Brit has been critical of Trump many times and he is spot on here about the media.

trey3216 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

dt supporters have a way of emptying words of their meaning.
Lies do that.

---

Like when you try to turn God into god with a little g?

---

No poopyhead! Stop making stuff up.
The secular world is leaving the church in groves because you insist on requiring them to believe an impossible theism.
I still believe the Christian God holds one of the strongest hopes for humankind and you don't get to try rob my God of meaning.

---

Are the groves of cedar, pine, or mangrove?

---

My apologies. Droves not groves.
The question still stands. Do you want to reach secular folk? I would assume Yes! After all the Great Commission sends you out to make disciples. Your doctrine of omnipotence is based in an d theism. People want to believe but they buying the omnipotence part. They will buy the reality that grants them worth by giving them free will and knowing no power can annul that will.

And the cherry on top...

This video could go on for 24 hours with all the lies...

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I get the celebrating now in the short term, since this letter is tailor made for the kind of headlines Trump wanted out of it. But surely even the Right has to understand that in the long-term, this letter isn't going to cut it. Barr's conclusions by themselves aren't enough, and there are enough loose threads left hanging by this letter that we need to see at least some of the underlying report.

The only direct quote provided from the Mueller Report on the subject states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". That's a very brief snippet from what is surely a very lengthy explanation. "Did not establish" is also very different from "no evidence" or "established that X did not happen", and the words "Russian Government" are doing a lot of work there when you consider the revelation that Manafort was dealing regularly with an ex Russian GRU agent.

There is also thought to be at least 1 evidentiary subpoena issued by Mueller that is still being litigated, which raises questions of its own about how a report was issued without that wrapped up. I'm also curious why Jerome Corsi was never charged after (he says) being notified to expect it for lying. Unfortunately, for now it seems that a lot of questions will remain unaddressed, and a lot of people will pretend that is not so to declare victory.

---

There are some of the brightest minds of former special prosectors who are saying there couldn't have been a more definitive statement from Mueller that there as 100% NO COLLUSION. Are you really trying to spin this by saying there still could have been? What is your background to make this statement, watching CNN & MSNBC commentators who are doubling down after lying for 2 1/2 yrs. Are you still believing these people?

---

You literally quoted me giving examples of more definitive statements... "Did not establish" is markedly different from "established that XYZ did not". I even gave examples of hanging loose threads still to be answered. Surely the Mueller pull-quote sentence Barr used was part of a larger paragraph, why didn't he quote more of it to contextualize? Because like it or not, that is a pretty narrowly qualified statement given the allegations involved. Why should we essentially have to take his word for it when Mueller wrote a detailed answer to the question(s)? Especially after the bullsht selective disclosures to support a narrative Nunes pulled with the Page memo.

One sentence stripped of all context and wrapped in a coating of Barr's "conclusions" is not enough for me, so let's see the report. The unbelievable irony and similarity of using those last words is not lost on me as a Baylor alum, and unlike Pepper Hamilton Mueller actually did compile a document, so again, let's see the report. I could be wrong about this (I hope), but I doubt Barr let's it come out in a substantially complete form while he is AG.

As for people lying the last 2.5yrs, I'd love to hear an explanation for all the Trump people's lies about ties to Russia for all that time too.

---

Wait, you have a law degree, right? What shtty, second-rate law program did you go to? For the same reason courts find accused people "not guilty" is the same reason the findings were worded the way they were.

And for the past 2 years you have been effectively saying there is indisputable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. What evidence do you have that Mueller missed? We need to send it to congress immediately. Or were you just assuming Maddow was telling the truth?

Trump is sketchy as fck, I can't stand the guy and I disagree with conservative Republicans that support him, but the democrats and the media look foolish today for continuing the Russia collusion narrative for so long. An extensive, impartial investigation effectively found Trump not guilty. Time to move on.

