Just sitting here watching Barrs testimony.

[Nakosis]

I take it you are also paying attention to Despicable Donald's whining tweetstorms.

Nope, tweeting is bad. A while back, I even stopped paying attention to my own tweets. I wish folks would stop paying attention to all tweets everywhere. Though I suppose some possess an inherent desire to make Dorsey even richer.

Dorsey must enjoy the golden showers given by Trump everyday.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's a nothing burger.

I'll prove.

"If true and provable beyond a reasonable doubt,"

But he has no evidence to prove it. He states it in his report. Which is why you see him state "if". He suspect it for sure, but he can't find evidence to prove it.


And that is what this is all a out. Evidence, not the suspicion.

I take it you don't understand how this sort of thing works. "There is substantial evidence," is just that: a statement of the existence of apparent evidence. It is neither "proved" nor "disproved" until it has been to court. As the FBI stance is that a sitting President can't be indicted, then you can't get it to court.

However, there is still another process, you know, beginning with "Imp…" which (believe it or not) I hope Congress does not actually decide to pursue. I'd love all the evidence to be out there in public, and then late next year, let that same public decide.

 

[Enoch07]

Whining and crying about what? That there's nothing to accuse him of?

True, but Clinton, Obama, and the Dems are in hot water now. They tried to expose Trump for conspiracy and obstruction, only to expose their own dirty deeds. Poetic justice at its finest!

 

[Enoch07]

I take it you don't understand how this sort of thing works. "There is substantial evidence," is just that: a statement of the existence of apparent evidence. It is neither "proved" nor "disproved" until it has been to court. As the FBI stance is that a sitting President can't be indicted, then you can't get it to court.

However, there is still another process, you know, beginning with "Imp…" which (believe it or not) I hope Congress does not actually decide to pursue. I'd love all the evidence to be out there in public, and then late next year, let that same public decide.

The "substantial evidence" is not in the Mueller report. Rofl

 

[Twilight Hue]

True, but Clinton, Obama, and the Dems are in hot water now. They tried to expose Trump for conspiracy and obstruction, only to expose their own dirty deeds. Poetic justice at its finest!

I'm still waiting to see if an investigation against Mueller takes hold for allegedly destroying that FBI evidence. The investigator becomes the investigated.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The "substantial evidence" is not in the Mueller report. Rofl

Page 95., directly cited from the report:

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President's decision to fire Corney was Corney's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President's repeated requests that Corney make such an announcement. In the week leading up to Corney's May 3, 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, the President told McGahn that it would be the last straw if Corney did not set the record straight and publicly announce that the President was not under investigation. But during his May 3 testimony, Corney refused to answer questions about whether the President was being investigated. Corney's refusal angered the President, who criticized Sessions for leaving him isolated and exposed, saying "You left me on an island." Two days later, the President told advisors he had decided to fire Corney and dictated a letter to Stephen Miller that began with a reference to the fact that the President was not being investigated: "While I greatly appreciate you informing me that I am not under investigation concerning what I have often stated is a fabricated story on a Trump-Russia relationship .... " The President later asked Rosenstein to include "Russia" in his memorandum and to say that Corney had told the President that he was not under investigation. And the President's final termination letter included a sentence, at the President's insistence and against McGahn' s advice, stating that Corney had told the President on three separate occasions that he was not under investigation.

In fact, the phrase "substantial evidence" appears 14 times in the report.

ROFLMAO

 

[Enoch07]

Page 95., directly cited from the report:

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President's decision to fire Corney was Corney's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President's repeated requests that Corney make such an announcement. In the week leading up to Corney's May 3, 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, the President told McGahn that it would be the last straw if Corney did not set the record straight and publicly announce that the President was not under investigation. But during his May 3 testimony, Corney refused to answer questions about whether the President was being investigated. Corney's refusal angered the President, who criticized Sessions for leaving him isolated and exposed, saying "You left me on an island." Two days later, the President told advisors he had decided to fire Corney and dictated a letter to Stephen Miller that began with a reference to the fact that the President was not being investigated: "While I greatly appreciate you informing me that I am not under investigation concerning what I have often stated is a fabricated story on a Trump-Russia relationship .... " The President later asked Rosenstein to include "Russia" in his memorandum and to say that Corney had told the President that he was not under investigation. And the President's final termination letter included a sentence, at the President's insistence and against McGahn' s advice, stating that Corney had told the President on three separate occasions that he was not under investigation.

In fact, the phrase "substantial evidence" appears 14 times in the report.

ROFLMAO

Nothing prosecutable though which is what you continue to ignore. If it's not sufficient enough then it's not of value.

