Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Options
1…186187189191192…335

Comments

  • Options
    #5642
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Yeah. I think I'm the queen. :rolleyes:

    I mean all of the people you referred to as those that would change the goalposts. I thought that was very very clear.

    I neither implied nor stated that "all the people" had shifted their goalposts. So, not it was not very clear.

    The report summary is very unequivocal, no collusion with Russia. If they get him for other things, great, but that aspect can be put to bed. Unless Barr is lying through his teeth but we'll find that out very very quickly.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5643
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,373 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    JRant wrote: »
    I neither implied nor stated that "all the people" had shifted their goalposts. So, not it was not very clear.

    The report summary is very unequivocal, no collusion with Russia. If they get him for other things, great, but that aspect can be put to bed. Unless Barr is lying through his teeth but we'll find that out very very quickly.

    Barr may now have to testify before Congress. So he might not want to lie given what has happened to Flynn & Co. However, he's an accomplished lawyer so I doubt if he is guilty of anything other than possible spin and omission - which will be easily brushed aside as interpretation.


  • Options
    #5644
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,716 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    JRant wrote: »
    I neither implied nor stated that "all the people" had shifted their goalposts. So, not it was not very clear.

    You said

    I" think you know the answer to that Eric. Barr is now a lackey so only the full report will do. If that's released then it will move on to "we need to see all the evidence".

    That's the we I'm referring to.

    Anyway, no need for the attitude. We both agree the report should be released. Lets move on.


  • Options
    #5645
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,502 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Amazing the way trump supporters are back posting in the forum.

    I hope ye stick around this time.

    Because things are only getting started.

    Barr is being subpoenaed before the House.

    I'll wait until I see the report if its all the same.


    Off course their back, try talking about trump anywhere else and your directed to the politics forum.

    Don't know why you think they'll stick around though, when they'll just be called racists, bigots, and intellectual inferior, ganged up on and eventually banned for daring to have a differing opinion off the thread narrative.

    Barr being subpoenaed wont change the out come.

    Why are you waiting to see the report? The findings of the investigation are already out. NO Russian collusion was found. :D


  • Options
    #5646
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    everlast75 wrote: »
    You said

    I" think you know the answer to that Eric. Barr is now a lackey so only the full report will do. If that's released then it will move on to "we need to see all the evidence".

    That's the we I'm referring to.

    Anyway, no need for the attitude. We both agree the report should be released. Lets move on.

    Zero attitude here compadre, no idea why you think that.
    Yeah, release the full report and be done with it.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5647
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Barr may now have to testify before Congress. So he might not want to lie given what has happened to Flynn & Co. However, he's an accomplished lawyer so I doubt if he is guilty of anything other than possible spin and omission - which will be easily brushed aside as interpretation.

    I just don't get it, what would Barr gain by not giving an accurate summary of the report?
    Either what he says is true or it's not. I don't see how spinning it one way or the other would work as it is fairly obvious that the full report will be released.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5648
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,373 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    JRant wrote: »
    I just don't get it, what would Barr gain by not giving an accurate summary of the report?
    Either what he says is true or it's not. I don't see how spinning it one way or the other would work as it is fairly obvious that the full report will be released.

    Dunno. Nadler said that there were "concerning discrepancies" so he would be calling Barr before The House Judiciary Committee. Interestingly, Mueller wasn't consulted before Barr wrote his summary.


  • Options
    #5649
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    He'll be done for tax fraud etc by the SDNY regardless. Keep calm, people.

    It'll also be interesting to see what happens with the absurd and illegal deal that Jeffrey Epstein got - a year of part-time imprisonment for raping 100's of girls, as well as an agreement to not prosecute anyone else involved. It is virtually certain that a bucketload of various American luminaries were involved in the case, and Trump (and Bill Clinton) are known to have been frequent guests of his.

    Even if no retrial is held, it's quite possible the details will come out, and even if Trump was just hanging around a guy who raped hundreds of children, it will at the very least be politcally difficult for him.

    Even the Republicans can sometimes be persuaded to drop candidates who have suspect behaviour with children as we saw with Roy Moore.


  • Options
    #5650
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,716 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    JRant wrote: »
    I just don't get it, what would Barr gain by not giving an accurate summary of the report?
    Either what he says is true or it's not. I don't see how spinning it one way or the other would work as it is fairly obvious that the full report will be released.

    Its intriguing.

    I would genuinely be happy if there was no collusion. But I've a list of questions which I'll post tomorrow and I would welcome thwe views of anyone interested in a reasoned debate.

    I've made no secret that I despise Trump. I do. On good grounds too.