---

I get the "did not establish" language. I was just pointing out that it isn't as definitive as y'all make it out to be, and could have been more so, especially when you figure that was apparently the most definitive statement Barr could pull from what is reportedly a 600pg document. I'd really like to see the whole sentence at least, if not the paragraph it comes from. I've thought since Manafort's feigned cooperation stunt that Mueller had a less-than coin-flip chance of being able to conclusively prove anything against Trump specifically. The way they went hard after Manafort says to me that Mueller viewed him as the fulcrum for whatever malfeasance he believes was going on with the Trump campaign, with the question being was he directed from higher up or working independently. Trump may be the most ignorant and uninformed POTUS we'll ever see, but he certainly knows how to insulate himself from liability (civil and criminal), and Manafort has proven willing to keep his mouth shut while he waits for a pardon.

At this point without the underlying report available, I'm just trying to square the one incomplete (hence the brackets around the [T] at the start of the cite, indicating the capitalization was new formating for Barr's summary and there were some preceding words that didn't make it in) sentence from Mueller's report that Barr cited with the knowledge we have from Manafort's case. We know for a fact that Mueller's team at least believed (I'd be very surprised if they didn't have evidence to back it up since they took Manafort's freedom away over lying about it) Manafort was regularly meeting with an ex Russian spy named Konstantin Kilimnik. That knowledge makes Mueller's narrowly qualified and incomplete sentence about coordinating with the "Russian Government" a little more conspicuous in it's narrowness, don't you think? Manafort's dealings with Russian non governmental cut-outs like Kilimnik (which he admits on the record to sharing campaign polling data with) and Oleg Deripaska is seemingly not covered by the provided statement from Mueller's Report about not establishing proof of coordination with the Russian Government. Roger Stone is also known to have been in somewhat regular contact with Julian Assange at Wikileaks, another Russian cut-out that isn't covered by Mueller's statement, and at least once at the direction of a "senior campaign official" according to his indictment. Don Jr also accepted a meeting after being promised the help of the "Russian Government" by a representative of yet another Russian billionaire, and thats where the "did not establish" language probably kicks in; we know he enthusiastically took the meeting, and Mueller was apparently unable to establish that a deal was struck...but that doesn't make it any less suspicious or answer any questions about the event that have been raised.

Barr is a lawyer too, it's not lost on him that specific words have specific meanings and games can be played when your audience can't see the rest of the document. You guys are acting like it's the height of impossibility that Barr would use one quick pull quote to put his spin on things and crystallize a narrative before any contradicting info ever comes out, even though we all watched Devin Nunes do exactly that with his Carter Page memo. I imagine at some point in the near future we will hear from Mueller himself in a hearing, and if he says that Barr's summary is an accurate representation of both the spirit and letter of the Report, then that would have to suffice. As it stand though, Barr's summary left a whole lot of loose threads hanging around, and I sincerely hope that they don't bury the Report past 2020 so we just have to take his word for it on things.

Notice also how I typed all that out without any insults or personal digs? You should try it sometime, you're about one degree away from being Doc and two degrees from Golem. Still a few steps off from Florda though at least...

---

Hang in there. I'm sure it's but a matter of time until the full context is revealed and Trump is led from office in cuffs.

---

That's pretty rich coming from the "reinvestigate Hillary so we can Lock Her Up" crowd, but irony is dead in these days of a reality TV POTUS.

---

Yeah you'd have to first "investigate" her before you can "reinvestigate" her wouldn't you?

You seem to have conveniently left that out?

What kind of lawyer are you anyway?

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

^^^ Equals 98.7%?

He!! they can even do simple addition

riflebear said:

---

And the cherry on top...

---

Really bad day for democrats everywhere!

Florda_mike said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

^^^ Equals 98.7%?

He!! they can even do simple addition

---

quash's guy and Bigfoot split the other .01%

ValhallaBear said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

^^^ Equals 98.7%?

He!! they can even do simple addition

---

quash's guy and Bigfoot split the other .01%

---

AckAckAckAckAckAck!!!! At least Bigfoot can name at least one world leader.

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I get the celebrating now in the short term, since this letter is tailor made for the kind of headlines Trump wanted out of it. But surely even the Right has to understand that in the long-term, this letter isn't going to cut it. Barr's conclusions by themselves aren't enough, and there are enough loose threads left hanging by this letter that we need to see at least some of the underlying report.

The only direct quote provided from the Mueller Report on the subject states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". That's a very brief snippet from what is surely a very lengthy explanation. "Did not establish" is also very different from "no evidence" or "established that X did not happen", and the words "Russian Government" are doing a lot of work there when you consider the revelation that Manafort was dealing regularly with an ex Russian GRU agent.

There is also thought to be at least 1 evidentiary subpoena issued by Mueller that is still being litigated, which raises questions of its own about how a report was issued without that wrapped up. I'm also curious why Jerome Corsi was never charged after (he says) being notified to expect it for lying. Unfortunately, for now it seems that a lot of questions will remain unaddressed, and a lot of people will pretend that is not so to declare victory.

---

There are some of the brightest minds of former special prosectors who are saying there couldn't have been a more definitive statement from Mueller that there as 100% NO COLLUSION. Are you really trying to spin this by saying there still could have been? What is your background to make this statement, watching CNN & MSNBC commentators who are doubling down after lying for 2 1/2 yrs. Are you still believing these people?

---

You literally quoted me giving examples of more definitive statements... "Did not establish" is markedly different from "established that XYZ did not". I even gave examples of hanging loose threads still to be answered. Surely the Mueller pull-quote sentence Barr used was part of a larger paragraph, why didn't he quote more of it to contextualize? Because like it or not, that is a pretty narrowly qualified statement given the allegations involved. Why should we essentially have to take his word for it when Mueller wrote a detailed answer to the question(s)? Especially after the bullsht selective disclosures to support a narrative Nunes pulled with the Page memo.

One sentence stripped of all context and wrapped in a coating of Barr's "conclusions" is not enough for me, so let's see the report. The unbelievable irony and similarity of using those last words is not lost on me as a Baylor alum, and unlike Pepper Hamilton Mueller actually did compile a document, so again, let's see the report. I could be wrong about this (I hope), but I doubt Barr let's it come out in a substantially complete form while he is AG.

As for people lying the last 2.5yrs, I'd love to hear an explanation for all the Trump people's lies about ties to Russia for all that time too.

---

Wait, you have a law degree, right? What shtty, second-rate law program did you go to? For the same reason courts find accused people "not guilty" is the same reason the findings were worded the way they were.

And for the past 2 years you have been effectively saying there is indisputable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. What evidence do you have that Mueller missed? We need to send it to congress immediately. Or were you just assuming Maddow was telling the truth?

Trump is sketchy as fck, I can't stand the guy and I disagree with conservative Republicans that support him, but the democrats and the media look foolish today for continuing the Russia collusion narrative for so long. An extensive, impartial investigation effectively found Trump not guilty. Time to move on.

---

I get the "did not establish" language. I was just pointing out that it isn't as definitive as y'all make it out to be, and could have been more so, especially when you figure that was apparently the most definitive statement Barr could pull from what is reportedly a 600pg document. I'd really like to see the whole sentence at least, if not the paragraph it comes from. I've thought since Manafort's feigned cooperation stunt that Mueller had a less-than coin-flip chance of being able to conclusively prove anything against Trump specifically. The way they went hard after Manafort says to me that Mueller viewed him as the fulcrum for whatever malfeasance he believes was going on with the Trump campaign, with the question being was he directed from higher up or working independently. Trump may be the most ignorant and uninformed POTUS we'll ever see, but he certainly knows how to insulate himself from liability (civil and criminal), and Manafort has proven willing to keep his mouth shut while he waits for a pardon.

