My apologies. Droves not groves.trey3216 said:Are the groves of cedar, pine, or mangrove?Waco1947 said:No poopyhead! Stop making stuff up.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?
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.
HuMcK said:Sam Lowry said: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.HuMcK said: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.contrario said: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.HuMcK said:riflebear said: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?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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
ValhallaBear said:
Florda_mike said:ValhallaBear said:
^^^ Equals 98.7%?
He!! they can even do simple addition
AckAckAckAckAckAck!!!! At least Bigfoot can name at least one world leader.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%
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?HuMcK said:Sam Lowry said: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.HuMcK said: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.contrario said: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.HuMcK said:riflebear said: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?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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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:Florda_mike said:ValhallaBear said:
^^^ Equals 98.7%?
He!! they can even do simple addition
quash's guy and Bigfoot split the other .01%
'As a libertarian I am totally opposed to intrusive government (unless they're intruding on someone I don't like)quash said:Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.riflebear said:
You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.
ValhallaBear said:'As a libertarian I am totally opposed to intrusive government (unless they're intruding on someone I don't like)quash said:Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.riflebear said:
You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.
Devin Nunes is a ****ing hero
You don't understand his lawsuit which is why you're confused again
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.quash said:ValhallaBear said:'As a libertarian I am totally opposed to intrusive government (unless they're intruding on someone I don't like)quash said:Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.riflebear said:
You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.
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.
Osodecentx said:Nunes has been proven correctriflebear said: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.quash said:Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.riflebear said:
You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.
You've been getting incorrect information. This is why it doesn't make sense to you.HuMcK said:Osodecentx said:Nunes has been proven correctriflebear said: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.quash said:Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.riflebear said:
You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.
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?HuMcK said:Osodecentx said:Nunes has been proven correctriflebear said: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.quash said:Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.riflebear said:
You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.
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.
Doc Holliday said:You've been getting incorrect information. This is why it doesn't make sense to you.HuMcK said:Osodecentx said:Nunes has been proven correctriflebear said: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.quash said:Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.riflebear said:
You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.
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're going to have to look at both sides and .gov documents.
Osodecentx said:Schiff is your go-to guy?HuMcK said:Osodecentx said:Nunes has been proven correctriflebear said: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.quash said:Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.riflebear said:
You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.
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.
It's all he's gotcontrario said: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.quash said:ValhallaBear said:'As a libertarian I am totally opposed to intrusive government (unless they're intruding on someone I don't like)quash said:Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.riflebear said:
You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.
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.
Tia
Wrong on all points.HuMcK said:Osodecentx said:Nunes has been proven correctriflebear said: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.quash said:Nunes. What a $250 million snowflake.riflebear said:
You lose 10 credibility points every time you cut and paste this guy.
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.