Trump was/is a birther. Will the next president be a poo-poo?
Seems likely.
-
Features
Mueller investigation
- Thread starter Artemus
- Start date
Trump was/is a birther. Will the next president be a poo-poo?
Seems likely.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
So your answer to substantive points is to join in with ad Homs?
Really.
I have two words for this nonsense: Roger Stone. Roger Stone is indicted for conspiring with another Trump campaign official and WikiLeaks to release or intend to release info from the DNC server. That's about as big as the Watergate scandal. As discussed before, what makes it more related to Russia is the contact with Russian agent Guccifer 2.0, the meeting with Russians, etc. Now of course Barr's words are going to summarize this in some innocuous seeming way to provide cover, but it is impossible now at this point to cry about conspiracy theorists while there was an actual group of people conspiring to commit crimes and who did commit crimes and then obstructed justice after the fact.
People can posture and name-call and lie by omission on this, but the fact remains there are indictments of Stone describing the criminal behaviors with WikiLeaks. Barr can re-frame this as not-Russia but we all know it's a proxy and has Russia fingerprints on it.
Calling Trump a birther is an adhom? Notice I was responding to Jason, not anything you wrote.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Go away unless you have something on-topic to add.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
The birthers were fond of accusing me of refusing to address their substantive points.
They didn't have any substantive points, but they accused me of refusing to address them anyway.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
So your issue was they didn’t have substantive points. Great, because, as has been demonstrated to you repeatedly, there are multiple substantive points here. So now you can grow up and address them instead of childishly throwing your poo-poo around.
Last edited:
Why didn't you tell Mueller?
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
He's the one that provided them to us, as has been abundantly demonstrated already.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Mueller already knows about the indictments of Roger Stone.
And yet, his conclusion is not the one you desperately crave. Perhaps your analysis of these points is off. By a lot.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Ad hom.
Perhaps you should demonstrate that by actually countering my analysis instead of wasting everyone's time pretending you can insult the points away.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No, there's nothing off by a lot here since Mueller's investigation led to indictments of Roger Stone ala WikiLeaks collusion. Being dismissive, doesn't make it go away.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Yet in spite of your desires, it didn't lead to an indictment of Trump. That was the goal. Given that you are still holding on to this it does show you have issues with the report.
zorq
Veteran Member
My issue with Barr`s report of the Muller report is that there wasn't enough details provided.
My issue with the conclusion of the Muller report as reported in the Barr report is that if we can' tell that there was indications of obstruction, but we can't tell if there was clear obstruction, then maybe the obstruction was very successful at hiding itself. If that is the case, then maybe the evidence for the underlying crime (collusion/conspiracy) was also successfully hidden from Muller by the successful obstruction.
Until we get more details regarding what Muller thinks the indications for obstruction are, we can't be sure what exactly what Miller's conclusion was referring to.
My issue with the conclusion of the Muller report as reported in the Barr report is that if we can' tell that there was indications of obstruction, but we can't tell if there was clear obstruction, then maybe the obstruction was very successful at hiding itself. If that is the case, then maybe the evidence for the underlying crime (collusion/conspiracy) was also successfully hidden from Muller by the successful obstruction.
Until we get more details regarding what Muller thinks the indications for obstruction are, we can't be sure what exactly what Miller's conclusion was referring to.
laughing dog
Contributor
That may have been the hope of some, but the DOJ has a policy to not indict a sitting President. Since Mueller reports to the DOJ, there was no real expectation that the DOJ would indict Trump even if Mueller found something that was indictable.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Sorry, Trausti, but I have to ask, are you five years old?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,618
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Does this look like the logic of an innocent man?
The full report, by simple definition, would be "enough."
And who is the "we" that should "take our victory" and go home, little boy?
The full report, by simple definition, would be "enough."
And who is the "we" that should "take our victory" and go home, little boy?
Elixir
Made in America
You are too cruel. The alt-right wingnuts need lots of libtards to be suffering incredible pain and humiliation, just knowing there was going be an indictment! Without that gratification, what was the point of embracing a fat classless slob in the first place?
Oh, wait. No...
They only need to reassure their fellow alt-right wingnuts that that is and always has been the case. The actual facts of the matter are irrelevant as always, for today's post-truthist, alternative-fact embracing, trumpsucking alt-right wingnuts. They can derive all the satisfaction they need simply be being told what they would like to hear... you know, like NO COLLUSION!*
*(Every time teh donald says that, the PTAFETAW believe another libtard has a heart attack)