(03-25-2019 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I personally am looking to read the report itself and not the 2-day distillation if a Trump appointee who would have an incentive to minimize any sort of damaging information that could be included in the report.

Who else could have appointed the AG?

In any case, all I have heard is that Barr is an honest man. Casting innuendo at him that he is dishonest is low and mean.

Quote:Barr is certainly not falsifying his summary - the Mueller report definitely says that the Trump campaign did not conspire or collude with the Russian government as he quoted in his summary. But I want to see the analysis of all of the work the Mueller team put in and what exactly they found during their research. Same goes for the obstruction charges that the Mueller team was intentionally non-commital about. If anything, I’m most curious about why the Mueller team explicitly states their findings do not exonerate him.

Mueller was not noncommittal about collusion. He specifically says attempts wer made and rebuffed. That sounds like the TT meeting to me. If fact, I have said the salient fact was that nothing happened - no quid pro quo .

As for the obstruction Non-exoneration, I think it more important that they did not find any obstruction that they think they could have filed charges on - or they would have done so.

The Mueller investigation has helped cement the fact that the Russian government brazenly attempted to interfere with our elections, and did so in one route by reaching out repeatedly to one major campaign that never alerted the authorities and hacking the DNC

No need to reach out to the Democrats, because the Democrats were reaching out to them. #dossier #Ukraine #Fusion GPS
[/quote]

All we had heard of Comey was he was an honest man, but my guess is you haven’t had nice things to say about him, have you? Lol

My point is that Barr is not lying or misrepresenting the findings, but his short summary is just that - short. Imagine if all we knew from the OJ trial was that he wasn’t guilty of murder? Would that have told the entire story?
[/quote]

The voters might want more of the story, and that will come out in due course, but most people already have a pretty good idea of what Trump is and isn't.

Legally, OJ wasn't and isn't guilty of murder, according to that quaint and inconvenient document.

Lad has a point. Somebody (Russians?) stole the unguarded emails and gave them to Wiki to be published without change or editing.

Digging up the truth and bringing it to light (sunlight is the best disinfectant) is the purview of the American press, not some foreigner.

There is definitely a union grievance here.

(03-25-2019 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I personally am looking to read the report itself and not the 2-day distillation if a Trump appointee who would have an incentive to minimize any sort of damaging information that could be included in the report.

Who else could have appointed the AG?
In any case, all I have heard is that Barr is an honest man. Casting innuendo at him that he is dishonest is low and mean.

Quote:Barr is certainly not falsifying his summary - the Mueller report definitely says that the Trump campaign did not conspire or collude with the Russian government as he quoted in his summary. But I want to see the analysis of all of the work the Mueller team put in and what exactly they found during their research. Same goes for the obstruction charges that the Mueller team was intentionally non-commital about. If anything, I’m most curious about why the Mueller team explicitly states their findings do not exonerate him.

Mueller was not noncommittal about collusion. He specifically says attempts wer made and rebuffed. That sounds like the TT meeting to me. If fact, I have said the salient fact was that nothing happened - no quid pro quo .
As for the obstruction Non-exoneration, I think it more important that they did not find any obstruction that they think they could have filed charges on - or they would have done so.

Quote:The Mueller investigation has helped cement the fact that the Russian government brazenly attempted to interfere with our elections, and did so in one route by reaching out repeatedly to one major campaign that never alerted the authorities and hacking the DNC

No need to reach out to the Democrats, because the Democrats were reaching out to them. #dossier #Ukraine #Fusion GPS

All we had heard of Comey was he was an honest man, but my guess is you haven’t had nice things to say about him, have you? Lol
My point is that Barr is not lying or misrepresenting the findings, but his short summary is just that - short. Imagine if all we knew from the OJ trial was that he wasn’t guilty of murder? Would that have told the entire story?

Comey may still be an honest man. But there are blatantly obvious inconsistencies in his statement that 1) reads a lengthy list of actions by Hllary that are sufficient to meet all requisite elements for several federal felony crimes, one even potentially capital, and 2) recommends no prosecution. And he essentially confirmed both in further questioning before congress. I don't think it's Comey that is being questioned so much as ow in the world he got to the point of making that statement.

