(04-20-2019 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 12:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 07:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the Mueller Report, there are numerous instances that show there were issues with how Trump acted with respect to obstruction of justice and how the campaign acted with respect to Russian interference. It clearly shows there was sufficient evidence in both cases to warrant an investigation, but the evidence found fell short of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that crimes were committed in both cases.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a wide gap between finding no evidence and finding insufficient evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tanq did a really thorough job of explaining collusion/conspiracy. I'll take a shot at obstruction.

It's a very specific gap, however wide or not wide it may be. Mueller made it clear in his report (volume 2, starting at page 9) that to establish obstruction, you must prove three things:
1) An obstructive act
2) Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding
3) Corrupt or criminal intent.

What has been alleged is a whole bunch of stuff that may or may not satisfy element 1), and very possibly element 2). But element 3) is the problem, and without that you don't get obstruction.

With the finding of no collusion/conspiracy with "the Russians," I think element 3) goes out the window. If there is no underlying crime, then Trump presumably knew there was no underlying crime, and thus could have acted because of frustration with what he reasonably considered to be a witch hunt that was interfering with his ability to govern. There's nothing corrupt or criminal about wanting an unjustified investigation to end.

This is easily distinguished from both Nixon with Watergate and Hillary with her server. With Watergate, there was an underlying crime, which Nixon clearly knew about, and therefore corrupt or criminal intent is easily shown. With Hillary, the crimes associated with mishandling classified information do not require criminal intent as an element, plus the conduct of Hillary and/or her team included destruction of evidence (wiping computers, "losing" emails, smashing cell phones) which would be primary indicia of intent.

The law is very specific in this and many other areas. If the elements of a crime are a, b, and c, then you must have exactly a AND b AND c to have a crime. No matter how much evidence you have of a and b (and in this case I don't think even that evidence is all that impressive), without c you have nothing.

But the Mueller Report clearly states that Trump was afraid of the investigation uncovering potential crimes unrelated to the Russian interference, which gave him reason to want to obstruct the investigation so that those potential issues weren’t uncovered. So would it matter if the issues he didn’t want Mueller to investigate were unrelated to the topic that started the investigation, and was within the scope of the investigation?

Then the report should state those underlying 'potential crimes' to complete the circle. Without that one can play the 'just suppose x' all fing day --- and the specific portions that reference this topic do just this --- they say essentially 'let us suppose' when you actually read the thoroughly.

And if Mueller had evidence of those 'potential crimes' Mueller: a) had a mandate to pursue them; b) had an obligation to pursue them; and c) if there were actual evidence of such 'underlying crimes', had a both a mandate and an obligation to pursue them criminally.

Just waving your hands and saying 'well *maybe* there are (unspecified) *other* crimes' doesnt even come close enough to the smell test to even laugh at. But considering that the 'let us just suppose with a lot of wing flapping' has been part and parcel of the standard that the entire investigation has taken in the eyes of the liberals, the democrats, and the media to this point, I am not surprised that this is still the last bastion of the Verdun perimeter here for that.

(Heh, I seem to have delineated the media as somehow distinct and separate from 'liberals' and Democrats..... wow my head cold and ear infection has seemingly made me daffy.... pardon that terrible logical oversight....)

A few things - we know from the report there were 14 criminal referrals made by the Special Counsel’s Office. So we know that Mueller did find a number of activities they felt were prosecutable.

Great. What? Against whom? (do you see the problem there, lad?) Again, Mueller had both the mandate and the obligation to pursue charges such as seemingly imply are there. Do you understand the term 'obligation' in this sense?

Quote:This WashPo article outlines numerous cases where obstruction of justice charges were brought against individuals who did not commit a crime themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2...0776952327

Did you read the incidents themselves, or just the Post's short phrasing of them?

Here they are in order:

Quote:For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit recently ruled that a defendant could be convicted of obstruction “even if [his] primary motivation was to extricate the sister of his childhood friend from a troubled situation.”

But the predicate crime was the convicted lying to to the Federal investigators, you know, the one that Papadapoulous and Flynn got hit on. A charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is almost always accompanied by the 1005 charge. Point me to where Trump lied to the Feds, and this one might be applicable.

Not only that but the Defendant was a police officer leaking details on an upcoming raid. That is also a chargeable offense of providing advance notice of a search, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232©, which was also brought.

Quote:A court in Utah held in 2013 that a defendant could be liable for obstruction where his only apparent motive was to protect a friend from a criminal charge.

Utah law. Interesting the Post doesnt know the difference between a Federal statute and a state statute, let alone a state ruling on a state law and a Federal court opining on a Federal law. Kind of a piss poor example. Honestly if this were used as an argument in a legal brief it would be sanctioned.

Quote:Kwame Kilpatrick

Good ol' Kwame is always good for a laugh.

The opinion interestingly leaves out the 6 other charges for perjury, and misconduct in office that were waived based on his plea on the obstruction of justice. And also leaves out that the charges were state based.

Quote:Navy captain

Captain John Nettleton, 53, of Jacksonville, Florida, was charged with two counts of obstruction of justice related to his actions during the Navy’s investigation of the death of Christopher M. Tur, the Loss Prevention Safety Manager at GTMO’s Naval Exchange. Nettleton was also charged with one count of concealing information, two counts of falsifying records, and five counts of making false statements.

Wow. Seems that this obstruction wasnt in isolation either.

Funny that.

Fing ace reporting and opinion from the fing Post, wouldnt you say?

(04-20-2019 01:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A few things - we know from the report there were 14 criminal referrals made by the Special Counsel’s Office. So we know that Mueller did find a number of activities they felt were prosecutable.
But it would seem weird to me for there to need to be definitive proof of a crime for obstruction of justice to be an issue, because if that definitive proof was known, then the investigation would be over. Let’s take a hypothetical - person A is accused of murdering person B. Person A is also the chief of police, but did not commit the crime, yet there is evidence that they did commit the murder. Why wouldn’t it be obstruction of justice if they attempted to stop the investigation? It’s not as if investigations only start if people are already known to be guilty...
This WashPo article outlines numerous cases where obstruction of justice charges were brought against individuals who did not commit a crime themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2...0776952327

Article is behind firewall and I'm not going to pay WaPo, so I can't read it. Perhaps you could provide a brief synopsis of at least some of the "numerous cases."

Use outline.com to un-firewall.

I just did some 'beyond the Post' review of the examples provided. See above.

Edited to add: lad, there is a reason we scoff at your grandstanding of the NY Times and the Washington Post as the sine qua non of the apex of journalism. If just a modicum of first layer search done in twenty minutes can point out the pretty major flaws in the opinion that was proffered, what does that tell you about either the quality or bias embedded in that organization?

There is a reason I find many things emanating from those two organizations to be utter ****. That opinion that you cited as such 'proof positive of the thesis' is the 'sine qua non' of my own opinion therein.

(04-20-2019 12:44 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  One other question for the lawyers here. Let's look at this quote:
----
The President then asked , "What-about these notes? Why do you take
notes? Lawyers don ' t take note s. I never had a lawyer who took notes ." 824 McGahn responded
that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer " and explained that notes create a record and are
not a bad thing. 825 The President said , " I've had a lot of great lawyers , like Roy Cohn . He did not
take notes. " 826
----
Assuming you are "real lawyers," do you take notes? Trump says great lawyers don't do that. So if you want to be great, stop with the damn note taking already!
Do you consider Roy Cohn a "great lawyer"?

Depends on the lawyer and the situation. I did tax and transaction law. Damn straight I was going to take notes, because it's all in the details in those areas.

I love it when non-lawyers try to explain the law to lawyers.

(04-20-2019 12:44 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  One other question for the lawyers here. Let's look at this quote:

----
The President then asked , "What-about these notes? Why do you take
notes? Lawyers don ' t take note s. I never had a lawyer who took notes ." 824 McGahn responded
that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer " and explained that notes create a record and are
not a bad thing. 825 The President said , " I've had a lot of great lawyers , like Roy Cohn . He did not
take notes. " 826
----

Assuming you are "real lawyers," do you take notes? Trump says great lawyers don't do that. So if you want to be great, stop with the damn note taking already!

Do you consider Roy Cohn a "great lawyer"?

Many times I do, sometimes I do not. I guess you are maddy poo about the evil orange man having an opinion on note taking.

I have worked with, for, or employed some fantastic attorneys who did not take notes. And some fing terrible ones who did. And some great ones who did as well.

Roy Cohn? He actually was a pretty good attorney, and could be extraordinarily effective for his clients. Never had the opportunity first hand, but a number of mentors of mine worked with him on some causes, and against him on others.

