America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 40,459 comments
  • 1,848,355 views
TexRex
Hey look, more conjecture based on the analysis of Mueller's findings by a demonstrably biased Trump appointee (The Department of Redundancy Department approves of this description) being accepted as Mueller's actual findings.
Click to expand...
Given that Mueller has called out lies about the report before(think the Media's claims on the Manafort Report) the Summary is very likely to be correct, sure it would be best if the Republicans allowed the Report in full to be released, but it's naive knowing what Mueller has said in the past about reported information not to be correct.

He would of said something that is for sure.
 
Last edited:
mustafur
Given that Mueller has called out lies about the report before(think the Media's claims on the Manafort Report) the Summary is very likely to be correct, sure it would be best if the Republicans allowed the Report in full to be released, but it's naive knowing what Mueller has said in the past about reported information not to be correct.

He would of said something that is for sure.
Click to expand...
:odd:

"Because it was this way before, it's probably this way now"?
 
TexRex
:odd:

"Because it was this way before, it's probably this way now"?
Click to expand...
Because there isn't all information, all the info we got is wrong.

It works the same, atleast there is record on my claim to back it up.

Mueller's report isn't public but he isn't stopped from saying the summary is untrue, and given the time spent on the report it would be in his best interest to say so if it was.
 
mustafur
Because there isn't all information, all the info we got is wrong.

It works the same, atleast there is record on my claim to back it up.

Mueller's report isn't public but he isn't stopped from saying the summary is untrue, and given the time spent on the report it would be in his best interest to say so if it was.
Click to expand...
Why would that be in his best interest?

Has he shot down recent reports as he did previously?
 
Rage Racer
Hey hey... What do you mean Trump didn’t collude with Russia? You mean our efforts were going to waste? That’s sad...

:D
Click to expand...

Given the state of politics in the US today, I would hardly say that your "efforts are going to waste". On the contrary, an excellent bang for the buck, I would say.

On the other hand, given that Russia has an annual GDP smaller than that of Canada, while having 4 times the population, Putin might better spend his energy improving the living standards of his own citizens rather than monkeying around with politics in foreign countries.
 
mustafur
That would imply that was incorrect wouldn't it?

Do you have the information to say that it is incorrect?
Click to expand...
Would commenting one way or the other on Barr's determination be in Mueller's best interest? Why?

Why have you dodged my question? You demonstrated no hesitation when it came to bringing up Mueller's comments on supposed false reporting earlier in the investigation...has he done so again of others' comments on Barr's determination?

And as far as the question you asked instead of answering mine is concerned; well, as I can't answer because the question supposes comments that I don't believe I've made, I'd direct you to my remark that you quoted (or any other, really) and ask you to specify where I've said Barr's findings are incorrect. I've made a point to not address the validity of the findings as I don't have access to the source material, and therein lies the problem.

Finally, since there seems to be confusion surrounding my use of the word, I'll include this:

20190328_164421.png


I never imagined I'd have to make such a distinction, but "incomplete" ≠ "incorrect".
 
TexRex
Would commenting one way or the other on Barr's determination be in Mueller's best interest? Why?

Why have you dodged my question? You demonstrated no hesitation when it came to bringing up Mueller's comments on supposed false reporting earlier in the investigation...has he done so again of others' comments on Barr's determination?

And as far as the question you asked instead of answering mine is concerned; well, as I can't answer because the question supposes comments that I don't believe I've made, I'd direct you to my remark that you quoted (or any other, really) and ask you to specify where I've said Barr's findings are incorrect. I've made a point to not address the validity of the findings as I don't have access to the source material, and therein lies the problem.

Finally, since there seems to be confusion surrounding my use of the word, I'll include this:

View attachment 810387

I never imagined I'd have to make such a distinction, but "incomplete" ≠ "incorrect".
Click to expand...
Because wasting 2 years of your life on a 300 page report ,where you have 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences and yet not ready to defend your findings would be extremely odd, and unusual.

But please clutch to whatever beliefs your holding on this nonsense.
 
mustafur
Because wasting 2 years of your life on a 300 page report ,where you have 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences and yet not ready to defend your findings would be extremely odd, and unusual.

But please clutch to whatever beliefs your holding on this nonsense.
Click to expand...
Yeah, take that tone.

Mueller's done his job. He submitted his report to those with the power to do or not do as they see fit. He's not making this political, and I don't believe he ever has.

