-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I think we're agreeing with each other, strange as that seems.
-
Classic Trump.
Lets his Democrat opponents and his "enemy of the people" media wind themselves up until they start believing conspiracy theories. When pet conspiracy theory turns out to be just that, he goads them into making bigger fools of themselves with their reaction.
He may be bombastic and his policies flawed but a fool he ain't.
-
Ok.... I need help. I have been watching CNN for the last 2 hours. They have jumped soooo many sharks ... they have run out of sharks and run of of fonzies.
Bizarre
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
I have been watching CNN
That's the first time I've heard someone say that phrase in a long time...!
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Though they (in the letter) were at pains to say that "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
That’s the Democratic cultists’ spin, certainly, but it’s ridiculous.
The prosecutor is not tasked with “exoneration.” It’s his job to find evidence of a crime and then indict. The prosecutor found exactly ZERO evidence to indict. That’s why there are ZERO indictments and ZERO recommendations for indictments.
And besides, all they’re doing is giving Trump another advantage, where he can 1) legitimately argue that it’s idiotic to “obstruct” an investigation of a crime that never happened; and 2) insist that defending oneself against false accusations is not obstruction, and he would have to have been an idiot to remain silent for almost 3 years of unrelenting false accusatuions spat at him by the Democrats and their media cohort.
The Dems can push this idiotic propaganda all they like, but it’s only going to boomerang on them and make Trump look even more vindicated. People understand now that this was indeed a “witch-hunt,” exactly as described by Trump.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Ok.... I need help. I have been watching CNN for the last 2 hours.
You poor sod...
-
I've always thought that if Trump was as dumb as his opponents make him out to be, they are ten times dumber. Shocked that Mueller didn't find Trump colluded with Russia, they then tried another conspiracy theory that Trump would somehow block the full report....
"Donald Trump said it “wouldn’t bother me at all” to have special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report released.
"Up to the attorney general, but it wouldn’t bother me at all,” he said, in response to a shouted question at his White House event with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu"
-
@Salacious-Crumb I see you left off the last piece of my post saying I found the wording strange and I was not comfortable with it. Context and all that you know. The piece of my post that you bolded and then suggested was the Dems cultists spin was actually the quoted wording on the letter. There well may be some seriously corrupt practice going on from the anti Trump side but laying that bit on the Dems does not help your argument.
-
Avenatti charged with wire and bank fraud.
- Celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti is arrested on charges of trying to extort up to $25 million from Nike by threatening to reveal negative publicity.
- Avenatti also is charged in a separate federal case of embezzling a client’s money “in order to pay his own expense and debts,” and of “defrauding a bank in Mississippi.”
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Salacious-Crumb I see you left off the last piece of my post saying I found the wording strange and I was not comfortable with it. Context and all that you know.
Precisely. And I’ll repeat again: It’s not the prosecutor’s job to “exonerate.” That’s a strawman. Defense lawyers argue to exonerate, not prosecutors. And this was a Special Investigation before a Grand Jury where NO defense lawyers were permitted to be seated alongside their clients.
The piece of my post that you bolded and then suggested was the Dems cultists spin was actually the quoted wording on the letter.
Yup, and it’s still a strawman, whether Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein (who hates Trump, and is now eating some serious crow) signed off on it or not, it’s catnip for Dems, but is ultimately irrelevant. They found SFA to indict; ergo, there is nothing.
There well may be some seriously corrupt practice going on from the anti Trump side but laying that bit on the Dems does not help your argument.
Oh, please. You’re so naive. Who the Eff paid for that Fusion GPS and Steele dossier hoax in the first place, and who’s been peddling the scam for the past three years??
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
The prosecutor found exactly ZERO evidence to indict. That’s why there are ZERO indictments and ZERO recommendations for indictments.
Those statements don't hold. Just because there are zero indictments doesn't mean zero evidence, just that in the US Attorney's experience the evidence isn't enough to be capable of achieving a conviction.
-
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
The prosecutor found exactly ZERO evidence to indict. That’s why there are ZERO indictments and ZERO recommendations for indictments.
Those statements don't hold. Just because there are zero indictments doesn't mean zero evidence, just that in the US Attorney's experience the evidence isn't enough to be capable of achieving a conviction.
If they had evidence — which was the whole point of the exercise — they would have indicted. They had sfa. This “no exoneration” canard is starting to smell a lot like, “you can’t prove Saddam doesn’t have secret stockpiles of balsa-wood drone nukes that can hit London in 45 minutes, this is open-ended and you just have to dig a little deeper.” The Dead-Enders and Bitter-Truthers.
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
The prosecutor found exactly ZERO evidence to indict. That’s why there are ZERO indictments and ZERO recommendations for indictments.
Those statements don't hold. Just because there are zero indictments doesn't mean zero evidence, just that in the US Attorney's experience the evidence isn't enough to be capable of achieving a conviction.
If they had evidence — which was the whole point of the exercise — they would have indicted. They had sfa. This “no exoneration” canard is starting to smell a lot like, “you can’t prove Saddam doesn’t have secret stockpiles of balsa-wood drone nukes that can hit London in 45 minutes, this is open-ended and you just have to dig a little deeper.” The Dead-Enders and Bitter-Truthers.
No you're missing the point. There's a world of difference between
- no evidence,
- some but not enough to secure conviction, and
- charge the fucker.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
The prosecutor found exactly ZERO evidence to indict. That’s why there are ZERO indictments and ZERO recommendations for indictments.
Those statements don't hold. Just because there are zero indictments doesn't mean zero evidence, just that in the US Attorney's experience the evidence isn't enough to be capable of achieving a conviction.
If they had evidence — which was the whole point of the exercise — they would have indicted. They had sfa. This “no exoneration” canard is starting to smell a lot like, “you can’t prove Saddam doesn’t have secret stockpiles of balsa-wood drone nukes that can hit London in 45 minutes, this is open-ended and you just have to dig a little deeper.” The Dead-Enders and Bitter-Truthers.
No you're missing the point. There's a world of difference between
- no evidence,
- some but not enough to secure conviction, and
- charge the fucker.
Your point is facile and really pertinent at the same time.
Facile in that the result is the result.. i.e not enough evidence or good evidence to proceed is all that matters.
It is pertinent because it is political so any shred of 'evidence' will be seized upon, so the difference between small amount of evidence and no evidence becomes very important.
Overall in this context I agree with @antipodean that it matters. -
He’s stealing my tweets.
US Politics