I see the pattern now. There is this growing movement that, no worries, we are going to find some huge and glaring discrepancy when we get our hands on the full report. I'm fairly certain that 1) you're not, Bobby Three Sticks doesn't operate that way, but 2) that won't stop the far left talking heads from trying to make one up. I think going down that road is fraught with danger. Maybe it will pay off if you come up with something. But so far, there's far less than Ken Starr found about Bill Clinton, and Slick Willie became a beloved figure afterwards, because Americans tend not to like unfair witch hunts. I think if democrats keep drilling down, and keep getting dry holes, at some point they are going to spark a huge backlash. Those same blue collar workers who got tired of being talked down to by the elites are going to have no use for a planned coup by those same elites.

(03-25-2019 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I personally am looking to read the report itself and not the 2-day distillation if a Trump appointee who would have an incentive to minimize any sort of damaging information that could be included in the report.

Who else could have appointed the AG?

In any case, all I have heard is that Barr is an honest man. Casting innuendo at him that he is dishonest is low and mean.

Quote:Barr is certainly not falsifying his summary - the Mueller report definitely says that the Trump campaign did not conspire or collude with the Russian government as he quoted in his summary. But I want to see the analysis of all of the work the Mueller team put in and what exactly they found during their research. Same goes for the obstruction charges that the Mueller team was intentionally non-commital about. If anything, I’m most curious about why the Mueller team explicitly states their findings do not exonerate him.

Mueller was not noncommittal about collusion. He specifically says attempts wer made and rebuffed. That sounds like the TT meeting to me. If fact, I have said the salient fact was that nothing happened - no quid pro quo .

As for the obstruction Non-exoneration, I think it more important that they did not find any obstruction that they think they could have filed charges on - or they would have done so.

The Mueller investigation has helped cement the fact that the Russian government brazenly attempted to interfere with our elections, and did so in one route by reaching out repeatedly to one major campaign that never alerted the authorities and hacking the DNC

No need to reach out to the Democrats, because the Democrats were reaching out to them. #dossier #Ukraine #Fusion GPS

All we had heard of Comey was he was an honest man, but my guess is you haven’t had nice things to say about him, have you? Lol

My point is that Barr is not lying or misrepresenting the findings, but his short summary is just that - short. Imagine if all we knew from the OJ trial was that he wasn’t guilty of murder? Would that have told the entire story?
[/quote]

The voters might want more of the story, and that will come out in due course, but most people already have a pretty good idea of what Trump is and isn't.

Legally, OJ wasn't and isn't guilty of murder, according to that quaint and inconvenient document.
[/quote]

I took the word of all those who were saying that Comey was an honest man. I took the word of those who said Mueller is an honest man (although some on your side are changing their minds now). I take the word of all those who say and said that Barr is an honest man.

Some subsequent events have cast doubt on Comey. His special handling of Clinton and his public exoneration of her come to mind. The apparent rot at the top of the FBI comes to mind. Maybe we need an investigation into the FBI, starting with Comey, but including McCabe, Strzok, Page, and others, to clear the air of all that smoke. Maybe the IG's report will help clear things up.

I don't remember saying much about Comey, but since you are willing to indict me on a guess, why don't you look up some of the things I said about him?

yeah, legally OJ was not guilty of murder, and Trump is not guilty of obstruction, and you and I are not guilty of tax evasion.

(03-25-2019 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I personally am looking to read the report itself and not the 2-day distillation if a Trump appointee who would have an incentive to minimize any sort of damaging information that could be included in the report.

Who else could have appointed the AG?
In any case, all I have heard is that Barr is an honest man. Casting innuendo at him that he is dishonest is low and mean.

Quote:Barr is certainly not falsifying his summary - the Mueller report definitely says that the Trump campaign did not conspire or collude with the Russian government as he quoted in his summary. But I want to see the analysis of all of the work the Mueller team put in and what exactly they found during their research. Same goes for the obstruction charges that the Mueller team was intentionally non-commital about. If anything, I’m most curious about why the Mueller team explicitly states their findings do not exonerate him.

Mueller was not noncommittal about collusion. He specifically says attempts wer made and rebuffed. That sounds like the TT meeting to me. If fact, I have said the salient fact was that nothing happened - no quid pro quo .
As for the obstruction Non-exoneration, I think it more important that they did not find any obstruction that they think they could have filed charges on - or they would have done so.

Quote:The Mueller investigation has helped cement the fact that the Russian government brazenly attempted to interfere with our elections, and did so in one route by reaching out repeatedly to one major campaign that never alerted the authorities and hacking the DNC

No need to reach out to the Democrats, because the Democrats were reaching out to them. #dossier #Ukraine #Fusion GPS

All we had heard of Comey was he was an honest man, but my guess is you haven’t had nice things to say about him, have you? Lol
My point is that Barr is not lying or misrepresenting the findings, but his short summary is just that - short. Imagine if all we knew from the OJ trial was that he wasn’t guilty of murder? Would that have told the entire story?

Comey may still be an honest man. But there are blatantly obvious inconsistencies in his statement that 1) reads a lengthy list of actions by Hllary that are sufficient to meet all requisite elements for several federal felony crimes, one even potentially capital, and 2) recommends no prosecution. And he essentially confirmed both in further questioning before congress. I don't think it's Comey that is being questioned so much as ow in the world he got to the point of making that statement.

I see the pattern now. There is this growing movement that, no worries, we are going to find some huge and glaring discrepancy when we get our hands on the full report. I'm fairly certain that 1) you're not, Bobby Three Sticks doesn't operate that way, but 2) that won't stop the far left talking heads from trying to make one up. I think going down that road is fraught with danger. Maybe it will pay off if you come up with something. But so far, there's far less than Ken Starr found about Bill Clinton, and Slick Willie became a beloved figure afterwards, because Americans tend not to like unfair witch hunts. I think if democrats keep drilling down, and keep getting dry holes, at some point they are going to spark a huge backlash. Those same blue collar workers who got tired of being talked down to by the elites are going to have no use for a planned coup by those same elites.

So you’re telling me that it’s possible that a high-level FBI official may look at evidence, see a laundry list of questionable actions (some of which could be considered illegal), and then recommend that no prosecution takes place?

If so, sounds like there’s a reason we should read the Mueller report in full, given that he went the unconventional route, per Barr, of explicitly stating that the results of his investigation did not exonerate Trump.

Do you want to understand what made Mueller go that route regarding obstruction? Or do you have that much faith in the summary of the findings of a multi-year investigation by a career bureaucrat?

Again, if all you knew about the OJ case was that he was not guilty, you wouldn’t have the entire picture - and I think we all deserve to see what picture Mueller painted.

(03-25-2019 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I personally am looking to read the report itself and not the 2-day distillation if a Trump appointee who would have an incentive to minimize any sort of damaging information that could be included in the report.

Who else could have appointed the AG?

In any case, all I have heard is that Barr is an honest man. Casting innuendo at him that he is dishonest is low and mean.

Quote:Barr is certainly not falsifying his summary - the Mueller report definitely says that the Trump campaign did not conspire or collude with the Russian government as he quoted in his summary. But I want to see the analysis of all of the work the Mueller team put in and what exactly they found during their research. Same goes for the obstruction charges that the Mueller team was intentionally non-commital about. If anything, I’m most curious about why the Mueller team explicitly states their findings do not exonerate him.

Mueller was not noncommittal about collusion. He specifically says attempts wer made and rebuffed. That sounds like the TT meeting to me. If fact, I have said the salient fact was that nothing happened - no quid pro quo .

As for the obstruction Non-exoneration, I think it more important that they did not find any obstruction that they think they could have filed charges on - or they would have done so.

The Mueller investigation has helped cement the fact that the Russian government brazenly attempted to interfere with our elections, and did so in one route by reaching out repeatedly to one major campaign that never alerted the authorities and hacking the DNC

No need to reach out to the Democrats, because the Democrats were reaching out to them. #dossier #Ukraine #Fusion GPS

All we had heard of Comey was he was an honest man, but my guess is you haven’t had nice things to say about him, have you? Lol

My point is that Barr is not lying or misrepresenting the findings, but his short summary is just that - short. Imagine if all we knew from the OJ trial was that he wasn’t guilty of murder? Would that have told the entire story?

The voters might want more of the story, and that will come out in due course, but most people already have a pretty good idea of what Trump is and isn't.

Legally, OJ wasn't and isn't guilty of murder, according to that quaint and inconvenient document.
[/quote]

I took the word of all those who were saying that Comey was an honest man. I took the word of those who said Mueller is an honest man (although some on your side are changing their minds now). I take the word of all those who say and said that Barr is an honest man.

