WWTBAM Bored

Bob78164 wrote:Director Comey expressly stated that Secretary Clinton’s testimony was truthful..... Relying on a political appointee’s summary is just bullshit. —Bob

Do you think before you hit "submit"? Rhetorical question.

Bob78164 wrote:Attorney General Barr summarizes the Mueller Report by saying the “evidence does not establish” that Donny or his campaign committed the crime of conspiring with the Russian government. Of course, Director Comey could have summarized his findings by saying that the “evidence does not establish” that Secretary Clinton committed a crime with respect to her handling of classified information. And of course, Director Comey expressly stated that Secretary Clinton’s testimony was truthful whereas Mueller expressly refused to exonerate Donny of obstruction of justice.

We need to see the whole report. Relying on a political appointee’s summary is just bullshit. —Bob

What we see is up to the Attorney General. You must know, and all the idiots in congress know, that Grand Jury testimony is confidential. The only reason the dems want to have it is so they can use it, as they have so often proven, to smear and besmirch their enemies. That is exactly why grand jury testimony is secret.
Comey said she did break the law, but he chose not to indict her on it because 'she didn't mean to'.

From what I understand, a prosecutor either decides they have enough evidence to charge a crime or not. They are not supposed to say 'hey, we think they did it, but we can't prove it'. That is bullshit. Purely a political move by the political appointees on the committee, almost all democrats.
They determined they couldn't find any 'collusion'. The investigation went on and on and on without trump or Sessions doing anything but criticizing it as a witch hunt. And he turned out to be right. So in what way did trump obstruct justice? You and your type have done more to obstruct justice in this whole fiasco then trump could ever do.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Director Comey expressly stated that Secretary Clinton’s testimony was truthful..... Relying on a political appointee’s summary is just bullshit. —Bob

Do you think before you hit "submit"? Rhetorical question.

Thinking? That requires effort. Batphone is enough.

Bob78164 wrote:Attorney General Barr summarizes the Mueller Report by saying the “evidence does not establish” that Donny or his campaign committed the crime of conspiring with the Russian government. Of course, Director Comey could have summarized his findings by saying that the “evidence does not establish” that Secretary Clinton committed a crime with respect to her handling of classified information. And of course, Director Comey expressly stated that Secretary Clinton’s testimony was truthful whereas Mueller expressly refused to exonerate Donny of obstruction of justice.

We need to see the whole report. Relying on a political appointee’s summary is just bullshit. —Bob

You are like the little boy who got a stable full of horseshit for Christmas and broke out into a big smile and started digging-He said "There has to be a pony in here somewhere."

So, you didn't get what you wanted for Muellermas. Keep digging-there has to be a pony in there somewhere for you.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: So in what way did trump obstruct justice?

That's one of the questions that's answered in the Mueller report where he said there was evidence both ways. And that's one of the reasons why people want to see what's in the Mueller report.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: So in what way did trump obstruct justice?

That's one of the questions that's answered in the Mueller report where he said there was evidence both ways. And that's one of the reasons why people want to see what's in the Mueller report.

It's not answered.

If it were answered Mueller would have said "yes" or "no".

All that will be in the report is stuff that if you turn a blind eye to the other stuff in the report may indicated that it is possible that there may have been something that looks like, could be but may not be, obstruction.

But it is all moot because there was absolutely nothing related to "justice" to obstruct.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:From what I understand, a prosecutor either decides they have enough evidence to charge a crime or not. They are not supposed to say 'hey, we think they did it, but we can't prove it'. That is bullshit. Purely a political move by the political appointees on the committee, almost all democrats.

You do realize, don’t you, that you personally spent a lot of time arguing on this very Bored that that’s EXACTLY what Director Comey did to Secretary Clinton, yet the only problem you, or Congressional Republicans, had with Director Comey was his decision not to charge Secretary Clinton. I certainly don’t remember any cries of outrage from you or from any Republicans anywhere that the report should have been limited to a simple statement that she wasn’t being charged.

And another reminder: you and the Bored’s other die-hard conservatives infected with Trump Fanboy Syndrome aren’t my audience. My audience is the moderates who recognize bullshit when they see it. So please, continue to illustrate how fair and balanced we can expect Republicans to be under exactly the same circumstances, depending on precisely who benefits from refusal to disclose the whole truth. —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:From what I understand, a prosecutor either decides they have enough evidence to charge a crime or not. They are not supposed to say 'hey, we think they did it, but we can't prove it'. That is bullshit. Purely a political move by the political appointees on the committee, almost all democrats.

You do realize, don’t you, that you personally spent a lot of time arguing on this very Bored that that’s EXACTLY what Director Comey did to Secretary Clinton, yet the only problem you, or Congressional Republicans, had with Director Comey was his decision not to charge Secretary Clinton. I certainly don’t remember any cries of outrage from you or from any Republicans anywhere that the report should have been limited to a simple statement that she wasn’t being charged.

