but saved by partisan votes in the Senate. If you mean Hillary, she was saved by preferential treatment in the investigation.

Trump was cleared by an independent investigation staffed mostly by Democrats.

I wasn't aware any charges had been brought on Obama, but the evidence is clear that he favored Russia more during his terms than Trump has during his half term.

(03-26-2019 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Acceptance will come once the entire report is in the public purview.

(03-26-2019 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Acceptance will come once the entire report is in the public purview.

Pour me a cup of that coffee. I'll wait.

BTW, expect most of the report will eventually be in the public purview. But if even one word is redacted - and it will be - the suspicion will be that THAT is the part that proves Trump's guilt. Even if nothing is redacted, then the narrative will turn to Mueller's incompetence and/or his being bought off by Trump (along with his 15 Democratic assisstants).

(03-26-2019 09:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='JustAnotherAustinOwl' pid='16013107' dateline='1553605753']

Quote:Anyway, all else aside the investigation was necessary and worthwhile for establishing Russian interference alone. Trump and the GOP can no longer pretend it didn’t happen and maybe we can move forward on election integrity in a bipartisan way.

I think we could have established that without a two year, $25M investigation. In fact, wasn't it established very early on?

Holy heck, if this isn't gaslighting, I don't know what is. First of all, we still have people on this board arguing about whether or not Russia was involved in hacking the DNC/Podesta.

Quote:Second, we have numerous times, argued about whether or not Russia was involved in interfering with the election.

Quote:So, to a certain extent, no, we couldn't have established this without an investigation

(03-26-2019 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Acceptance will come once the entire report is in the public purview.

Pour me a cup of that coffee. I'll wait.

BTW, expect most of the report will eventually be in the public purview. But if even one word is redacted - and it will be - the suspicion will be that THAT is the part that proves Trump's guilt. Even if nothing is redacted, then the narrative will turn to Mueller's incompetence and/or his being bought off by Trump (along with his 15 Democratic assisstants).

I'll agree that there will be hemming or hawing will occur if there is a decent amount of redaction. And since I expect there to be a good amount of redaction, my guess is we'll hear about it.

There will certainly be some who don't accept the report, but my instinct is that the majority of people will, as I believe Mueller will have done a good job laying out his case.

(03-26-2019 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 07:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  disappointed

"The sense of mourning started to take hold over the weekend, after Attorney General William Barr said that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, had not found coordination between President Trump’s campaign and the Russian government’s election interference in 2016."

Sense of mourning?

Jennifer Taub, a Vermont Law School professor who had become known for punchy anti-Trump columns with titles like “Yes, Collusion. Now What?” said, “There are definitely people who thought that Mueller would save us.”

save?

Ms. Taub said she remained hopeful that Mr. Mueller’s full findings, which have not yet been made public, would somehow contradict the summary given by Mr. Barr.

...

“We just have Barr’s word, and we knew from the beginning that Barr was determined that nothing would happen. I’m pretty sure that’s why he is now the attorney general.”

As we are seeing, the conspiracy theory has shifted to Mr. Barr.

Quote: Over the nearly two years of the Mueller investigation, a segment of liberals and activists built up fervent hopes that it would bring Mr. Trump down.

Just like how some on the right were overly eager/reliant on X, Y, or Z to take down Obama/Clinton, there were similarly some on the left that viewed Mueller as this weird savior-type figure that was going to take down Trump. There was a whole ecosystem that lived of it as a sort of anti-media to the Limbaugh - idiots like Louise Mensch who suggested that Banon was going to receive the death penalty.

Damn big segment. pretty loud too.

Did Schiff lie when he said the evidence was clear? Do you condone that style f character assassination?

Not sure which Clinton you mean. If you mean Bill, everybody knows he was guilty but saved by partisan votes in the Senate. If you mean Hillary, she was saved by preferential treatment in the investigation.

Trump was cleared by an independent investigation staffed mostly by Democrats.