    Am I disheartened with the apparent report? Yup.
    Do I feel that its incomplete considering a number of factors, to include not questioning Trump? Yup.

    But the report will be the report and I will qccept the findings. Mueller, despite the onslaught of abuse from Trump and his supporters, is a decent man I believe and I make rhat statement regardless of what the report says. I would like to think others would too.


  • Options
    #5651
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    JRant wrote: »
    I just don't get it, what would Barr gain by not giving an accurate summary of the report?
    Either what he says is true or it's not. I don't see how spinning it one way or the other would work as it is fairly obvious that the full report will be released.

    You don't see how spinning a report would benefit trump....


    Ah jaysus....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5652
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 18,002 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    listermint wrote: »
    You don't see how spinning a report would benefit trump....


    Ah jaysus....

    It makes no sense as it will ultimately be impossible to keep the truth of this specific report a secret if it turns out he did spin it


  • Options
    #5653
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    There are red flags in Barr's statement.

    On Russian collusion, it only refers to the specific Russian government operations for which Mueller brought indictments.

    Barr says the following: "The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

    But Mueller does not say that. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    This also refers only to the two specific crimes for which Mueller brought indictments.

    So it looks as if Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller.

    The obstruction of justice thing stinks. The full report has to be published and Congress needs to subpoena Barr and Mueller, and move ahead with more investigations.

    There isn't one full sentence from Mueller in Barr's letter. This what Barr was brought in to do, as was Whitaker before him. Whitewash the report in the eyes of the public.

    The whole letter stinks of a cover up.


  • Options
    #5654
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,972 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    VinLieger wrote: »
    It makes no sense as it will ultimately be impossible to keep the truth of this specific report a secret if it turns out he did spin it

    Of course it makes sense


    He's spent the last two years spinning. Facts or none.


  • Options
    #5655
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Dunno. Nadler said that there were "concerning discrepancies" so he would be calling Barr before The House Judiciary Committee. Interestingly, Mueller wasn't consulted before Barr wrote his summary.

    I may be wrong but I didn't think he needed to consult Mueller but I'm open to correction

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5656
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,373 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    JRant wrote: »
    I may be wrong but I didn't think he needed to consult Mueller but I'm open to correction

    I would think not. But it is odd, to say the least, that he wouldn't have consulted Mueller for clarifications before formulating his interpretation.


  • Options
    #5657
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    listermint wrote: »
    You don't see how spinning a report would benefit trump....


    Ah jaysus....

    That's not what I said. I said I can't see how spinning it would work as the full report was always going to be released.

    Ah jaysus is right.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5658
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,716 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    JRant wrote: »
    I may be wrong but I didn't think he needed to consult Mueller but I'm open to correction

    I don't think he does need to consult, but his letter announcing the delivery of the report to him did say that he would continue to work with Rod R and Mueller going forward.

    Now, like you said - he didn't have to. But abridging what is said to be a couple of hundred pages down to 4 seems... unusual.


  • Options
    #5659
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    There are red flags in Barr's statement.

    On Russian collusion, it only refers to the specific Russian government operations for which Mueller brought indictments.

    Barr says the following: "The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

    But Mueller does not say that. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    This also refers only to the two specific crimes for which Mueller brought indictments.

    So it looks as if Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller.

    The obstruction of justice thing stinks. The full report has to be published and Congress needs to subpoena Barr and Mueller, and move ahead with more investigations.

    There isn't one full sentence from Mueller in Barr's letter. This what Barr was brought in to do, as was Whitaker before him. Whitewash the report in the eyes of the public.

    The whole letter stinks of a cover up.

    So investigate the investigation?

    We don't know how the summary compares to the full report but we'll find out fairly quickly.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5660
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    everlast75 wrote: »
    I don't think he does need to consult, but his letter announcing the delivery of the report to him did say that he would continue to work with Rod R and Mueller going forward.

    Now, like you said - he didn't have to. But abridging what is said to be a couple of hundred pages down to 4 seems... unusual.

    I'd imagine the report as an exec summary and conclusion section that Barr used for his own summary.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5661
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,716 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    JRant wrote: »
    That's not what I said. I said I can't see how spinning it would work as the full report was always going to be released.

    Ah jaysus is right.

    Devon Nunes said the report should be burned

    https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1109829027001442305?s=19

    So there are opponents to allowing that to happen.

    Trump et al has tried to stop this report from the get go.

    However, it would appear he believes it exonerates him and now believes it is legitimate.

    In that case, he should have no problem releasing it, and waive any claim of executive privilege too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5662
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    JRant wrote: »
    That's not what I said. I said I can't see how spinning it would work as the full report was always going to be released.

    Ah jaysus is right.
    What gives you any confidence that the full report will be released?