And another reminder: you and the Bored’s other die-hard conservatives infected with Trump Fanboy Syndrome aren’t my audience. My audience is the moderates who recognize bullshit when they see it. So please, continue to illustrate how fair and balanced we can expect Republicans to be under exactly the same circumstances, depending on precisely who benefits from refusal to disclose the whole truth. —Bob

Your "audience"

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:From what I understand, a prosecutor either decides they have enough evidence to charge a crime or not. They are not supposed to say 'hey, we think they did it, but we can't prove it'. That is bullshit. Purely a political move by the political appointees on the committee, almost all democrats.

You do realize, don’t you, that you personally spent a lot of time arguing on this very Bored that that’s EXACTLY what Director Comey did to Secretary Clinton, yet the only problem you, or Congressional Republicans, had with Director Comey was his decision not to charge Secretary Clinton. I certainly don’t remember any cries of outrage from you or from any Republicans anywhere that the report should have been limited to a simple statement that she wasn’t being charged.

And another reminder: you and the Bored’s other die-hard conservatives infected with Trump Fanboy Syndrome aren’t my audience. My audience is the moderates who recognize bullshit when they see it. So please, continue to illustrate how fair and balanced we can expect Republicans to be under exactly the same circumstances, depending on precisely who benefits from refusal to disclose the whole truth. —Bob

bob-tel, you wouldn't know a moderate if one bit you in the ass.
Tell, me, mister above average lawyer. I asked you before. Why is it that grand jury testimony is sealed? Tell us all about Douglas Oil v Power Stops NW. Then tell me why Schumer and Pelosi et al should be given access to the grand jury records, when it is obvious to anyone who isn't on the left field warning track that they want to use it for the express purpose addressed in that case.

I respect trump more than ever now. I can't think of any politician who could withstand the ugly smearing your side has dumped on him from even before he was elected.

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:From what I understand, a prosecutor either decides they have enough evidence to charge a crime or not. They are not supposed to say 'hey, we think they did it, but we can't prove it'. That is bullshit. Purely a political move by the political appointees on the committee, almost all democrats.

You do realize, don’t you, that you personally spent a lot of time arguing on this very Bored that that’s EXACTLY what Director Comey did to Secretary Clinton, yet the only problem you, or Congressional Republicans, had with Director Comey was his decision not to charge Secretary Clinton. I certainly don’t remember any cries of outrage from you or from any Republicans anywhere that the report should have been limited to a simple statement that she wasn’t being charged.

And another reminder: you and the Bored’s other die-hard conservatives infected with Trump Fanboy Syndrome aren’t my audience. My audience is the moderates who recognize bullshit when they see it. So please, continue to illustrate how fair and balanced we can expect Republicans to be under exactly the same circumstances, depending on precisely who benefits from refusal to disclose the whole truth. —Bob

Your "audience"

LOL-I have said something like this before-but somebody has a rather grandiose view of the extent and reach of his political influence on an old game show message bored where the focus on political posts has chased most of the moderates away. If people check in from time to time for old-times sake-I doubt that they breathlessly catch up on Bob#'s strings of political posts other than to enjoy the current dumpster fire and to realize that they are not missing anything.

I think those here who expected Mueller's report to show Russian Collusion have been in a bubble for the last 2 years or whatever. You only listened to news sources that supported your fervent hopes and wet dreams.

Spock wrote:I think those here who expected Mueller's report to show Russian Collusion have been in a bubble for the last 2 years or whatever. You only listened to news sources that supported your fervent hopes and wet dreams.

Pointing out what's increasingly becoming obvious to everyone except diehard Trump enablers (which admittedly includes Flock and almost every Republican in Congress), but we don't know what the Mueller report does or does not show. We've only actually seen 101 words, none comprising a complete sentence, out of a 300+ page report.

Spock wrote:I think those here who expected Mueller's report to show Russian Collusion have been in a bubble for the last 2 years or whatever. You only listened to news sources that supported your fervent hopes and wet dreams.

That's true of a lot of dems, and now they're tantruming like two-year-olds promised ice cream and given spinach.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:I think those here who expected Mueller's report to show Russian Collusion have been in a bubble for the last 2 years or whatever. You only listened to news sources that supported your fervent hopes and wet dreams.

Pointing out what's increasingly becoming obvious to everyone except diehard Trump enablers (which admittedly includes Flock and almost every Republican in Congress), but we don't know what the Mueller report does or does not show. We've only actually seen 101 words, none comprising a complete sentence, out of a 300+ page report.