Do you understand that?

You can have evidence that says something potentially happened. But even Mueller concedes it's not substanstial enough to prosecute.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nothing prosecutable though which is what you continue to ignore. If it's not sufficient enough then it's not of value.

Do you understand that?

You can have evidence that says something potentially happened. But even Mueller concedes it's not substanstial enough to prosecute.

No, you are being inaccurate again. (It's called "spin.") It is "nothing prosecutable" for one reason, and one reason only...that the FBI will not indict a sitting President. Were it anyone else, it would be eminently prosecutable.

 

[Enoch07]

No, you are being inaccurate again. (It's called "spin.") It is "nothing prosecutable" for one reason, and one reason only...that the FBI will not indict a sitting President. Were it anyone else, it would be eminently prosecutable.

No you're mistaken.

Also Mueller is not apart of the FBI. So all this the FBI won't indict a sitting President is spin in itself.

Here around 4 minute mark Barr explains.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No you're mistaken.

Also Mueller is not apart of the FBI. So all this the FBI won't indict a sitting President is spin in itself.

Here around 4 minute mark Barr explains.

Okay, I listened carefully to Barr, long past the 4 minute mark. It is very clear that we do not hear the same things. No doubt that's partly because of our own prejudices. But I have no vested interested (I'm Canadian) but I do have a great love for analysis and understanding.

I'll tell you the truth: Barr seems to be repeatedly saying (and I've since watched other portions) that while the smoke may be so thick you need a machete to cut through it, why goodness me, why would anybody suppose there's a fire?

Clearly, we're not serving any purpose to the betterment of the forum here, and even more clearly we're not going to agree. So I give up. Let's just call Trump the next saint to be elevated to heaven, and I'll move on. With any luck, once he's deified, he'll take you with him.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No you're mistaken.

Also Mueller is not apart of the FBI. So all this the FBI won't indict a sitting President is spin in itself.

Here around 4 minute mark Barr explains.

Okay, I listened carefully to Barr, long past the 4 minute mark. It is very clear that we do not hear the same things. No doubt that's partly because of our own prejudices. But I have no vested interested (I'm Canadian) but I do have a great love for analysis and understanding.

I'll tell you the truth: Barr seems to be repeatedly saying (and I've since watched other portions) that while the smoke may be so thick you need a machete to cut through it, why goodness me, why would anybody suppose there's a fire?

Clearly, we're not serving any purpose to the betterment of the forum here, and even more clearly we're not going to agree. So I give up. Let's just call Trump the next saint to be elevated to heaven, and I'll move on. With any luck, once he's deified, he'll take you with him.

 

[Enoch07]

Okay, I listened carefully to Barr, long past the 4 minute mark. It is very clear that we do not hear the same things. No doubt that's partly because of our own prejudices. But I have no vested interested (I'm Canadian) but I do have a great love for analysis and understanding.

I'll tell you the truth: Barr seems to be repeatedly saying (and I've since watched other portions) that while the smoke may be so thick you need a machete to cut through it, why goodness me, why would anybody suppose there's a fire?

Clearly, we're not serving any purpose to the betterment of the forum here, and even more clearly we're not going to agree. So I give up. Let's just call Trump the next saint to be elevated to heaven, and I'll move on. With any luck, once he's deified, he'll take you with him.

I'm looking at it objectively and listening to what is actually said. Had Barr said anything differently than what I have said, the headline would be different.

Don't pretend like you have no bias just because you're Canadian. You've made your prejudice known quite well. No sense in proving yourself a liar now by backpeddling.

 

[Nakosis]

Page 95., directly cited from the report:

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President's decision to fire Corney was Corney's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President's repeated requests that Corney make such an announcement. In the week leading up to Corney's May 3, 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, the President told McGahn that it would be the last straw if Corney did not set the record straight and publicly announce that the President was not under investigation. But during his May 3 testimony, Corney refused to answer questions about whether the President was being investigated. Corney's refusal angered the President, who criticized Sessions for leaving him isolated and exposed, saying "You left me on an island." Two days later, the President told advisors he had decided to fire Corney and dictated a letter to Stephen Miller that began with a reference to the fact that the President was not being investigated: "While I greatly appreciate you informing me that I am not under investigation concerning what I have often stated is a fabricated story on a Trump-Russia relationship .... " The President later asked Rosenstein to include "Russia" in his memorandum and to say that Corney had told the President that he was not under investigation. And the President's final termination letter included a sentence, at the President's insistence and against McGahn' s advice, stating that Corney had told the President on three separate occasions that he was not under investigation.