You seem to have an some issue with the man and/or attorney, my guess based on political grounds. What is your opinion of Roy Cohn, and also, what is your 'line in the sand' on note-taking?

https://outline.com/kbHFRf

Linky poo to Post article cited as proof by lad.

(04-18-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see what comes out of the report, now that it is mostly released.
One quote I've seen already:

Quote:
If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

That quote provides a lot more context to the statement Barr used in his summary. Very reminiscent of the Comey comments regarding Hillary.

I don't think you understand the Comey comments regarding Hillary. Either that or you don't understand the quoted comment.

(04-19-2019 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Apparently Senator Warren went on the warpath against Trump today.

\

(04-20-2019 12:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I don’t know what will be found. I don’t think anyone is thinking just his 1040 will reveal some deep dark secret. What we do know is that from Nixon on all nominees have disclosed their taxes, except Trump. (Ford, I believe, only released a summary.) Trump knew this when he decided to run for President. He could have said he refused on some principle. He didn’t, he said he couldn’t because he was being audited. A lie. (That he can’t release because of an audit.) Then he promised to release them after the election. Another lie. Now he is willing to go to court to avoid releasing them.

None of this is the behavior of someone who thinks his taxes will reveal nothing. Otherwise he would have revealed them before the election like everyone else. I’m assuming Trump knows something I don’t.

I know what will NOT be found. Any evidence of collusion. Any evidence of tax evasion. And any clue to his "true" net worth. What else are y'all looking for?

Until Nixon did it, the tradition was NOT to release tax returns. At another time, the tradition was for candidates to crisscross the country by train, making speeches at every whistle stop. Traditions change. Used to be a tradition that people at football games would stand for the National Anthem.

He does not have to fear what they might reveal. he has to fear the partisan nit-picking and innuendo from people who know nothing of taxes but think they can discern wrong-doing that the experts have missed. The left has proved that they CAN find bogeymen in shadows. Why would any businessman want people like that looking for bogeymen in his tax returns. The professional polititions have years, even decades, to organize their tax returns to show only innocence. I guess you think they don't take any bribes, since those don't show up on the 1040?

Quote:Trump lies constantly. To pretend he’s just like other politicians is absurd. This idea that somehow he’s so dishonest that it makes him more honest is even more absurd. Just as a comparison, Politifact has Obama at 70 Mostly False, 71 False and 9 Pants on Fire statements after 8 years, while in 2 years Trump is at 139, 227, and 99 respectively. At that rate Trump is on track to be an order of magnitude higher on those and is *already* there with the Pants on Fire ratings. Some of the other trackers have him saying over 20 false or misleading things per day. There is no way, shape or form that is acceptable. And I don't understand why so many people who should no better are rationalizing it.

Some of his lies more important than others: he flat out lied to the NATO Secretary General about where his father was born. Why? I have no idea. That lie itself is not that important, but it does reinforce the Europeans’ belief that he is a dishonest nut job. Maybe some are a joke like you can’t watch TV if the wind stops blowing and you use wind power. Or laughably stupid, like “windmill noise causes cancer”. But plenty are substantive and important, like about Puerto Rico aid, the child separation policy, millions of illegal votes for Hilary, and on and on. These sorts of lies are not defensible and are further poisoning our civic and political culture.

And that just gets in to his dishonesty, not even touching on the misogyny, racism, mocking the disabled, etc.

So he lies constantly? That's what I hear on CNN a lot, but even Politifact says that is not true. And if it is not true, then your statement is itself a lie.

Every statement by every public figure has to be evaluated individually, not just smeared with a one-size-fits-all statement like he "lies constantly."

Quote:The first “wow” was more along the lines of “Wow, that takes some cojones!” and the second was an expression of bemusement.

Wow.

(04-20-2019 12:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  My read is that Mueller was handing off obstruction to Congress.

I think at this point they have a constitutional duty to investigate Trump's possible obstruction and abuse of power.

Yeah, that's what CNN says too.

(04-20-2019 12:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 08:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point still stands if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "smart enough."

But if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "not smart enough," then you are substituting your interpretation of what she said for her words. You are restating what she said to what you heard, and the two are not necessarily the same. Not smart can mean stupid or it can mean ignorant.

Anybody who thinks that Trump's tax returns will show 1) collusion with "the Russians", or 2) some kind of tax fraud that has gone undetected by the IRS, or 3) some indication of his net worth, is quite frankly not smart enough to understand and analyze those returns. Anyone who knows enough about tax returns to make any sense of them at all will know that tax returns will not reveal any such things.