Some subsequent events have cast doubt on Comey. His special handling of Clinton and his public exoneration of her come to mind. The apparent rot at the top of the FBI comes to mind. Maybe we need an investigation into the FBI, starting with Comey, but including McCabe, Strzok, Page, and others, to clear the air of all that smoke. Maybe the IG's report will help clear things up.

I don't remember saying much about Comey, but since you are willing to indict me on a guess, why don't you look up some of the things I said about him?

yeah, legally OJ was not guilty of murder, and Trump is not guilty of obstruction, and you and I are not guilty of tax evasion.
[/quote]

That was easy: https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-15...id15289492

(03-25-2019 10:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Who else could have appointed the AG?

In any case, all I have heard is that Barr is an honest man. Casting innuendo at him that he is dishonest is low and mean.



Mueller was not noncommittal about collusion. He specifically says attempts wer made and rebuffed. That sounds like the TT meeting to me. If fact, I have said the salient fact was that nothing happened - no quid pro quo .

As for the obstruction Non-exoneration, I think it more important that they did not find any obstruction that they think they could have filed charges on - or they would have done so.

The Mueller investigation has helped cement the fact that the Russian government brazenly attempted to interfere with our elections, and did so in one route by reaching out repeatedly to one major campaign that never alerted the authorities and hacking the DNC

No need to reach out to the Democrats, because the Democrats were reaching out to them. #dossier #Ukraine #Fusion GPS

All we had heard of Comey was he was an honest man, but my guess is you haven’t had nice things to say about him, have you? Lol

My point is that Barr is not lying or misrepresenting the findings, but his short summary is just that - short. Imagine if all we knew from the OJ trial was that he wasn’t guilty of murder? Would that have told the entire story?

The voters might want more of the story, and that will come out in due course, but most people already have a pretty good idea of what Trump is and isn't.

Legally, OJ wasn't and isn't guilty of murder, according to that quaint and inconvenient document.

I took the word of all those who were saying that Comey was an honest man. I took the word of those who said Mueller is an honest man (although some on your side are changing their minds now). I take the word of all those who say and said that Barr is an honest man.

Some subsequent events have cast doubt on Comey. His special handling of Clinton and his public exoneration of her come to mind. The apparent rot at the top of the FBI comes to mind. Maybe we need an investigation into the FBI, starting with Comey, but including McCabe, Strzok, Page, and others, to clear the air of all that smoke. Maybe the IG's report will help clear things up.

I don't remember saying much about Comey, but since you are willing to indict me on a guess, why don't you look up some of the things I said about him?

yeah, legally OJ was not guilty of murder, and Trump is not guilty of obstruction, and you and I are not guilty of tax evasion.
[/quote]

That was easy: https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-15...id15289492
[/quote]

Ten months ago, and in a list. No wonder I didn't remember. I am old, you know. Someday you need to explain to me how to use that search feature. I think it would help immeasurably with these discussions.

But what I said still holds. I took the word of those who said Comey was a good and honest man. Subsequent events and actions by him have made him questionable. Are you saying he is unquestionably an honest man?

(03-25-2019 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ten months ago, and in a list. No wonder I didn't remember. I am old, you know.

Lucky for you you werent speaking with a FBI agent there.

(03-25-2019 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The Mueller investigation has helped cement the fact that the Russian government brazenly attempted to interfere with our elections, and did so in one route by reaching out repeatedly to one major campaign that never alerted the authorities and hacking the DNC

No need to reach out to the Democrats, because the Democrats were reaching out to them. #dossier #Ukraine #Fusion GPS

All we had heard of Comey was he was an honest man, but my guess is you haven’t had nice things to say about him, have you? Lol

My point is that Barr is not lying or misrepresenting the findings, but his short summary is just that - short. Imagine if all we knew from the OJ trial was that he wasn’t guilty of murder? Would that have told the entire story?

The voters might want more of the story, and that will come out in due course, but most people already have a pretty good idea of what Trump is and isn't.

Legally, OJ wasn't and isn't guilty of murder, according to that quaint and inconvenient document.

I took the word of all those who were saying that Comey was an honest man. I took the word of those who said Mueller is an honest man (although some on your side are changing their minds now). I take the word of all those who say and said that Barr is an honest man.