In fact, the phrase "substantial evidence" appears 14 times in the report.

ROFLMAO

Who's Corney?

But, ok, second question, how did this obstruct justice?

I understand the President was motivated by politics to spin the perception but the investigation continued. I'll even grant that Trump lied about his reasons for firing Comey, stupid but how was justice obstructed by this action?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No you're mistaken.

Also Mueller is not apart of the FBI. So all this the FBI won't indict a sitting President is spin in itself.

Here around 4 minute mark Barr explains.

Okay, I listened carefully to Barr, long past the 4 minute mark. It is very clear that we do not hear the same things. No doubt that's partly because of our own prejudices. But I have no vested interested (I'm Canadian) but I do have a great love for analysis and understanding.

I'll tell you the truth: Barr seems to be repeatedly saying (and I've since watched other portions) that while the smoke may be so thick you need a machete to cut through it, why goodness me, why would anybody suppose there's a fire?

Clearly, we're not serving any purpose to the betterment of the forum here, and even more clearly we're not going to agree. So I give up. Let's just call Trump the next saint to be elevated to heaven, and I'll move on. With any luck, once he's deified, he'll take you with him.

I'm looking at it objectively and listening to what is actually said. Had Barr said anything differently than what I have said, the headline would be different.

Don't pretend like you have no bias just because you're Canadian. You've made your prejudice known quite well. No sense in proving yourself a liar now by backpeddling.

I admitted to my own prejudices, and have done so many times before on these forums. I am not a liar. I do not like Trump. I think there will come a time when, if you're still around, you will also not like Trump, but who knows.

Back in 1969, I went to Ottawa to the convention that made Pierre Elliot Trudeau the leader of the Liberal party, and soon the Prime Minister of Canada. I went, to be clear, as a supporter, and was elated when he won the convention, and later the election. But I try, as much as I can, to be an honest person, and I found myself dismayed at many of the things that happened during his administration, and in the last election that he ran in, I voted against him.

And a large part of that choice to vote against him, by the way, was that he was running deficits that I found unconscionable. Who, in the end, is going to pay the debts that mount rapidly from running annual deficits? Why, somebody in the future, of course, and some of them may not yet be eligible to vote for their right and privilege to pay for their forebears' generosity to themselves. So while many are hailing Trump's tax cuts, I find myself looking at a deficit with more zeroes than I care to know about, and wonder...who's on the hook?

And more, I happen to be a person who thinks that those we choose to lead us should behave in a way that is at least a little bit like something we can possibly admire, hopefully approve of, or at minimum, not be deplored by.

So no, I don't like your Trump. (Oh, and my best friend is an ex-American from Schenectady NY, now living in Canada, who would tell you that he can't even stand to listen to the man speak during news reports.)

 

[anna.]

Here is a good summary of the 5+ hour hearing.
@Evangelicalhumanist as well.

I watched the hearing this morning, but when Cruz came on I muted the sound and found something else to do. Can't stand watching him or listening to him. On the other hand, Sen. Mazie Hirono was awesome today!

 

[Enoch07]

I admitted to my own prejudices, and have done so many times before on these forums. I am not a liar. I do not like Trump. I think there will come a time when, if you're still around, you will also not like Trump, but who knows.

I don't like Trump on a personal level. Didn't vote for him either. But I am calling BS when I see it. And this whole investigation has been nothing but a witch hunt. With the goal post constantly moving.

If the man was guilty I'd be talking about that instead. But there will be no charges filed, because there is no grounds to file them per the Mueller report. If there was charges to be filed, Mueller would have filed them instead of defaulting to Barr to make the decision to prosecute or not.

 

[Enoch07]

I watched the hearing this morning, but when Cruz came on I muted the sound and found something else to do. Can't stand watching him or listening to him. On the other hand, Sen. Mazie Hirono was awesome today!

Lindsey Graham's was best imo.

Time for the real conspiracy investigation to begin!

 

[sealchan]

I take it you don't understand how this sort of thing works. "There is substantial evidence," is just that: a statement of the existence of apparent evidence. It is neither "proved" nor "disproved" until it has been to court. As the FBI stance is that a sitting President can't be indicted, then you can't get it to court.

However, there is still another process, you know, beginning with "Imp…" which (believe it or not) I hope Congress does not actually decide to pursue. I'd love all the evidence to be out there in public, and then late next year, let that same public decide.

Didn't you know? Words dont mean what they mean and the Dictionary was written by Liberals.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You brought up whining and crying and there's no crybaby whining more than Trump does. This is a debate thread, after all.

 

[Stanyon]

View attachment 28729

Orange is the new black!