Now, I would suspect that the truth of what is going on here is not that they aren't smart enough, but that they know better but are deliberately and intentionally misleading. They know there is nothing there, but they just want to harass and obfuscate. They're not intelligence challenged, they're honesty challenged.

Really? You are criticizing people as "honesty challenged" while defending Trump? Wow.

Really number 2: Really, you guys are still arguing about the "smart enough" quote? Wow.

Question #1: What do you think of his second paragraph? Do you disagree with anything there? What do YOU think the value is in asking for his returns?

I don’t know what will be found. I don’t think anyone is thinking just his 1040 will reveal some deep dark secret. What we do know is that from Nixon on all nominees have disclosed their taxes, except Trump. (Ford, I believe, only released a summary.) Trump knew this when he decided to run for President. He could have said he refused on some principle. He didn’t, he said he couldn’t because he was being audited. A lie. (That he can’t release because of an audit.) Then he promised to release them after the election. Another lie. Now he is willing to go to court to avoid releasing them.

None of this is the behavior of someone who thinks his taxes will reveal nothing. Otherwise he would have revealed them before the election like everyone else. I’m assuming Trump knows something I don’t.

Quote:Question #2. Other than the propaganda from the anti-Trump networks, what makes you think Trump is that much different than any other politician? They all lie, just some more publicly than others. Is there any reason to prefer the the ones who lie privately, out of the spotlight on important things?

Trump lies constantly. To pretend he’s just like other politicians is absurd. This idea that somehow he’s so dishonest that it makes him more honest is even more absurd. Just as a comparison, Politifact has Obama at 70 Mostly False, 71 False and 9 Pants on Fire statements after 8 years, while in 2 years Trump is at 139, 227, and 99 respectively. At that rate Trump is on track to be an order of magnitude higher on those and is *already* there with the Pants on Fire ratings. Some of the other trackers have him saying over 20 false or misleading things per day. There is no way, shape or form that is acceptable. And I don't understand why so many people who should no better are rationalizing it.

Some of his lies more important than others: he flat out lied to the NATO Secretary General about where his father was born. Why? I have no idea. That lie itself is not that important, but it does reinforce the Europeans’ belief that he is a dishonest nut job. Maybe some are a joke like you can’t watch TV if the wind stops blowing and you use wind power. Or laughably stupid, like “windmill noise causes cancer”. But plenty are substantive and important, like about Puerto Rico aid, the child separation policy, millions of illegal votes for Hilary, and on and on. These sorts of lies are not defensible and are further poisoning our civic and political culture.

And that just gets in to his dishonesty, not even touching on the misogyny, racism, mocking the disabled, etc.

Quote:Question #3. Isn't "wow" a bit condescending? Sounds to me like you are saying "How stupid can you be"?

The first “wow” was more along the lines of “Wow, that takes some cojones!” and the second was an expression of bemusement.

So you are maddy poo about substantive lies. Got it.

Where did your vaunted ethics land you when the 'Romney will kill the old people' and 'Romney is racist' tropes kicked in?

Bet you were right on the fing front line fighting the good fight against those, huh? Yeah..... that's a bet I probably won't take, no matter what odds might be given.

Wouldnt take that bet with you and the subject were swapped out with McCain, or even Shrub for that matter.

Do I like Trump's problems with the truth? God no. But to act petulant that he is the sole source of the problem and issue is really sticking your head in the fing sand.

To act crusading against it with your record of doing the 'Democratic way' and framing as much as possible every single issue in a racist/sexist shroud that you do from time to time is really enough to make one laugh, tbh.

By the way, looking forward to your answers to your Cohn questions. Or is that just another rhetorical drive by snark ala At Ease?

When did Obama say Romney was racist or going to kill old people?

Big difference in being critical of a POTUS and pundit. One’s words carry weight, and the others’ don’t.

(04-20-2019 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did Obama say Romney was racist or going to kill old people?

Are you saying that nobody on the left was saying that? Or that as long as it wasn't actually Obama, it didn't count?

(04-20-2019 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did Obama say Romney was racist or going to kill old people?

Big difference in being critical of a POTUS and pundit. One’s words carry weight, and the others’ don’t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U

Well, SOMEBODY said it.

(04-20-2019 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did Obama say Romney was racist or going to kill old people?

Are you saying that nobody on the left was saying that? Or that as long as it wasn't actually Obama, it didn't count?

The latter, I think.

