Jumbo

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, twa said:

Suppressing?

 

:ols:

 

Yes.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yes.  

 

 

Try reading the regulations governing the special counsel and what happens with the report.

 

ya might give him a few days before falsely accusing him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Try reading the regulations governing the special counsel and what happens with the report.

 

ya might give him a few days before falsely accusing him.

 

Try posting them.  

 

In particular, the parts that specify that it is his duty to publicly pronounce the innocence of the person who hired him, while not revealing any evidence that was gathered.  

 

You know, the part that you're trying to claim mandate his actions.  (Not just give him the power to abuse.)  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw something that said Mueller informed Barr 3 weeks ago of his decision not to rule on obstruction. That's just two weeks after Barr was confirmed. I wonder if Barr shut down the investigation. Coincidences and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Rosenstein has been overseeing the SC since the beginning, correct? Is he a stooge of the President now?

 

If Barr shut down the SC investigation, he flat out lied. He said  that he did nothing to inhibit the SC investigation. 

Edited by Popeman38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

I saw something that said Mueller informed Barr 3 weeks ago of his decision not to rule on obstruction. That's just two weeks after Barr was confirmed. I wonder if Barr shut down the investigation. Coincidences and all.

 

It does seem to be interesting timing that Muller is done merely 30 days after Barr is in charge.  As in Barr said you have 30 days to **** or get off the pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, can we give a big round of applause from the most obstructionist piece of **** to ever serve our great nation, Mitch McConnel.

 

What idiots vote for this turtle looking assbag and how did he get to become majority leader?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avenetti, Laurence Tribe, Adam Davidson, and John Oliver make the final four...

 

 

watch out @visionary the last thing you want is sarah sanders telling you to get a sense of humor... it’s haunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Larry said:

1)  Perhaps because since Watergate, our nation has not seen a more blatant case of a President abusing his authority for the obvious purpose of silencing an investigation into himself?  

 

2)  And it worked for Bill Clinton because the Whitewater investigation was a witch hunt.  It was a political fishing expedition of unlimited breadth and duration, with no crime whatsoever having taken place, followed by "well, if we 'investigate' ehouch, then maybe we can come up with something that we can pretend retroactively justifies the investigation."  

 

That's the difference between Watergate and Trump/Russia, and Whitewater and Bengahzi.  The former began because there were obvious crimes committed, with obviously partisan political motives.  The latter were excuses for "let's subpoena everything in the world, yell 'coverup' if we don't get everything in the world, see if there's anything in it that we can pretend is a scandal, and who knows, maybe we'll actually find something illegal."  

 

1) you read those tweets and got that out of it? The point is Iran Contra was pretty terrible and it set the template on how to protect the president.

 

2) okay

 

Again, the point is Iran Contra set the how to handle a scandal template and even gout Bill Barr back on board to help cover up like he did under The saint HW Bush. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

Rosenstein has been overseeing the SC since the beginning, correct? Is he a stooge of the President now?

 

If Barr shut down the SC investigation, he flat out lied. He said  that he did nothing to inhibit the SC investigation. 

 

No, but the authority still rests with Barr.  And Rosenstein has one foot out the door.  If/when Rosenstein speaks, we'll know what he really thought.

 

But I don't think Barr secretly shut down the investigation.  It doesnt sound like much was done to inhibit it....that we know of.  If he did, that would wind up coming out.  Between Barr, Whitaker, and Rosenstein, apparently, nobody really got in the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

It's a hoax. No malfeasance.  FBI harrassment. When the Graham/Johnson witch hunt comes back empty handed, I want an apology from everybody.  /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

Dumb right wing meme

 

They were still chanting “Lock her up” at CPAC this year. 

 

I think mostly everyone on one on the left is ok with whatever Mueller found, especially once the full report is released. 

 

As usual, the right is projecting it’s nonsense onto left. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

 

They were still chanting “Lock her up” at CPAC this year. 

 

I think mostly everyone on one on the left is ok with whatever Mueller found, especially once the full report is released. 

 

As usual, the right is projecting it’s nonsense onto left. 

If you say so.

It pretty accurately sums up how you left wingers feel about the whole situation though.

 

Answer me this though.

If the "crime" you were investigated of was bull**** from the get go, how can you obstruct something that didn't exist in the first place?

 

I only ask because since the mewler report failed so spectacularly, obstruction seems to be the new rallying cry of the msm and the left.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reading the link that 44 posted, above.  (And only a short way through it.)  And I'm noticing how bland and inocous the things I'm reading are, compared to the things that I "know", because I read about them, years ago.  

 

Like, I'm reading about Papa supposedly knowing a professor who supposedly has ties to Russia, and supposedly tried to set up meetings.  (There's even a comment from one of the Trump campaign emails along the lines of "we need to shut this pest up.  Set up a meeting, but make sure it's a really low-level guy, cause we don;t want the Russians to think we're interested."  To me, that at least could be, not encouragement, but a brush off.  