Some subsequent events have cast doubt on Comey. His special handling of Clinton and his public exoneration of her come to mind. The apparent rot at the top of the FBI comes to mind. Maybe we need an investigation into the FBI, starting with Comey, but including McCabe, Strzok, Page, and others, to clear the air of all that smoke. Maybe the IG's report will help clear things up.

I don't remember saying much about Comey, but since you are willing to indict me on a guess, why don't you look up some of the things I said about him?

yeah, legally OJ was not guilty of murder, and Trump is not guilty of obstruction, and you and I are not guilty of tax evasion.

That was easy: https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-15...id15289492
[/quote]

Ten months ago, and in a list. No wonder I didn't remember. I am old, you know. Someday you need to explain to me how to use that search feature. I think it would help immeasurably with these discussions.

But what I said still holds. I took the word of those who said Comey was a good and honest man. Subsequent events and actions by him have made him questionable. Are you saying he is unquestionably an honest man?
[/quote]

No - what I'm saying is that you shouldn't get offended when someone suggests Barr might have some political motivation to not dig into the details of the Mueller report and gloss over any potentially unsavory details. You got really bent out of shape about that earlier when you shouldn't have.

(03-25-2019 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 09:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  No need to reach out to the Democrats, because the Democrats were reaching out to them. #dossier #Ukraine #Fusion GPS

All we had heard of Comey was he was an honest man, but my guess is you haven’t had nice things to say about him, have you? Lol

My point is that Barr is not lying or misrepresenting the findings, but his short summary is just that - short. Imagine if all we knew from the OJ trial was that he wasn’t guilty of murder? Would that have told the entire story?

The voters might want more of the story, and that will come out in due course, but most people already have a pretty good idea of what Trump is and isn't.

Legally, OJ wasn't and isn't guilty of murder, according to that quaint and inconvenient document.

I took the word of all those who were saying that Comey was an honest man. I took the word of those who said Mueller is an honest man (although some on your side are changing their minds now). I take the word of all those who say and said that Barr is an honest man.

Some subsequent events have cast doubt on Comey. His special handling of Clinton and his public exoneration of her come to mind. The apparent rot at the top of the FBI comes to mind. Maybe we need an investigation into the FBI, starting with Comey, but including McCabe, Strzok, Page, and others, to clear the air of all that smoke. Maybe the IG's report will help clear things up.

I don't remember saying much about Comey, but since you are willing to indict me on a guess, why don't you look up some of the things I said about him?

yeah, legally OJ was not guilty of murder, and Trump is not guilty of obstruction, and you and I are not guilty of tax evasion.

That was easy: https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-15...id15289492

Ten months ago, and in a list. No wonder I didn't remember. I am old, you know. Someday you need to explain to me how to use that search feature. I think it would help immeasurably with these discussions.

But what I said still holds. I took the word of those who said Comey was a good and honest man. Subsequent events and actions by him have made him questionable. Are you saying he is unquestionably an honest man?
[/quote]

No - what I'm saying is that you shouldn't get offended when someone suggests Barr might have some political motivation to not dig into the details of the Mueller report and gloss over any potentially unsavory details. You got really bent out of shape about that earlier when you shouldn't have.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say I got bent out of shape, but it is so expected that defenders of the faith will cast doubt on Barr because of who appointed him. Of course, I expect that when/if a President Harris appointee or a President Sanders appointee looks at the report, they will find reason to indict for obstruction, unless it is politically inadvisable. I would say at that point, no reason to keep fighting the battle since the war is over, but the hatred runs deep, and the urge to Get Trump! may override good judgement.

Truth is, I expected more from you Lad than innuendo that Barr's summary was biased for Trump.

"...not the 2-day distillation if a Trump appointee who would have an incentive to minimize any sort of damaging information..."

(03-25-2019 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad has a point. Somebody (Russians?) stole the unguarded emails and gave them to Wiki to be published without change or editing.

Digging up the truth and bringing it to light (sunlight is the best disinfectant) is the purview of the American press, not some foreigner.

There is definitely a union grievance here.

The issues with the emails has always been how they were obtained. The Barr summary clearly indicates that the somebody was the "Russian government actors" - are you disagreeing with that?

If you leave your house unlocked and someone walks in and robs you blind, you can certainly comment on the wisdom of the person who left the house unlocked, but you can't suggest that the person who stole things was innocent or shouldn't be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Bringing up that the emails were "unguarded" is not germane. Also, they weren't unguarded - Podesta fell for a phishing email that was intentionally sent to him.