    I think this is spectacularly naive.

    Trump doesn't voluntarily release documents and I expect he'll do everything in his power to stop the release of this.


  • Options
    #5663
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,453 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Would it not be spectacularly strange for the POTUS not to release fully a report that exonerates him??


  • Options
    #5664
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Trump and other aides got cleared and were not indicted. Am I not sure what people are expecting to find in the full report?

    The full report is not going to change the narrative. You may be able to spin some narrative the Russians wanted Trump to win and helped him maybe? But you not going to be able to link Trump and his aides to GRU and Putin. Muller could not find that info and clear as day right now.


  • Options
    #5665
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Trump and other aides got cleared and were not indicted. Am I not sure what people are expecting to find in the full report?

    The full report is not going to change the narrative. You may be able to spin some narrative the Russians wanted Trump to win and helped him maybe? But you not going to be able to link Trump and his aides to GRU and Putin. Muller could not find that info and clear as day right now.

    Why are you arguing against transparency?

    If you say the report clears your guy, why would you not want it released?

    What's to hide?

    Don't the American public deserve full transparency? This is the very least you'd expect if democracy is to be upheld.


  • Options
    #5666
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Ok lets say instead of what we are told it says, lets say the report said that Trump was as guilty as hell. Then Trump says that it is lies and a cover up............................ what would you guys be thinking??

    Maybe there is no smoking gun because nobody took the shot?


  • Options
    #5667
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    Why are you arguing against transparency?

    If you say the report clears your guy, why would you not want it released?

    What's to hide?

    Don't the American public deserve full transparency? This is the very least you'd expect if democracy is to be upheld.

    Whats democratic about insisting a guy is guilty despite the lack of evidence? The whole government went after him and it turned out there was nothing to it. Dont you think a little bit of evidence would exist given that we think the guy is a moron?

    There is no reason for the public to see the findings as it would just lead to nit picking and more witch hunting.

    The only question is, did he do something illegal. There is nothing to suggest he did. So let the guy alone.


  • Options
    #5668
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,373 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Trump and other aides got cleared and were not indicted. Am I not sure what people are expecting to find in the full report?

    The full report is not going to change the narrative. You may be able to spin some narrative the Russians wanted Trump to win and helped him maybe? But you not going to be able to link Trump and his aides to GRU and Putin. Muller could not find that info and clear as day right now.

    Well, other aides apart from Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, Stone, Papadopolous and others.


  • Options
    #5669
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,716 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    There's plenty to speculate about.

    For example, we do know the report states that trump was not exonerated. What does that mean? Why put it in at all?

    It would indicate to me there was some evidence, but not enough to meet the burden of criminal liability and so Mueller decided not to indict.

    So, if that's the case then by criminal standards Trump is not guilty of conspiring with the Russian government. No problem.

    Some here have said as a result, Trump is innocent. He may certainly be innocent on the criminal front.

    But the question is if there was some evidence, and there appears to be, then does it warrant impeachment. That's a call for the politicians.


  • Options
    #5670
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    Mr.H wrote: »
    Whats democratic about insisting a guy is guilty despite the lack of evidence? The whole government went after him and it turned out there was nothing to it. Dont you think a little bit of evidence would exist given that we think the guy is a moron?

    There is no reason for the public to see the findings as it would just lead to nit picking and more witch hunting.

    The only question is, did he do something illegal. There is nothing to suggest he did. So let the guy alone.
    All we have to go on so far is a four page summary by somebody who Trump appointed for the express purpose of writing a biased, partisan summary.

    That summary contains precisely zero full sentences from the actual report.

    You say there is no reason to see the findings. Only somebody who is afraid of the findings would say that.

    In a democracy, full transparency is needed. Otherwise, you can't have cofidence in a democracy.

    How can a public have any confidence in a democracy if the results of an investigation are suppressed for obviously cynical reasons?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5671
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Sense from a Democrat supporter:

    https://twitter.com/LarryPDonnelly/status/1109917591831756801

    "The #MuellerReport isn’t what some (not me) thought/hoped it’d be. Now, Democrats (my party) must distance themselves from the deranged Trump haters, far left wing fringe and conspiracy theorists who claimed it would unearth treason - and beat this objectively bad POTUS in 2020."

    Democrats need to move on, they along with Trump haters really lost focus based on the belief Mueller would end up bringing down Trump.

    The Democrats won't beat Trump if they keep on with this.They need to focus on policy, keep up with this and they will as Larry Donnelly says, look as bad as "deranged Trump haters" and I can't see that helping any Democrat beat Trump next year.
    Trump is far tougher as an opponent now than he was 24 hours ago for the 2020 Presidential election.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement