OILERMAN Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 8 minutes ago, oldschool said: That's not how it works. Mueller,Barr, and Rosensteim have been meeting for 3 days. Barr had to include the statement about the report not exonerating Trump on obstruction or it would have looked bad when Mueller brought it up in front of Congress. You haven't been watching the news, Mueller had no say and wasn't involved the last 3 days, although it was originally reported he would be pamo9 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btowner Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No1TitansFan Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 19 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said: Jamal isn't a racist. His name is Jamal Black, ffs. Seriously... being philosophically or politically warped/weird doesn't make someone a racist. Jamal just believes odd things sometimes. We all do in at least some regards. Why even bother responding to him? Anybody who accuses half the country of hating America and being racists because their belief set differs from his is not worth the time or trouble; besides you're not going to alter his views in any way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Nator Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Mercalius said: There are crazies on both sides of the aisle. And crazy exists in both left and right wing circles. And to give some evidence to this - after positing on this forum for a decade, pointing out numerous times how I’m a moderate, stating point blank I didn’t vote for Trump and don’t like him as a person - I’m being lumped in with the alt-right and basically called a Nazi because I don’t agree with a lot of the narrative being pushed here. I haven’t stated my exact political views, nor do I intend to. There’s no reason. There’s already 8-10 people dogpiling and attempting to “trap” me into revealing extremist beliefs for merely pointing out the Russian investigation is a non-story (which was predicted for over a year by tens of millions of people). I’ve been a regular on here for close to a dozen years and folks are foaming at the mouth to call me a white supremicist. They haven’t yet, and it’s probably only the fact that I am a longtime member that they haven’t. But what does that say about the beliefs here? I’ve said little to nothing about my personal preferences and only that Trump likely isn’t the demon so many want him to be. Its this exact tactic that’s pushed so many people, many of them lifelong members, out of the Democratic Party. It’s gang mentality. It’s anti-thought. It’s lazy bullying. Demonize those that don’t agree. Make them a hashtag on Twitter. Deplatform them. SWAT them. Ruin them. The ends justify the means. Y’all are the good guys. I mean this with all sincerity. As much as a jackass can feign sincerity. People may have, and I may have overreacted to your opinions in an unfair way. Especially before letting you flesh them out further. But can you not recognize that a couple of things you have said here are right down-the-line classic redpill, online right wing speak? It’s a tip off. If you read someone on the left saying “typical cisgender male” or “check your privilege” or some dumb shit like that, don’t you feel like you can glean a lot from that about a person’s opinions? When you say “muh Russia”, and other things, you have to understand how one might rationally take that. Do you think that your wholesale gaurantee that posters want to call you racist and only haven’t due to your tenure here may be identical to the sort of attitudes you hate from the left with regards to their broad brush of right wingers? I definitely don’t think you are a white supremecist Nor are you stupid. You’ve been a level headed poster here. I have been unhelpful and perhaps wrong in some of my responses to you. But fuck you man! 3 out of the 40 podcasts I co-hosted were legit decent! (most comedy podcasts are not good. The one I was in was no different.) Edited March 24, 2019 by 'Nator Mercalius 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 16 minutes ago, oldschool said: The report 100% clears Trump and the campaign of collusion with Russia. What it left open was obstruction which Barr and Rosenstein decided to not pursue. Clearly Mueller felt something was there or he wouldn't have added the line about the report not exonerating Trump of obstruction. If you want to be technical, the official report says that “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” From a legal perspective, that means that they don’t have enough evidence to bring charges. So it does clear Trump in the sense they aren’t going to charge him with anything. But it doesn’t mean they didn’t find any evidence of it, nor does it mean that it did not happen. Again, we will have to see the full report. We know, at the very least, they coordinated with WikiLeaks (who worked with Russia). We know Manafort gave internal campaign data to a Russian oligarch. We know about the meeting at Trump Tower. We know Carter Page had direct contact with Russian intelligence. What else did the Mueller team actually find? Still unknown... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, OILERMAN said: You haven't been watching the news, Mueller had no say and wasn't involved the last 3 days, although it was originally reported he would be Barr doesnt believe a sitting President can be indicted... there is no logical reason for him to include that statement based on his own interpretation of the law. It clearly came from Mueller based on the fact he wanted to interview Trump and even discussed subpoening him with Rosenstein. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, 'Nator said: I mean this with all sincerity. As much as a jackass can feign sincerity. People may have, and I may have overreacted to your opinions in an unfair way. Especially before letting you flesh them out further. But can you not recognize that a couple of things you have said here are right down-the-line classic redpill, online right wing speak? It’s a tip off. If you read someone on the left saying “typical cisgender male” or “check your privilege” or some dumb shit like that, don’t you feel like you can glean a lot from that about a person’s opinions? When you say “muh Russia”, and other things, you have to understand how one might rationally take that. Do you think that your wholesale gaurantee that posters want to call you racist and only haven’t due to your tenure here may be identical to the sort of attitudes you hate from the left with regards to their broad brush of right wingers? I definitely don’t think you are a white supremecist Nor are you stupid. You’ve been a level headed poster here. I have been unhelpful and perhaps wrong in some of my responses to you. But fuck you man! 3 out of the 40 podcasts I co-hosted were legit decent! (most comedy podcasts are not good. The one I was in was no different.) Whoa whoa whoa you were in a comedy podcast? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, Starkiller said: If you want to be technical, the official report says that “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” From a legal perspective, that means that they don’t have enough evidence to bring charges. So it does clear Trump in the sense they aren’t going to charge him with anything. But it doesn’t mean they didn’t find any evidence of it, nor does it mean that it did not happen. Again, we will have to see the full report. We know, at the very least, they coordinated with WikiLeaks (who worked with Russia). We know Manafort gave internal campaign data to a Russian oligarch. We know about the meeting at Trump Tower. We know Carter Page had direct contact with Russian intelligence. What else did the Mueller team actually find? Still unknown... Legally it's the same thing... have you ever read a law brief before? Lol. I find it odd the summary states no evidence the campaign colluded with Russia because it sure looks like they tried based on the number of convictions and pleas that Mueller produced. If you want to exonerate Trump directly fine but seems like the summary doesnt match the results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, oldschool said: Barr doesnt believe a sitting President can be indicted... there is no logical reason for him to include that statement based on his own interpretation of the law. It clearly came from Mueller based on the fact he wanted to interview Trump and even discussed subpoening him with Rosenstein. Barr works for Trump, so his Cliffs Notes version of the report isn’t going to be the final word one way or the other. The fact that the report isn’t going to lead directly to criminal charges is good news for Trump. Beyond that, however, he can claim that it exonerates him as much as he likes but the fact is that at best the Barr summary leaves open lots of questions that (hopefully) the full report will answer. OILERMAN, thor, and Justafan 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 Barr's letter only had 3 partial sentences from the actual Mueller report thor 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Nator Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said: Whoa whoa whoa you were in a comedy podcast? It was a buddy’s podcast. From 2012-14. His creative vision. His thing. I got to cohost. I did get to hang out in the Zanies green room with comics and record for 2 years with about half of the folks who have a Netflix special right now. Marc Maron. Margaret Cho. Richard Lewis. Bert Kreishcher. Ralphie May. And about 35 more IsntLifeFunny, Justafan, and NashvilleNinja 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 thor 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, 'Nator said: It was a buddy’s podcast. From 2012-14. His creative vision. His thing. I got to cohost. I did get to hang out in the Zanies green room with comics and record for 2 years with about half of the folks who have a Netflix special right now. Marc Maron. Margaret Cho. Richard Lewis. Bert Kreishcher. Ralphie May. And about 35 more How you gonna hold out on me like that SOB. You better send me a link. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Nator Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, IsntLifeFunny said: How you gonna hold out on me like that SOB. You better send me a link. I posted them here a couple of times. People were way, way more interested in O-Man’s fat ass coworker than they were my pod shit and honestly, I get it. Co-hosting a podcast is the lowest tier of show biz barely above your uncle asking you to “show em that thing you do” when you were 4 at the family reunion. Edited March 25, 2019 by 'Nator TitanDuckFan, IsntLifeFunny, and woolfolksunclesuncle 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.