Way to go not answering my question again, but then I suppose that's an answer in and of itself.
 
TexRex
Yeah, take that tone.

Mueller's done his job. He submitted his report to those with the power to do or not do as they see fit. He's not making this political, and I don't believe he ever has.

Way to go not answering my question again, but then I suppose that's an answer in and of itself.
Click to expand...
I didn't get your full question but really does it matter, if he has nothing to add to what Barr said then that's it, I do think the Republicans are acting in bad faith by not releasing the full report though, but Mueller has found no reason to comment on what Barr stated.

I mean the Result was pretty obvious from the start, Trump has been as imperialist as any other president before him, he just says alot of nonsense and uses Twitter alot, the Withdrawal from the Nuclear Treaty with Russia and the lack of sanction removals(Infact he has added a few in his term) is enough proof he isn't a Russian Puppet.
 
mustafur
I didn't get your full question but really does it matter, if he has nothing to add to what Barr said then that's it, I do think the Republicans are acting in bad faith by not releasing the full report though, but Mueller has found no reason to comment on what Barr stated.
Click to expand...
Has Mueller apparently found any reason to comment on others' reporting of what Barr stated?

You said he "called out the media"--as you're demonstrably so keen on doing--when they reported incorrectly during the investigation, offering that fact up in support of some notion, but when it comes to him [presumably; I haven't been paying enough attention to know either way, and so I asked] not calling "them" out now, you've gone mute.

Has Mueller apparently found any reason to reject or support Barr's determination? I gather from your statements during our exchange that he has not. How would he benefit from commenting either way? Is doing so part of his duty?
 
TexRex
Presumably because he hasn't been called to do so. What would be the point of a hearing if his unabridged findings haven't been relinquished?
Click to expand...

If the senate block the release of the written report, why not ask Mueller to a hearing before congress?
 
PocketZeven
If the senate block the release of the written report, why not ask Mueller to a hearing before congress?
Click to expand...
I think the energy is better focused elsewhere, such as getting the actual report in its entirety, though that shouldn't be a priority either. I suspect this is going to continue to play out, but I think the fact that McTurtle is blocking the release so fervently is itself quite telling.
 
TexRex
I think the energy is better focused elsewhere, such as getting the actual report in its entirety, though that shouldn't be a priority either. I suspect this is going to continue to play out, but I think the fact that McTurtle is blocking the release so fervently is itself quite telling.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the issue of Trump being being fully exonerated is answered best by Mueller himself. A lack of evidence does not equal innocence.
 
He He He, these libs just won't stop. I never believed it. Even Van Jones called it a nothing burger.

Here is Trump on Hannity last night.

 
PocketZeven
Perhaps, but the issue of Trump being being fully exonerated is answered best by Mueller himself. A lack of evidence does not equal innocence.
Click to expand...

Legally, it kind of does. That's what innocent until proven guilty means. Unless you're just going for mob rule and trial by media. Which to be fair, does seem to be in vogue at the moment.
 
Imari
Legally, it kind of does. That's what innocent until proven guilty means. Unless you're just going for mob rule and trial by media. Which to be fair, does seem to be in vogue at the moment.
Click to expand...

I understand, but perhaps the full report might say that there is proof the campaign had contacts with russian officials, but there was no evidence to legally prove that there was a conspiracy. It is already proven that Russia actually did influence the election. the scope of the report did not cover if Trump's election as potus was a result of that influence. I think it is a big concern if the current president wouldnt have been president, without meddling by Russia.
 
As far as I've read, that is supposed to be one of the legitimate ways they influenced, by creating thousands of fake bot accounts that pushed certain things on social media. There was a guy on Rogan's podcast that said in 1 example, a fake event was set up purposely next to a liberal gathering to get die hard conservatives out to it in hopes of creating conflict that would sway public vote.
 
Was it a Russian Troll Farm, which essentially just does memes for clicks as that is their business model, but these are not proven to be connected to Russian Government.
 
Are there any criterions that define "election meddling"? Where can I read them? If I posted memes about Hillary, did I influence your elections? Is it a crime?
Is there any law that prohibits "election meddling" in a way Russia allegedly did it?
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
625K
sirjim73
sirjim73
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
452 453 454
Replies
14K
Views
766K
TPGRacing75
T
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
838
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
77
Views
7K
TB
TB

Latest Posts

Back