Jumbo

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

🤔

 

 

My take: He's going to deny that he ever drew up an indictment against Trump and then disappear in a cloud of smoke. 

Share this post


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

My take: He's going to deny that he ever drew up an indictment against Trump and then disappear in a cloud of smoke. 

Looking like it's only about Russian interference. Should have known they not going to let him talk about Trump when he's still part of the DOJ.*

 

 

*unless he says the words total exoneration.

Edited by Cooked Crack
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I wonder if the timing is tied to James Comey's op-ed in the Washington Post today:

 

No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that.

 

It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.

 

But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.

 

Russia engaged in a massive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Near as I can tell, there is only one U.S. leader who still denies that fact. The FBI saw the attack starting in mid-June 2016, with the first dumping of stolen emails. In late July, when we were hard at work trying to understand the scope of the effort, we learned that one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers knew about the Russian effort seven weeks before we did.

 

In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton. Of course, nobody from the Trump campaign told us this (or about later Russian approaches); we had to learn it, months after the fact, from an allied ambassador.
 

But when we finally learned of it in late July, what should the FBI have done? Let it go? Go tell the Trump campaign? Tell the press? No. Investigate, to see what the facts were. We didn’t know what was true. Maybe there was nothing to it, or maybe Americans were actively conspiring with the Russians. To find out, the FBI would live up to its name and investigate.

. . .

(He goes on to call out all the conspiracy theories about the Deep State, a Coup, and Treason for what they are - "dumb"):

 

There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn’t spend much time on this “treason” and “corruption” business. The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.

 

But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, you will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html?utm_term=.011f7a73662f

Edited by Dan T.
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump supporters talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to the nonsense he says.  On one hand anything disparaging or offensive statements he makes are merely "jokes" or just "Trump being Trump" yet when he starts accusing the FBI of trying to do a coup, they take it as a true statement.   This is almost as bad as picking and choosing things out of a holy book you choose to follow & believe in due to convenience..  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

 

He should have said they were done to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump...not just hurt a candidate.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was a little vocally deferential towards Barr and against testifying, but it seemed clear that he wasn’t happy with the portrayal of it being exoneration and wanted to make clear that the investigation was necessary and found lots of interference.  He also hinted that impeachment was the only recourse without saying it explicitly, I think.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller trying to be as neutral as possible here. I get it, he doesn't want to do what Comey did and make himself fodder for cable news talking points shows.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller laid out why they couldn't charge Trump with a crime, but also clearly said if they felt Trump didn't commit a crime they would have said so.   


The only thing missing from his statement that I would have liked to hear was re-iterating that the next step in the process is for the special counsel's case to be examined by congress so they can determine whether there have been crimes committed.  Basically, "I did my job, now you do yours."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If they had confidence he did commit a crime they would have said so.

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

If they had confidence he did commit a crime they would have said so.

 

 

 

No. He specifically said otherwise. That DOJ policy is not to accuse POTUS of a crime, because there isn't a court to hear it. 

 

But nice try, pushing that narrative. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 

If they had confidence he did commit a crime they would have said so.

 

 

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

If they had confidence he did commit a crime they would have said so.

 

 

 

Did you listen to the part where he specifically said it would be unfair to accuse a crime being committed because of no court being there to hear it?  At least tell me you missed that part so I can make sense of your reply. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Larry said:

 

No. He specifically said otherwise. That DOJ policy is not to accuse POTUS of a crime, because there isn't a court to hear it. 

 

But nice try, pushing that narrative. 

 

Stating the facts is not indicting, nor accusing.

 

If he had more evidence than what is in the report you might have a point, 

 

The fact is he provided the information he gathered, if you see a crime in it it is up to congress to pursue  formal charges.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nadler just now figuring out that????

 

:ols:

 

 

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.