At this point without the underlying report available, I'm just trying to square the one incomplete (hence the brackets around the [T] at the start of the cite, indicating the capitalization was new formating for Barr's summary and there were some preceding words that didn't make it in) sentence from Mueller's report that Barr cited with the knowledge we have from Manafort's case. We know for a fact that Mueller's team at least believed (I'd be very surprised if they didn't have evidence to back it up since they took Manafort's freedom away over lying about it) Manafort was regularly meeting with an ex Russian spy named Konstantin Kilimnik. That knowledge makes Mueller's narrowly qualified and incomplete sentence about coordinating with the "Russian Government" a little more conspicuous in it's narrowness, don't you think? Manafort's dealings with Russian non governmental cut-outs like Kilimnik (which he admits on the record to sharing campaign polling data with) and Oleg Deripaska is seemingly not covered by the provided statement from Mueller's Report about not establishing proof of coordination with the Russian Government. Roger Stone is also known to have been in somewhat regular contact with Julian Assange at Wikileaks, another Russian cut-out that isn't covered by Mueller's statement, and at least once at the direction of a "senior campaign official" according to his indictment. Don Jr also accepted a meeting after being promised the help of the "Russian Government" by a representative of yet another Russian billionaire, and thats where the "did not establish" language probably kicks in; we know he enthusiastically took the meeting, and Mueller was apparently unable to establish that a deal was struck...but that doesn't make it any less suspicious or answer any questions about the event that have been raised.

Barr is a lawyer too, it's not lost on him that specific words have specific meanings and games can be played when your audience can't see the rest of the document. You guys are acting like it's the height of impossibility that Barr would use one quick pull quote to put his spin on things and crystallize a narrative before any contradicting info ever comes out, even though we all watched Devin Nunes do exactly that with his Carter Page memo. I imagine at some point in the near future we will hear from Mueller himself in a hearing, and if he says that Barr's summary is an accurate representation of both the spirit and letter of the Report, then that would have to suffice. As it stand though, Barr's summary left a whole lot of loose threads hanging around, and I sincerely hope that they don't bury the Report past 2020 so we just have to take his word for it on things.

Notice also how I typed all that out without any insults or personal digs? You should try it sometime, you're about one degree away from being Doc and two degrees from Golem. Still a few steps off from Florda though at least...

---

Hang in there. I'm sure it's but a matter of time until the full context is revealed and Trump is led from office in cuffs.

---

That's pretty rich coming from the "reinvestigate Hillary so we can Lock Her Up" crowd, but irony is dead in these days of a reality TV POTUS.

The only scenario where Trump gets to wear steel bracelets is after his Presidency ends. We've had this conversation before, Michael Cohen plead guilty to a felony committed at the direction of Individual-1, the only thing stopping Individual-1 from being charged is the Office of the Presidency. I suspect Dems will become well versed in financial fraud laws soon too, since Trump seems to have a penchant for inflating (misconstruing) values on official loan and insurance documents, so Trump may have that to worry about after his term in office ends too.

---

What kind of loan and insurance documents are you referring to? Every insurance policy and loan I'm aware of is subject to an appraisal completed by an independent appraiser. Are you suggesting Trump submitted appraisals for his properties? Or are you talking about loan applications, which are understood to just be estimates and independent verification by financial institutions is required by law?

ValhallaBear said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

^^^ Equals 98.7%?

He!! they can even do simple addition

---

quash's guy and Bigfoot split the other .01%

---

Oh well, guess I can't add either, 99.7%

riflebear said:

---

---

Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.

You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.

ValhallaBear said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

---

^^^ Equals 98.7%?

He!! they can even do simple addition

---

quash's guy and Bigfoot split the other .01%

---

The way they marginalize third party candidates I would say the other .3 (math, dudes 98.1 + 1.6 = 99.7) was a rounding error.

ValhallaBear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.

You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.

---

'As a libertarian I am totally opposed to intrusive government (unless they're intruding on someone I don't like)

Devin Nunes is a ****ing hero

You don't understand his lawsuit which is why you're confused again

---

It's a snowflake lawsuit. Waaaah, Nunes Cow, waaah.

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.

You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.

---

'As a libertarian I am totally opposed to intrusive government (unless they're intruding on someone I don't like)

Devin Nunes is a ****ing hero

You don't understand his lawsuit which is why you're confused again

---

It's a snowflake lawsuit. Waaaah, Nunes Cow, waaah.

---

What exactly qualifies as a snowflake lawsuit? You throw that term around a lot, so I just want to understand what qualifies this lawsuit as one that is snowflake.

Tia

Osodecentx said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.

You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.

---

Nunes has been one of a handful of people in Washington who has been right all along and who took a lot of heat for it.

