(03-27-2019 11:23 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 11:17 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:50 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:03 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  I think he's trying to put the best light on the prez. I'm sure he'll release a redacted report that backs up his previous statement.

First time I've ever seen a lib actually be funny on here. Still delusional. But at least there is a little humor in it.

Points please.

Never go around asking for magic Internet points.

Typical. Looking for handouts.

Yeah, don't do indulge them. They'll never leave and will poop all over your deck.

(03-27-2019 02:37 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 01:48 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 08:53 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  How can you accept something that you aren't allowed to read?

You accepted the Russia lie without reading the fake dossier.

She also believed the woman who accused Kavanaugh of rape without reading anything.... (sheesh - I already forgot her name)

She?? Really? This would explain so much.

Thoughts from my good buddy Tanqtonic over on the Rice board with regard to Mueller's report:

(03-27-2019 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At lunch, my compadres and myself were asking why did Mueller punt? In theory, there are at least four possibilities. 1) he didn’t think it was job to state a firm conclusion. 2) he concluded that there is no sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 3) he concluded that there is a sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 4) he couldn’t make up his mind.
I think we can ixnay #1 and #4 without much thought. 1) is pretty much impossible. The very point of having a special counsel is the view that judgments as to whether the president committed a crime should be made by someone independent of the president
4) doesnt have a ground in Mueller's actions. Nothing I have heard or seen about Mueller suggests that he’s indecisive and cannot make important calls even in cases he considers close. The prosecutions that he has undertaken even in this role lend no credence to 4).
As for 3), if that occurred, should it would come out, Mueller would be disgraced in the eyes of the media and the left. Further, the reputation that Mueller has would be pretty much irretrievably lost.

With respect to calls to investigate FBI, intel leaders, democrats, et al, regarding how the investigation came to be:

(03-27-2019 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I agree with Graham --- the fact that this happened, was promulgated to the extent that it was, *and* with a full exoneration of Trump (and Trump minions for that matter) as to 'collusion, I think a very sharp eye needs to be turned to why the **** a National Enquirer level dossier was allowed to be the genesis of this crap. And why people like Clapper and Brennan have the stink all over them, to the extent of the even 'seeding' the dossier with outside media in order to bolster the FISA warrants.
In short, people like Clapper and Brennan effectively weaponized the law enforcement and intelligence services for the benefit of an Administration and their 'successor' against the nominee of the opposing party. I dont think anyone can really disagree with this at this point. Utterly reprehensible. And now, Brennan has the gall to say 'well golly gee willikers, I guess I had bad information."
The fact that it reached here two years+ later (almost three considering the investigations were ongoing in July 2016) is proof positive of, at the least, absolute fing negligence in the process. At the worst, it rings of malfeasance --- of the level that so many said there was 'plenty of smoke' with when opining about 'collusion' issues.
But, I am sure there isnt enough 'smoke' for that for some, even with the characterization of the full exoneration of Trump re: 'collusion' here.
What an absolute and utterly malignant gift Hillary and the Obama administration left for the US.

(03-27-2019 08:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Thoughts from my good buddy Tanqtonic over on the Rice board with regard to Mueller's report:

(03-27-2019 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At lunch, my compadres and myself were asking why did Mueller punt? In theory, there are at least four possibilities. 1) he didn’t think it was job to state a firm conclusion. 2) he concluded that there is no sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 3) he concluded that there is a sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 4) he couldn’t make up his mind.
I think we can ixnay #1 and #4 without much thought. 1) is pretty much impossible. The very point of having a special counsel is the view that judgments as to whether the president committed a crime should be made by someone independent of the president
4) doesnt have a ground in Mueller's actions. Nothing I have heard or seen about Mueller suggests that he’s indecisive and cannot make important calls even in cases he considers close. The prosecutions that he has undertaken even in this role lend no credence to 4).
As for 3), if that occurred, should it would come out, Mueller would be disgraced in the eyes of the media and the left. Further, the reputation that Mueller has would be pretty much irretrievably lost.

With respect to calls to investigate FBI, intel leaders, democrats, et al, regarding how the investigation came to be:

(03-27-2019 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I agree with Graham --- the fact that this happened, was promulgated to the extent that it was, *and* with a full exoneration of Trump (and Trump minions for that matter) as to 'collusion, I think a very sharp eye needs to be turned to why the **** a National Enquirer level dossier was allowed to be the genesis of this crap. And why people like Clapper and Brennan have the stink all over them, to the extent of the even 'seeding' the dossier with outside media in order to bolster the FISA warrants.
In short, people like Clapper and Brennan effectively weaponized the law enforcement and intelligence services for the benefit of an Administration and their 'successor' against the nominee of the opposing party. I dont think anyone can really disagree with this at this point. Utterly reprehensible. And now, Brennan has the gall to say 'well golly gee willikers, I guess I had bad information."
The fact that it reached here two years+ later (almost three considering the investigations were ongoing in July 2016) is proof positive of, at the least, absolute fing negligence in the process. At the worst, it rings of malfeasance --- of the level that so many said there was 'plenty of smoke' with when opining about 'collusion' issues.
But, I am sure there isnt enough 'smoke' for that for some, even with the characterization of the full exoneration of Trump re: 'collusion' here.
What an absolute and utterly malignant gift Hillary and the Obama administration left for the US.

it's nothing some of us haven't pined about since this horshite began....his version is simply more eloquent....

same story, same shite, another version....

what I can't figure out is what took some of yaz so long....

this is where DJT and a few others get to stab yaz relative to the 'why' it was bullshite to begin with...

disclaimer: to your credit, you've been fair throughout this ordeal....