 

And I'm contrasting that with the things I know which, to me, are much more "smoking-gun-ish".  Things like the Trump Tower meeting, the alteration of the GOP platform.  Reports of Trump campaign officials showing up in our country's routine surveillance of Russian embassy officials.  Phoning the Russian ambassador.  Reports of Junior engaged in discussion, floating the idea that he could go to the Russian embassy, and use their crypto gear to communicate with Moscow, to keep the Americans from monitoring.  

 

I'm trying to figure out how to explain what seems to be a huge disparity between the things that I know, and the things that Mueler has proven, so far.  

 

And one possible theory I'm coming up with, to explain the disparity, is that I'm pretty sure that the kinds of things that I "know", I assume are based on classified information.  (Supposedly leaked during the election season, when those things were coming out.)  Things like Trump administration officials supposedly contacting Russian government officials, we might very well have, on tape.  But they're classified.  (And rightly so.)  

 

It's possible that, in the time near the election, there might well have been people in the IC leaking a lot of really shocking things, that are classified.  And now that the election dust has settled, they've become the stone-faced, Men in Black, "monitor everything, reveal nothing" people that they're supposed to be.  

 

Is it at least possible that the relatively boring things we've seen revealed, are as much as Mueler can prove, without using classified information?  Was he limited (by orders, or by a self-limitation) to only using non-classified information?  That the things that I think he really ought to be focusing on, are off limits, because without using leaked classified information, he has to pretend that he doesn't know about them?  

 

- - - - 

 

And I also have to recognize that one explanation for why the things I've read are so huge and scandalous and important, compared to the Mueler things, might be because the things that anonymous sources were feeding the press, back then, were BS.  

 

I don't think that's the case, because of the way Trump and his campaign/administration responded to them sure made the reports a lot more credible.  Things like, when it's leaked that supposedly campaign officials were contacting the Russian ambassador, Trump goes on a month-long tweet rage claiming that the Obama administration is wiretapping Trump Tower.  He doesn't deny it, he rants about how unfair it is that people found out.  

 

But I do have to recognize that Washington has a long history of people putting out grandiose claims of earth-shattering scandals about opposition politicians, wrapped in "anonymous source leaking classified information suggests that . . . "  

 

. . . . . 

 

So, is it possible that at least some of the really scandalous things that I read about at the time, never happened?  Or is it possible that yeah, they happened, but Mueller couldn't use them, because the only way we even know they happened, is classified?  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

If you say so.

It pretty accurately sums up how you left wingers feel about the whole situation though.

 

Answer me this though.

If the "crime" you were investigated of was bull**** from the get go, how can you obstruct something that didn't exist in the first place?

 

I only ask because since the mewler report failed so spectacularly, obstruction seems to be the new rallying cry of the msm and the left.

 

I trust that the FBI, mostly led by registered Republicans for this case, was simply doing its job of investigating possible crimes. They did so with Hillary and did so for Trump. 

 

In fact, Trump and Trump org are still under investigation at various US attorney offices around the country. 

 

I trust our law enforcement system to do its job of investigating potential crimes, be it Democrat’s or Republicans who end up in their cross hairs. Do you? Or are you one of the millions of morons still chanting Lock Her Up at CPAC and Trump rallies?

Edited by No Excuses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I trust that the FBI, mostly led by registered Republicans for this case, was simply doing its job of investigating possible crimes. They did so with Hillary and did so for Trump. 

 

In fact, Trump and Trump org are still under investigation at various US attorney offices around the country. 

 

I trust our law enforcement system to do its job of investigating potential crimes, be it Democrat’s or Republicans who end up in their cross hairs. Do you or are you one of the millions of morons still chanting Lock Her Up at CPAC and Trump rallies?

You trust the FBI to follow up on a bull**** report, funded by Obama & clinton/cronies hand delivered by mcstain, created by a foreign "intelligence" agent with the sole purpose of using the as the basis for obtaining bull**** fisa warrants to "legally" spy on a presidential candidate?

Some of you are really the "low information" group.. or willful ignorance, either applies to most leftists with regard to their "high education" and "moral superiority".. LOL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, crabbypatty said:

You trust the FBI to follow up on a bull**** report, funded by Obama & clinton/cronies hand delivered by mcstain, created by a foreign "intelligence" agent with the sole purpose of using the as the basis for obtaining bull**** fisa warrants to "legally" spy on a presidential candidate?

Some of you are really the "low information" group.. or willful ignorance, either applies to most leftists with regard to their "high education" and "moral superiority".. LOL

 

 

Just like you don’t want to do anything about guns that kill our kids, you don’t want to do anything about Russia that attacks our country.

 

Way to go token conservative!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, crabbypatty said:

You trust the FBI to follow up on a bull**** report, funded by Obama & clinton/cronies hand delivered by mcstain, created by a foreign "intelligence" agent with the sole purpose of using the as the basis for obtaining bull**** fisa warrants to "legally" spy on a presidential candidate?

Some of you are really the "low information" group.. or willful ignorance, either applies to most leftists with regard to their "high education" and "moral superiority".. LOL

 

 

McStain?

 

This is where we are in 2019

 

The solution escapes me, but its a shame that someone with a brain like this has an equal say in how this country moves forward.

Edited by StillUnknown
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.