I wasn't aware any charges had been brought on Obama, but the evidence is clear that he favored Russia more during his terms than Trump has during his half term.

Did Owl#s lie when he said the evidence was clear that Hillary committed a crime? If we go solely off of a summary of what Comey said, she was cleared of any criminal wrong doing.

(03-26-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 07:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  disappointed

"The sense of mourning started to take hold over the weekend, after Attorney General William Barr said that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, had not found coordination between President Trump’s campaign and the Russian government’s election interference in 2016."

Sense of mourning?

Jennifer Taub, a Vermont Law School professor who had become known for punchy anti-Trump columns with titles like “Yes, Collusion. Now What?” said, “There are definitely people who thought that Mueller would save us.”

save?

Ms. Taub said she remained hopeful that Mr. Mueller’s full findings, which have not yet been made public, would somehow contradict the summary given by Mr. Barr.

...

“We just have Barr’s word, and we knew from the beginning that Barr was determined that nothing would happen. I’m pretty sure that’s why he is now the attorney general.”

As we are seeing, the conspiracy theory has shifted to Mr. Barr.

Quote: Over the nearly two years of the Mueller investigation, a segment of liberals and activists built up fervent hopes that it would bring Mr. Trump down.

Just like how some on the right were overly eager/reliant on X, Y, or Z to take down Obama/Clinton, there were similarly some on the left that viewed Mueller as this weird savior-type figure that was going to take down Trump. There was a whole ecosystem that lived of it as a sort of anti-media to the Limbaugh - idiots like Louise Mensch who suggested that Banon was going to receive the death penalty.

Damn big segment. pretty loud too.

Did Schiff lie when he said the evidence was clear? Do you condone that style f character assassination?

Not sure which Clinton you mean. If you mean Bill, everybody knows he was guilty but saved by partisan votes in the Senate. If you mean Hillary, she was saved by preferential treatment in the investigation.

Trump was cleared by an independent investigation staffed mostly by Democrats.

I wasn't aware any charges had been brought on Obama, but the evidence is clear that he favored Russia more during his terms than Trump has during his half term.

Did Owl#s lie when he said the evidence was clear that Hillary committed a crime? If we go solely off of a summary of what Comey said, she was cleared of any criminal wrong doing.

And we are back to OJ.

An acquital does not mean innocent.

Owl@s has no incentive to lie.

Schiff does.

(03-26-2019 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just like how some on the right were overly eager/reliant on X, Y, or Z to take down Obama/Clinton, there were similarly some on the left that viewed Mueller as this weird savior-type figure that was going to take down Trump. There was a whole ecosystem that lived of it as a sort of anti-media to the Limbaugh - idiots like Louise Mensch who suggested that Banon was going to receive the death penalty.

Damn big segment. pretty loud too.

Did Schiff lie when he said the evidence was clear? Do you condone that style f character assassination?

Not sure which Clinton you mean. If you mean Bill, everybody knows he was guilty but saved by partisan votes in the Senate. If you mean Hillary, she was saved by preferential treatment in the investigation.

Trump was cleared by an independent investigation staffed mostly by Democrats.

I wasn't aware any charges had been brought on Obama, but the evidence is clear that he favored Russia more during his terms than Trump has during his half term.

Did Owl#s lie when he said the evidence was clear that Hillary committed a crime? If we go solely off of a summary of what Comey said, she was cleared of any criminal wrong doing.

And we are back to OJ.

An acquital does not mean innocent.

Owl@s has no incentive to lie.

Schiff does.

The incentive to lie doesn't matter. This is all about being consistent with how you judge people.

You're trying to use the fact Mueller did not find Trump and Co. guilty of collusion to say that Schiff must be lying when he said the evidence was clear. So by the exact same logic, if Clinton was not found guilty of mishandling classified information, then Owl#s must be lying when he says the evidence is clear that she mishandled classified information.

I see no reason why Schiff can't say the evidence is clear, yet Mueller can come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to legally convict Trump and Co. of the crime, as this happens all of the time.

(03-26-2019 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just like how some on the right were overly eager/reliant on X, Y, or Z to take down Obama/Clinton, there were similarly some on the left that viewed Mueller as this weird savior-type figure that was going to take down Trump. There was a whole ecosystem that lived of it as a sort of anti-media to the Limbaugh - idiots like Louise Mensch who suggested that Banon was going to receive the death penalty.

Damn big segment. pretty loud too.

Did Schiff lie when he said the evidence was clear? Do you condone that style f character assassination?

Not sure which Clinton you mean. If you mean Bill, everybody knows he was guilty but saved by partisan votes in the Senate. If you mean Hillary, she was saved by preferential treatment in the investigation.

Trump was cleared by an independent investigation staffed mostly by Democrats.

I wasn't aware any charges had been brought on Obama, but the evidence is clear that he favored Russia more during his terms than Trump has during his half term.

Did Owl#s lie when he said the evidence was clear that Hillary committed a crime? If we go solely off of a summary of what Comey said, she was cleared of any criminal wrong doing.

And we are back to OJ.

An acquital does not mean innocent.

Owl@s has no incentive to lie.

Schiff does.

The incentive to lie doesn't matter. This is all about being consistent with how you judge people.

You're trying to use the fact Mueller did not find Trump and Co. guilty of collusion to say that Schiff must be lying when he said the evidence was clear. So by the exact same logic, if Clinton was not found guilty of mishandling classified information, then Owl#s must be lying when he says the evidence is clear that she mishandled classified information.

I see no reason why Schiff can't say the evidence is clear, yet Mueller can come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to legally convict Trump and Co. of the crime, as this happens all of the time.

(03-26-2019 11:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Damn big segment. pretty loud too.

Did Schiff lie when he said the evidence was clear? Do you condone that style f character assassination?

Not sure which Clinton you mean. If you mean Bill, everybody knows he was guilty but saved by partisan votes in the Senate. If you mean Hillary, she was saved by preferential treatment in the investigation.

Trump was cleared by an independent investigation staffed mostly by Democrats.

I wasn't aware any charges had been brought on Obama, but the evidence is clear that he favored Russia more during his terms than Trump has during his half term.

Did Owl#s lie when he said the evidence was clear that Hillary committed a crime? If we go solely off of a summary of what Comey said, she was cleared of any criminal wrong doing.

And we are back to OJ.

An acquital does not mean innocent.

Owl@s has no incentive to lie.

Schiff does.

The incentive to lie doesn't matter. This is all about being consistent with how you judge people.

You're trying to use the fact Mueller did not find Trump and Co. guilty of collusion to say that Schiff must be lying when he said the evidence was clear. So by the exact same logic, if Clinton was not found guilty of mishandling classified information, then Owl#s must be lying when he says the evidence is clear that she mishandled classified information.

I see no reason why Schiff can't say the evidence is clear, yet Mueller can come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to legally convict Trump and Co. of the crime, as this happens all of the time.

Like I said, Schiff has incentive to make a case against Trump, as he has established himself as a leader in the Get Trump wing of your party, and his future political career could rest on it. I have no doubt that President Schiff sounds good to him. If the evidence is clear, present it. That's what a prosecutor would do, and he sounds like a prosecutor, he acts lie prosecutor, he must be a duck.

BTW, Clinton was not found Not Guilty, as you say - there was no prosecution. Same exact case your team is trying to make regarding OOJ. If not prosecuting means not guilty , then we are done here. Of course, their viewpoint is largely, that if he was not exonerated by Mueller, then he must be guilty and Barr is just covering for him out of gratitude to Trump for his job. Funny how everybody Trump appoints to anything - SCOTUS, Cabinet, any job - is deemed to be willing to do anything for him, while the Obama appointees cannot be swayed from the path of righteousness by mere gratitude.