The TRUMP POTUS "Tribute" & "Tribulations" of the Politically Incorrect....!

Let This Thread Live or Shut It Down?

  • Let it Live!

    Votes: 14 87.5%
  • Kill it With Fire!

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

jyoung8607

FoRT
Verified
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
4,146
Location
Cincinnati, OH
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=25607
Two and a half pages of TABLE OF CONTENTS for "Section IV: Russian Government Links to and Contacts With the Trump Campaign" alone
 

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,060
Reaction score
22,129
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
I have no question of the character and integrity of those on Robert Mueller's team.
I think at least one his initial choices for team members was rather flawed; specifically Peter Strzok. Of course, he was removed.

I do not know enough abut the rest of them to form an opinion regarding their character or integrity.

I will accept their findings as fact. Will you?
Well, given Mueller's reputation, if he couldn't find evidence of collusion, then there isn't any.

-Uwe-
 

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,855
Reaction score
4,298
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Well I'm kind of proud of the fact that the" no collusion " factor was indeed not found by "ANY" American to be purported!

I see that line as very important & it's time to move on and get stuff done, versus fight over unsubstantiated accusations on all sides.

Indeed all sides as do all here have positive and negative attributes.

No one person is perfect or fails to make mistakes.
Jack: I'm surprised by your position and I'm somewhat puzzled? Are you adopting the Christian stance of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone", or do you really hold the view that allegations of "mistakes" (like - misdemeanors, breaches of the law, crimes, constitutional transgressions etc.) should be forgotten because "no one is perfect"? Or is your statement driven by the curious provision in the US constitution about the status of POTUS as being beyond the country's laws (I think this is correct)?

Don
 
Last edited:

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,155
Reaction score
8,942
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
No DON,

I am saying that no one person is perfect nor without fault and I'm simply a spectator.
Kind of neutral per se.

No one is above anyone, but I forgive what I perceive are stupid choices all the time, sometimes I'm, no routinely guilty of such a choice. I find it much more tough to forgive someone that calculated a deliberately evil act though.

If someone broke a law to do something noble & to help others & because the law was written by a lobby, than yeah in such examples I might not respect that rule.
That is why most rules here are not too enforced that violate public policy. There is Uwe's figurative invisible hand quote comes to mind.
I think government is captured with self regulation and relying on people or companies to be honest and only respond when the damage is already past reactionary when should be more preventative.
Just looking for fairness myself in balance but life isn't fair.
 

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,155
Reaction score
8,942
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Jason I don't think you can demand or expect perfection from anyone that donated their time, unless it was found they promised it or they were or close constituents inadvertently enriched & monetarily.
I believe each person has a duty if they don't like something, to do something about it and not rely on a voted or appointed official.

People have a responsibility past a vote & when the vote is pointless or checkbook not large enough.
 

Andy

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
4,081
Location
Sector 7G
VCDS Serial number
HC424490
And as a counterpoint:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/21/robert-muellers-report-debunks-russia-dossier/

The Democratic Party-financed dossier, once celebrated by liberal Washington politicians and journalists, is officially debunked, according to a review of special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page investigative report.

Dossier creator Christopher Steele, who was paid with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, leveled at least a dozen Russian election conspiracy charges against President Trump and associates.

Virtually all his information came from Kremlin intelligence, according to the dossier. Mrs. Clinton’s operatives spread the document to the Justice Department, the FBI and news outlets.

A Washington Times review shows that not one of his conspiracy charges — 0-for-12 — was proved true and most were outright rejected by Mr. Mueller. The Mueller report also puts to rest four other non-dossier conspiracy charges tied to Mr. Trump.
 

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,155
Reaction score
8,942
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Sounds like people need answers?

I recommend the "gangster hotline" for advice about everyone talking shit about each other & to get the fresh step in the box to fix the stink.
 

PetrolDave

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
4,151
Reaction score
4,110
Location
South Molton, UK
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=1423
Hey, while you're here, quick question!

The special counsel's report: legitimate, or total bullshit?

There will be a test.
What I don't understand is that if the Special Counsel felt that POTUS replies to questions was "inadequate" he decided not to seek further clarification, possibly requiring a sub poena?

