Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

 

 

Also SQUEEEEEEEEE GARRY KASPAROV NOTICED ME

 

 

 

 

But for real though, this is an important thread about the problem of just saying "Russian Government."

 

Russian government can be construed very narrowly.  It can also be construed very broadly.  How narrowly did Mueller define it?  How narrowly did Barr?

 

What about entities that are outside of the Russian government, like wikileaks?  Is conspiracy with wikileaks any better than with the Russian government?

 

These are important questions Barr's letter does not answer, and his very lawyeresque language is a red flag.

 

 

I have read and written many things to reach a certain conclusion that the facts don't necessarily follow.  That's what lawyers do.  This letter reads like that.

Edited by DogofWar1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Springfield said:

It is of note, that according to Cohen, Trump would never specifically talk or ask anyone to talk to the Russians.  People would simply do it for him because that’s what needed to be done.

 

So given that revaluation, is it really a surprise that Muller didn’t uncover a conspiracy?

 

Oh, I've always assumed that that's the way corrupt organizations do things. Whether it's a politician taking illegal cash or an NCAA football team paying a player or a corporation dumping chemicals in the creek. There's a disposable subordinate who's portfolio is "I don't want to know about it". 

 

It's been obvious for years that Trump uses his family for that. (And no doubt several other people, like Cohen.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Barr, took thousands of pages and in less than two days broke it down to a four page summary. In that summary, he said that Mueller said that Trump didn't do it...but may have done it. Why, gee! Thanks, Barr. How about you stop killing your legacy for Trump and let the report speak for itself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

Mueller punted to AG (specifically why is not fully said)AG is a Trump thrall.  AG let Trump go.  

 

Just pointing out - At least according to the one page I've seen posted here, Mueller punted, but did not specify who to. 

 

Barr ran forward and appointed himself, and signaled fair catch. 

 

Bear in mind, the whole justification for DOJ's policy of leaving POTUS alone is "that's Congress' decision". 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So in 2020 Bernie Sanders can hold a press conference and request the UK hack Trumps private emails to find out what dirt he might be hiding. Then later that day, the UK does it. Later, a close advisor of Bernie’s and an associate of his campaign can coordinate the leaks of these emails to counter negative news on Bernie throughout the campaign. 

 

And everybody on the right would be ok with this? Because that’s the message we are sending here. It’s open season on our presidential elections now. 

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would not surprise me if we were to find, potentially soon, that Trump campaign officials conspired/coordinated with wikileaks or another non-governmental organization (with close ties to the Kremlin)

 

The letter seems tailor-written to shy away from that, despite it being probably the most obvious follow-up question.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

So in 2020 Bernie Sanders can hold a press conference and request the UK hack Trumps private emails to find out what dirt he might be hiding. Then later that day, the UK does it. Later, a close advisor of Bernie’s and an associate of his campaign can coordinate the leaks of these emails to counter negative news on Bernie throughout the campaign. 

  

And everybody on the right would be ok with this? Because that’s the message we are sending here. It’s open season on our presidential elections now. 

Don't forget about Bernie's son setting up a meeting thinking the UK government will give him dirt on his father's opponent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:
 

 

 

I have read and written many things to reach a certain conclusion that the facts don't necessarily follow.  That's what lawyers do.  This letter reads like that.

 

Are you still doing that?

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DogofWar1 said:

Absolutely, that's part of zealously representing a client.

 

The question we must ask tonight is, who is Barr's client?  The USA and its people, or Donald Trump?

 

That is a good question, of course it can be both w/o conflict.

 

I meant in this thread btw, old habits die hard. :pint:

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

I just want to say that nothing that's happened today or this weekend has moved the needle at all on who will and won't for Trump. Not a single vote. 

 

I think the finding of no collusion(if verified) certainly will impact some votes...certainly not many regulars here though.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Could you please quote the "finding of no collusion" part of the report?  

 

Not a Republican shill claiming that it's in there, somewhere. The report's finding. 

 

exhibit A  :ols:

 

I guess ya just missed the "if verified" in my post?

I do admit I have a higher opinion of Barr than many of you though.

  • Confused 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...