And I do think that a lot of the information gleaned from those emails were good - it showed just how influential the super delegates in the DNC were and that the DNC was generally a pro-Hillary campaign. But it also led to a lot of crazies doing crazy things because they wanted to believe that something bigger was in those emails. Remember the guy who fired some shots at a pizza joint because people thought it was a Pedo ring???

(03-25-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Truth is, I expected more from you Lad than innuendo that Barr's summary was biased for Trump.

Aw geeze, sorry to not live up to your expectations. Sorry to disappoint you, dad.

The truth is, we should all take a 4-page summary of a multi-year investigation with a grain of salt. Not because Barr might be disingenuous or lying - he is most certainly not. But because it is too short to glean anything from it outside of the final outcomes.

And the fact that Barr did not provide any supporting information as to why he found there to be no evidence of obstruction, when Mueller explicitly punted that question, should raise questions about how Barr came to that conclusion so quickly.

Question - if Obama had been investigated for conspiring with Iran, and Eric Holder provided the same short summary, would you be so happy to accept it without seeing the foundation it was built on? Would you not be suspicious that there were some politics at play in how Holder presented the findings?

If somebody walks in and robs you blind, that is one thing. Saying they walked in at the request of a third party for his benefit is another. The issue is not that they were stolen - the issue was and is, were they stolen as part of an agreement between Trump and Russia, and Mueller says no.

Every leak is stolen property.

(03-25-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If somebody walks in and robs you blind, that is one thing. Saying they walked in at the request of a third party for his benefit is another. The issue is not that they were stolen - the issue was and is, were they stolen as part of an agreement between Trump and Russia, and Mueller says no.

Every leak is stolen property.

Ok, let me revise the hypothetical. You leave your house unlocked and you're robbed. The next day, you hear your neighbor talking to the mailman about how he knows who the robbers were and how he wants them to rob his other neighbor. Then, a few days later you find out that he was talking to a colleague of the robbers about what items were stolen and whether or not he wanted to take any of them.

The issue was both that emails were stolen and then whether or not Trump (who publicly requested that more emails be stolen by Russia) was involved, or if anyone in his team (say the people who were made aware of the stolen emails and who were giddy with delight about them) were involved.

As you said, Mueller's final conclusion is that they were not involved. I'm interested in reading the report and understanding his thinking behind that final conclusion.

(03-25-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Truth is, I expected more from you Lad than innuendo that Barr's summary was biased for Trump.

Aw geeze, sorry to not live up to your expectations. Sorry to disappoint you, dad.

The truth is, we should all take a 4-page summary of a multi-year investigation with a grain of salt. Not because Barr might be disingenuous or lying - he is most certainly not. But because it is too short to glean anything from it outside of the final outcomes.

And the fact that Barr did not provide any supporting information as to why he found there to be no evidence of obstruction, when Mueller explicitly punted that question, should raise questions about how Barr came to that conclusion so quickly.

Question - if Obama had been investigated for conspiring with Iran, and Eric Holder provided the same short summary, would you be so happy to accept it without seeing the foundation it was built on? Would you not be suspicious that there were some politics at play in how Holder presented the findings?

First, as to the bolded, some of us hold the particular office (a very unusual office) in a tad more respect.

In that case, Eric Holder would be holding not just Eric Holder, but the legitimacy of the entire Justice Department up for grabs with such a 'summary'. So yes, when details will become available (and they will, trust me) I would probably bet my last dollar that the 'short summary' would in effect be accurate, in both cases.

But you choose to inject your personal myopia into that, which is your right to do.

As to the italicized, I suggest you go cipher on the elements of obstruction, then re-cipher them with the portion that "exonerates" Trump of any connection with collusion, or even cooperation. Instead of waving your Rachel Maddow talking points. As a matter, it was pretty fing easy to not to do so given fact presented.

As it 'being too short to glean anything', well, I guess that is true for some.

As for your comment on OO as 'dad', I suggest you tone that down some, son.

(03-25-2019 10:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If somebody walks in and robs you blind, that is one thing. Saying they walked in at the request of a third party for his benefit is another. The issue is not that they were stolen - the issue was and is, were they stolen as part of an agreement between Trump and Russia, and Mueller says no.

Every leak is stolen property.

Ok, let me revise the hypothetical. You leave your house unlocked and you're robbed. The next day, you hear your neighbor talking to the mailman about how he knows who the robbers were and how he wants them to rob his other neighbor. Then, a few days later you find out that he was talking to a colleague of the robbers about what items were stolen and whether or not he wanted to take any of them.

The issue was both that emails were stolen and then whether or not Trump (who publicly requested that more emails be stolen by Russia) was involved, or if anyone in his team (say the people who were made aware of the stolen emails and who were giddy with delight about them) were involved.

As you said, Mueller's final conclusion is that they were not involved. I'm interested in reading the report and understanding his thinking behind that final conclusion.

Still hyperbole challenged I see. I suggest you actually post that tape segment. it doesnt have 2 pennies of the gravitas you imply.

(03-25-2019 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Truth is, I expected more from you Lad than innuendo that Barr's summary was biased for Trump.

Aw geeze, sorry to not live up to your expectations. Sorry to disappoint you, dad.

The truth is, we should all take a 4-page summary of a multi-year investigation with a grain of salt. Not because Barr might be disingenuous or lying - he is most certainly not. But because it is too short to glean anything from it outside of the final outcomes.

And the fact that Barr did not provide any supporting information as to why he found there to be no evidence of obstruction, when Mueller explicitly punted that question, should raise questions about how Barr came to that conclusion so quickly.

Question - if Obama had been investigated for conspiring with Iran, and Eric Holder provided the same short summary, would you be so happy to accept it without seeing the foundation it was built on? Would you not be suspicious that there were some politics at play in how Holder presented the findings?

First, as to the bolded, some of us hold the particular office (a very unusual office) in a tad more respect.

In that case, Eric Holder would be holding not just Eric Holder, but the legitimacy of the entire Justice Department up for grabs with such a 'summary'. So yes, when details will become available (and they will, trust me) I would probably bet my last dollar that the 'short summary' would in effect be accurate, in both cases.

But you choose to inject your personal myopia into that, which is your right to do.

As to the italicized, I suggest you go cipher on the elements of obstruction, then re-cipher them with the portion that "exonerates" Trump of any connection with collusion, or even cooperation. Instead of waving your Rachel Maddow talking points. As a matter, it was pretty fing easy to not to do so given fact presented.

As it 'being too short to glean anything', well, I guess that is true for some.

As for your comment on OO as 'dad', I suggest you tone that down some, son.

I too agree that Barr's summary will be accurate. I don't doubt that - he certainly is not going to lie in this case.

But I would not be surprised if he left out important details for a reason. We all want to make our boss look good, and you don't go getting into the nitty gritty when you can simply say, look guys, he's not charged! Do you have an idea as to why Mueller felt he needed to call out the fact that Trumps was not exonerated on obstruction of justice charges? This is something Barr seems to think is unusual, given that he writes for almost two paragraphs about it.

And Tanq, I'm disappointed that you feel the need to step in between a conversation between OO and I. I expected more of you...

(03-25-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If somebody walks in and robs you blind, that is one thing. Saying they walked in at the request of a third party for his benefit is another. The issue is not that they were stolen - the issue was and is, were they stolen as part of an agreement between Trump and Russia, and Mueller says no.

Every leak is stolen property.

Ok, let me revise the hypothetical. You leave your house unlocked and you're robbed. The next day, you hear your neighbor talking to the mailman about how he knows who the robbers were and how he wants them to rob his other neighbor. Then, a few days later you find out that he was talking to a colleague of the robbers about what items were stolen and whether or not he wanted to take any of them.

The issue was both that emails were stolen and then whether or not Trump (who publicly requested that more emails be stolen by Russia) was involved, or if anyone in his team (say the people who were made aware of the stolen emails and who were giddy with delight about them) were involved.

As you said, Mueller's final conclusion is that they were not involved. I'm interested in reading the report and understanding his thinking behind that final conclusion.

Still hyperbole challenged I see. I suggest you actually post that tape segment. it doesnt have 2 pennies of the gravitas you imply.

Hyperbole?

Quote: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnY7D4M4k68

I found your comment of 'dad' to be rather churlish lad. And, tbh, someone that 'expects more from me' is most likely in the long run disappointed......