That seems like an omission that will leave his report open to any interpretation that anyone wants to make of it - which makes it potentially a complete waste of time and money :confused:
 

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,060
Reaction score
22,129
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
What I don't understand is that if the Special Counsel felt that POTUS replies to questions was "inadequate" he decided not to seek further clarification, possibly requiring a sub poena?
It's a fine line that a Special Counsel walks; he reports to the Attorney General, who in turn, reports to the POTUS. It would have been entirely within the President's power to fire the Special Counsel and shut down the entire investigation, and the only recourse available if he had chosen to do that would have been for House to impeach, and the Senate to convict.

-Uwe-
 

jyoung8607

FoRT
Verified
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
4,146
Location
Cincinnati, OH
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=25607
When the report needs such aggressive pre-game and pre-spin before release, I expect I'll find a lot of Barr's carefully couched lawyer-language to be "technically true".
Oh look.





1. Mueller worked with Barr regarding summarizing the findings.

2. Muller's team put together their own summaries for public consumption.

3. March 24th - Barr disregards them and puts out his own summary letter to the public and Congress. He declines to release Mueller's team's summaries.

The author of the Iran-Contra pardons doing the job he proactively reached out to audition for, after Sessions wouldn't play ball.
Which is to say, he willfully and deliberately misled the public to conclusions like this one:

Well I'm kind of proud of the fact that the" no collusion " factor was indeed not found by "ANY" American to be purported!

I see that line as very important & it's time to move on and get stuff done, versus fight over unsubstantiated accusations on all sides.

Indeed all sides as do all here have positive and negative attributes.

No one person is perfect or fails to make mistakes.
4. March 25th - Mueller re-submits his team's summaries to Barr. (Seemingly in an effort to get Barr to release them to the public.)

5. March 27th - THIS letter in which Mueller again asks Barr to make public those summaries and further shows that any questions about redactions for those summaries is settled and they are ready for the public. Barr does not release them.

6. April 9th - Barr is asked about Mueller's response to Barr's summary. Barr claims not to know and/or that Mueller did not voice any objections to Barr's summary.

7. April 30 - News of this second letter from Mueller to Barr is publicized. DOJ confirms the letter and a follow-up phone call between Barr and Mueller. This shows Barr's statements on April 9th and 10th to be false.

Let's all applaud Barr for a job well done, the job he was hired to do.
 

Jack@European_Parts

NostraJackAss
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,155
Reaction score
8,942
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
4. March 25th - Mueller re-submits his team's summaries to Barr. (Seemingly in an effort to get Barr to release them to the public.)

5. March 27th - THIS letter in which Mueller again asks Barr to make public those summaries and further shows that any questions about redactions for those summaries is settled and they are ready for the public. Barr does not release them.

6. April 9th - Barr is asked about Mueller's response to Barr's summary. Barr claims not to know and/or that Mueller did not voice any objections to Barr's summary.

7. April 30 - News of this second letter from Mueller to Barr is publicized. DOJ confirms the letter and a follow-up phone call between Barr and Mueller. This shows Barr's statements on April 9th and 10th to be false.

Let's all applaud Barr for a job well done, the job he was hired to do.

Willfully or is being prepared to be disseminated and followed up on to clear things up and Jason, do you know what's missing yet or just assuming that the additional information is as you speculate?

What if it's all done just to keep peoples hands in the popcorn bucket and sell news item tickets?

To me, it doesn't matter a side chosen and I'm not going to speculate into anything but I applaud your attention to details you want to focus in on & raise, versus actual facts that are not with what is being surmised yet?

Now if you are right I will say you were right, however, so far I can't tell & I'm not protecting anyone's bad behavior!

I sure hope that as an American I can maintain that my Countrymen didn't shove it in our ass, I don't think that is a bad thing to hope for now is it?
 

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,060
Reaction score
22,129
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Yes, it could. But if his strategy is successful, it will be good for the US economy in the long run. And the risks are higher for China than for us; their economy is far more dependent on trade with the US than our economy is dependent on trade with them.

Why free traders and all Americans should back Trump on China policy

-Uwe-
 
Top