(04-20-2019 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did Obama say Romney was racist or going to kill old people?

Are you saying that nobody on the left was saying that? Or that as long as it wasn't actually Obama, it didn't count?

I’m saying that Obama didn’t say those things, so Tanq’s attempt to compare a criticism of Trump lying to not criticizing talking heads during the Obama admin, is a poor comparison. I’m saying it matters more what POTUS’s say than what others say.

The weight of the words the POTUS are significant, and certainly more so than than pundits and talking heads. Would you agree or disagree?

(04-20-2019 05:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did Obama say Romney was racist or going to kill old people?

Are you saying that nobody on the left was saying that? Or that as long as it wasn't actually Obama, it didn't count?

I’m saying that Obama didn’t say those things, so Tanq’s attempt to compare a criticism of Trump lying to not criticizing talking heads during the Obama admin, is a poor comparison. I’m saying it matters more what POTUS’s say than what others say.

The weight of the words the POTUS are significant, and certainly more so than than pundits and talking heads. Would you agree or disagree?

lad, I did not say that. I am saying that I found JAAO's whining about Trump being a liar pretty fing hypocritical.

Someone that launches a tearfest on Trump being a liar (he undoubtedly is, mind you) and refuses to even cast a backward glance at the policies, rules to operate by, and the continuous and absolute wall of cries of BIIIGGGOOOTTTSS that has fing defined the Democratic Party since Reagan -- and refuses to even acknowledge that that absolute and continued wall of cries in that unabated fashion has *anything* to do with the landscape of Trump and his lying ways, is pretty much off the fing dock.

Yep it sucks that Trump is a liar. Look at the policies that *your* side has institutionalized for the last thirty fing years that just *may* have had a part to play in it. Or not. Your choice.

*Your* side defined that some pretty fing upstanding people (Romney, Ryan, McCain) were tarred and feathered with the fing 'kneejerk' statements (lies) of being racist, homophobic, ageist, killing old people, amd whatever other fing class, racial, or socio-economic division the Democrats could pry open with that rhetoric.

Yep, y'all won 2008 by slandering McCain and Palin with that. Continued into 2012 by tarring and feathering pretty much the *most* upright human that has run for the office since Carter or Reagan with that crap. Wash rinse repeat for Baby Bush, and to a smaller extent Papa Bush. Raise the level on it with Reagan.

Now people like JAAO cry like monkeys that big bad evil Trump lies. Good god, what the **** do you all expect after close to 40 fing years of simply using the tar and feather approach? And good fing god, when you use it on Romney and Ryan, dont act all fing innocent when an actual nasty baddy fing emerges that doesnt give a rat's ass what you all call him, nor gives a rat's ass what he calls others.

(04-20-2019 05:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 05:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did Obama say Romney was racist or going to kill old people?

Are you saying that nobody on the left was saying that? Or that as long as it wasn't actually Obama, it didn't count?

I’m saying that Obama didn’t say those things, so Tanq’s attempt to compare a criticism of Trump lying to not criticizing talking heads during the Obama admin, is a poor comparison. I’m saying it matters more what POTUS’s say than what others say.

The weight of the words the POTUS are significant, and certainly more so than than pundits and talking heads. Would you agree or disagree?

lad, I did not say that. I am saying that I found JAAO's whining about Trump being a liar pretty fing hypocritical.

Someone that launches a tearfest on Trump being a liar (he undoubtedly is, mind you) and refuses to even cast a backward glance at the policies, rules to operate by, and the continuous and absolute wall of cries of BIIIGGGOOOTTTSS that has fing defined the Democratic Party since Reagan -- and refuses to even acknowledge that that absolute and continued wall of cries in that unabated fashion has *anything* to do with the landscape of Trump and his lying ways, is pretty much off the fing dock.

Yep it sucks that Trump is a liar. Look at the policies that *your* side has institutionalized for the last thirty fing years that just *may* have had a part to play in it. Or not. Your choice.

*Your* side defined that some pretty fing upstanding people (Romney, Ryan, McCain) were tarred and feathered with the fing 'kneejerk' statements (lies) of being racist, homophobic, ageist, killing old people, amd whatever other fing class, racial, or socio-economic division the Democrats could pry open with that rhetoric.

Yep, y'all won 2008 by slandering McCain and Palin with that. Continued into 2012 by tarring and feathering pretty much the *most* upright human that has run for the office since Carter or Reagan with that crap. Wash rinse repeat for Baby Bush, and to a smaller extent Papa Bush. Raise the level on it with Reagan.