(03-27-2019 09:50 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:27 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Should he not issue the redacted report?

Should the Attorney General of the US instead release possibly classified information, confidential Grand Jury testimony and perhaps the identity of otherwise innocent citizens?

Is that what you’re pushing for? Or that perhaps for the first time in a decade the AG actually does his job?

Y’all gotta make up that rabbit-asss mind.

Issue the whole report. 87% of Americans want to see the whole thing and since we paid for it, we should.

We also paid for nuclear submarines and AF1. Does that mean we should be able to travel on them?

The report is going to be issued. There will be some redactions. There are apparently some items, such as details of grand jury testimony, that are required by law to be redacted. This is not a judgement or concealment issue, it is a strict legal requirement. There is nothing that can be done about it, other than trying to pass a law that will overturn centuries of jurisprudence.

It is analogous to what is the real issue with Trump's tax returns. He could release his 1040, but that is not going to tell much of anything. The action is going to be in the entities that actually own and operate the properties, and those are things like S Corps and limited partnerships and LLC's, and on his 1040 Trump simply reports summary line items flowing from K-1s issued by those entities. To see any details, which would almost certainly reveal nothing, you would have to get the applicable 1120Ss and 1065s. Those are not releasable by law without the consent of all shareholders/partners/members. Trump cannot do it. The IRS cannot do it. And if I were a partner in one of those deals, there is no way that I would consent. So those documents cannot be released. And the inability to release them has nothing to do with any attempts to conceal anything, it's simply the law. If Trump released a 1040 with nothing but summary line items, the cry for release of the underlying corporation/partnership returns would be just as intense, if not more so, than the cry for release of his 1040. So rather than fight the battle twice, he reasonably chooses to fight it once and be done with it.

There are some things that we are not allowed to see, as Hambone his noted--the interior of a nuclear submarine (I have seen that, it's not that exciting, and you've seen pretty similar in "Red October"), the interior of AF1 (I haven't seen that, probably more exciting). Add to the list any portions of Mueller's report that you cannot see by law. But Mueller and his team have seen them, and have examined them pretty thoroughly, just as the IRS has seen Trump's tax returns and the underlying entity returns, and has examined them pretty thoroughly. There are some things that you just don't get to see. Sorry.

(03-27-2019 09:07 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 08:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Thoughts from my good buddy Tanqtonic over on the Rice board with regard to Mueller's report:

(03-27-2019 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At lunch, my compadres and myself were asking why did Mueller punt? In theory, there are at least four possibilities. 1) he didn’t think it was job to state a firm conclusion. 2) he concluded that there is no sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 3) he concluded that there is a sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 4) he couldn’t make up his mind.
I think we can ixnay #1 and #4 without much thought. 1) is pretty much impossible. The very point of having a special counsel is the view that judgments as to whether the president committed a crime should be made by someone independent of the president
4) doesnt have a ground in Mueller's actions. Nothing I have heard or seen about Mueller suggests that he’s indecisive and cannot make important calls even in cases he considers close. The prosecutions that he has undertaken even in this role lend no credence to 4).
As for 3), if that occurred, should it would come out, Mueller would be disgraced in the eyes of the media and the left. Further, the reputation that Mueller has would be pretty much irretrievably lost.

With respect to calls to investigate FBI, intel leaders, democrats, et al, regarding how the investigation came to be:

(03-27-2019 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I agree with Graham --- the fact that this happened, was promulgated to the extent that it was, *and* with a full exoneration of Trump (and Trump minions for that matter) as to 'collusion, I think a very sharp eye needs to be turned to why the **** a National Enquirer level dossier was allowed to be the genesis of this crap. And why people like Clapper and Brennan have the stink all over them, to the extent of the even 'seeding' the dossier with outside media in order to bolster the FISA warrants.
In short, people like Clapper and Brennan effectively weaponized the law enforcement and intelligence services for the benefit of an Administration and their 'successor' against the nominee of the opposing party. I dont think anyone can really disagree with this at this point. Utterly reprehensible. And now, Brennan has the gall to say 'well golly gee willikers, I guess I had bad information."
The fact that it reached here two years+ later (almost three considering the investigations were ongoing in July 2016) is proof positive of, at the least, absolute fing negligence in the process. At the worst, it rings of malfeasance --- of the level that so many said there was 'plenty of smoke' with when opining about 'collusion' issues.
But, I am sure there isnt enough 'smoke' for that for some, even with the characterization of the full exoneration of Trump re: 'collusion' here.
What an absolute and utterly malignant gift Hillary and the Obama administration left for the US.

it's nothing some of us haven't pined about since this horshite began....his version is simply more eloquent....

same story, same shite, another version....

what I can't figure out is what took some of yaz so long....

this is where DJT and a few others get to stab yaz relative to the 'why' it was bullshite to begin with...

disclaimer: to your credit, you've been fair throughout this ordeal....

Stink, the reason that I 'waited' is because it is only truly appropriate to make the comments at the point that the exoneration was 'official'.