---

Nunes has been proven correct

---

In what way? His unmasking tantrum fell apart and has been seemingly discarded by even Nunes himself. His Carter Page memo fell apart too, after Schiff released a supplement showing that Nunes was deliberately misrepresenting passages stripped of context, and flat out ignoring others, to frame a narrative. All Nunes has done in this entire saga is run interference and throw up partisan smokescreens for Trump's unsophisticated supporters to consume and pretend like they understand what's going on. Nunes purposefully misrepresents legal conceps to an audience of people that doesn't know any better.

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.

You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.

---

Nunes has been one of a handful of people in Washington who has been right all along and who took a lot of heat for it.

---

Nunes has been proven correct

---

In what way? His unmasking tantrum fell apart and has been seemingly discarded by even Nunes himself. His Carter Page memo fell apart too, after Schiff released a supplement showing that Nunes was deliberately misrepresenting passages stripped of context, and flat out ignoring others, to frame a narrative. All Nunes has done in this entire saga is run interference and throw up partisan smokescreens for Trump's unsophisticated supporters to consume and pretend like they understand what's going on. Nunes purposefully misrepresents legal conceps to an audience of people that doesn't know any better.

---

You've been getting incorrect information. This is why it doesn't make sense to you.

You're going to have to look at both sides and .gov documents.

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.

You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.

---

Nunes has been one of a handful of people in Washington who has been right all along and who took a lot of heat for it.

---

Nunes has been proven correct

---

In what way? His unmasking tantrum fell apart and has been seemingly discarded by even Nunes himself. His Carter Page memo fell apart too, after Schiff released a supplement showing that Nunes was deliberately misrepresenting passages stripped of context, and flat out ignoring others, to frame a narrative. All Nunes has done in this entire saga is run interference and throw up partisan smokescreens for Trump's unsophisticated supporters to consume and pretend like they understand what's going on. Nunes purposefully misrepresents legal conceps to an audience of people that doesn't know any better.

---

You've been getting incorrect information. This is why it doesn't make sense to you.

You're going to have to look at both sides and .gov documents.

---

You say that over and over as if it's a mantra, but it doesn't change anything. I read Nunes memo, God help me I read just about everything that comes out of this snafu because I like to know where the narrative is going, even if you don't see me comment on it in this forum. Where we differ is what we consider wrongdoing. Republicans have decided that investigating Trump is biased in itself somehow, and y'all even call it a criminal act. The thing is, it's not biased to investigate Trump given all the suspicious activity in 2016, no matter how much you want it to be, especially with all the tips and corroboration that flooded into the LEO agencies late in 2016.

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.

You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.

---

Nunes has been one of a handful of people in Washington who has been right all along and who took a lot of heat for it.

---

Nunes has been proven correct

---

In what way? His unmasking tantrum fell apart and has been seemingly discarded by even Nunes himself. His Carter Page memo fell apart too, after Schiff released a supplement showing that Nunes was deliberately misrepresenting passages stripped of context, and flat out ignoring others, to frame a narrative. All Nunes has done in this entire saga is run interference and throw up partisan smokescreens for Trump's unsophisticated supporters to consume and pretend like they understand what's going on. Nunes purposefully misrepresents legal conceps to an audience of people that doesn't know any better.

---

Schiff is your go-to guy?

---

Thats a neat way to sidestep the entire substance of what I wrote. As for your question, I'd take his word over Nunes any day. Nunes' credibility among actual legal experts is not only low but negative, and Schiff is a former US attorney who has experience prosecuting Russian espionage cases on behalf of the United States. Outside of partisan fantasy-land where Trump is more upstanding morally than Jesus Christ himself, the call is an easy one to make.

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.

You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.

---

'As a libertarian I am totally opposed to intrusive government (unless they're intruding on someone I don't like)

Devin Nunes is a ****ing hero

You don't understand his lawsuit which is why you're confused again

---

It's a snowflake lawsuit. Waaaah, Nunes Cow, waaah.

---

What exactly qualifies as a snowflake lawsuit? You throw that term around a lot, so I just want to understand what qualifies this lawsuit as one that is snowflake.

Tia

---

It's all he's got

Trump has fried his brain