Now people like JAAO cry like monkeys that big bad evil Trump lies. Good god, what the **** do you all expect after close to 40 fing years of simply using the tar and feather approach? And good fing god, when you use it on Romney and Ryan, dont act all fing innocent when an actual nasty baddy fing emerges that doesnt give a rat's ass what you all call him, nor gives a rat's ass what he calls others.

You’re saying you’re not trying to compare a criticism of Trump to a lack of criticism of non-POTUS’s?

(04-20-2019 05:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did Obama say Romney was racist or going to kill old people?

Are you saying that nobody on the left was saying that? Or that as long as it wasn't actually Obama, it didn't count?

I’m saying that Obama didn’t say those things, so Tanq’s attempt to compare a criticism of Trump lying to not criticizing talking heads during the Obama admin, is a poor comparison. I’m saying it matters more what POTUS’s say than what others say.

The weight of the words the POTUS are significant, and certainly more so than than pundits and talking heads. Would you agree or disagree?

Numbers can and will speak for himself, but I, speaking for myself, disagree.

Certainly in aggregate, one POTUS does not outweigh the words of dozens of pundits talking 7/24/365, especially when the pundits are helping spread the idea that said POTUS is stupid, owned by Russians, unfit to be President, and that everything he says is a lie.

(04-20-2019 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 05:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 05:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did Obama say Romney was racist or going to kill old people?

Are you saying that nobody on the left was saying that? Or that as long as it wasn't actually Obama, it didn't count?

I’m saying that Obama didn’t say those things, so Tanq’s attempt to compare a criticism of Trump lying to not criticizing talking heads during the Obama admin, is a poor comparison. I’m saying it matters more what POTUS’s say than what others say.

The weight of the words the POTUS are significant, and certainly more so than than pundits and talking heads. Would you agree or disagree?

lad, I did not say that. I am saying that I found JAAO's whining about Trump being a liar pretty fing hypocritical.

Someone that launches a tearfest on Trump being a liar (he undoubtedly is, mind you) and refuses to even cast a backward glance at the policies, rules to operate by, and the continuous and absolute wall of cries of BIIIGGGOOOTTTSS that has fing defined the Democratic Party since Reagan -- and refuses to even acknowledge that that absolute and continued wall of cries in that unabated fashion has *anything* to do with the landscape of Trump and his lying ways, is pretty much off the fing dock.

Yep it sucks that Trump is a liar. Look at the policies that *your* side has institutionalized for the last thirty fing years that just *may* have had a part to play in it. Or not. Your choice.

*Your* side defined that some pretty fing upstanding people (Romney, Ryan, McCain) were tarred and feathered with the fing 'kneejerk' statements (lies) of being racist, homophobic, ageist, killing old people, amd whatever other fing class, racial, or socio-economic division the Democrats could pry open with that rhetoric.

Yep, y'all won 2008 by slandering McCain and Palin with that. Continued into 2012 by tarring and feathering pretty much the *most* upright human that has run for the office since Carter or Reagan with that crap. Wash rinse repeat for Baby Bush, and to a smaller extent Papa Bush. Raise the level on it with Reagan.

Now people like JAAO cry like monkeys that big bad evil Trump lies. Good god, what the **** do you all expect after close to 40 fing years of simply using the tar and feather approach? And good fing god, when you use it on Romney and Ryan, dont act all fing innocent when an actual nasty baddy fing emerges that doesnt give a rat's ass what you all call him, nor gives a rat's ass what he calls others.

You’re saying you’re not trying to compare a criticism of Trump to a lack of criticism of non-POTUS’s?

I find the whining about Trump being a liar to be utterly fing hypocritial given the tack and direction of the left for the last 40 fing years. Comprende?

Quote:Where did your vaunted ethics land you when the 'Romney will kill the old people' and 'Romney is racist' tropes kicked in?

Bet you were right on the fing front line fighting the good fight against those, huh? Yeah..... that's a bet I probably won't take, no matter what odds might be given.

Quote: I am saying that I found JAAO's whining about Trump being a liar pretty fing hypocritical.

If you feel the need to wrap yourself up into bowties over those rather stark statements, go for it. Wouldnt be the first time.

I have no fing idea where your idea about POTUS based or non-potus based mishmash came from, but not from my statements above. You are the one that magically interjected and contorted into that idea.......