Thank your fellow Democrats for getting the law changed.

tlynn78 wrote:

Spock wrote:I think those here who expected Mueller's report to show Russian Collusion have been in a bubble for the last 2 years or whatever. You only listened to news sources that supported your fervent hopes and wet dreams.

That's true of a lot of dems, and now they're tantruming like two-year-olds promised ice cream and given spinach.

We weren't given spinach; we were given some guy from the Food Channel telling us how great spinach tastes.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:I think those here who expected Mueller's report to show Russian Collusion have been in a bubble for the last 2 years or whatever. You only listened to news sources that supported your fervent hopes and wet dreams.

Pointing out what's increasingly becoming obvious to everyone except diehard Trump enablers (which admittedly includes Flock and almost every Republican in Congress), but we don't know what the Mueller report does or does not show. We've only actually seen 101 words, none comprising a complete sentence, out of a 300+ page report.

We know that at least 2 congressional investigations and a special prosecution team comprised mostly of partisan democrats could not find enough, if any, evidence of the vague concept of 'russian collusion' to charge anyone connected with the trump campaign of anything. I would ask what would be enough for you, but I know the answer is nothing. Polly, you are pathetic. Even pelosi and the msm have moved on to propagandizing obamacare.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Even pelosi and the msm have moved on to propagandizing obamacare.

Well, 3/4 of the American public hasn't moved on. They want to see the report.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/29/70771399 ... t-released

And only 1/3 of the public thinks the report exonerates Trump while over half think questions still exist.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ears-trump

As to what they felt they couldn't charge people with or how much evidence they had, that's in the 300+ pages of the report that we haven't seen.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: We know that at least 2 congressional investigations ... could not find enough, if any, evidence of the vague concept of 'russian collusion' to charge anyone connected with the trump campaign of anything.

A Congressional investigation run by Devin Nunes is less reliable than the investigations Claude Rains conducted in Casablanca. You will get your wish, though. We'll see some real Congressional investigations into Trump soon enough.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:I think those here who expected Mueller's report to show Russian Collusion have been in a bubble for the last 2 years or whatever. You only listened to news sources that supported your fervent hopes and wet dreams.

Pointing out what's increasingly becoming obvious to everyone except diehard Trump enablers (which admittedly includes Flock and almost every Republican in Congress), but we don't know what the Mueller report does or does not show. We've only actually seen 101 words, none comprising a complete sentence, out of a 300+ page report.

We know that at least 2 congressional investigations and a special prosecution team comprised mostly of partisan democrats could not find enough, if any, evidence of the vague concept of 'russian collusion' to charge anyone connected with the trump campaign of anything. I would ask what would be enough for you, but I know the answer is nothing. Polly, you are pathetic. Even pelosi and the msm have moved on to propagandizing obamacare.

The Congressional investigations have barely gotten started because Democrats have only had subpoena power for less than three months, and Republicans in Congress were investigating Donny with somewhat less vigor than they investigated Secretary Clinton. Hell, they were investigating Donny with somewhat less vigor than they investigate a hangnail.

As for the Affordable Care Act, you saw what happened in 2017 when Republicans tried to put a proposal together. Every single one of them would have resulted in tens of millions of people losing coverage. There is no universe in which that catastrophe is a good thing and there is no universe in which its prospect will ever enjoy political support from the American people.

I can’t wait to see the defense of Republican Legislators in Utah who just passed a bill overriding the will of the people as directly expressed in the very same election that sent them to Salt Lake City. That’s an abuse of power the likes of which I don’t ever remember seeing before and I hope the voters of Utah exact a political price for it. —Bob

Barr has written a letter to Lindsay Graham and Jerry Nadler (chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees) that he intends to release the entire report by mid-April, "if not sooner." Barr added: "Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own." The report is almost 400 pages long, plus exhibits. There would be redactions: grand jury material, sensitive intelligence material, material that would impact ongoing investigations and "information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties."

That last one could well be a catchall, depending on who they view as a "peripheral" third party. It could include people like Trump Jr. and Kushner. But, at least this is a start.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/politics ... index.html

silverscreenselect wrote:Barr has written a letter to Lindsay Graham and Jerry Nadler (chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees) that he intends to release the entire report by mid-April, "if not sooner." Barr added: "Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own." The report is almost 400 pages long, plus exhibits. There would be redactions: grand jury material, sensitive intelligence material, material that would impact ongoing investigations and "information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties."

That last one could well be a catchall, depending on who they view as a "peripheral" third party. It could include people like Trump Jr. and Kushner. But, at least this is a start.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/politics ... index.html

I feel sure there'll be enough ambiguity for you and the Bobs to spin some more fantasies.

Elijah Cummings decides he wants to see everything about trump.

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ ... Mazars.pdf

Yeah, this is why we need democrats. No problem that he has NO AUTHORITY to get this information from anyone, much less the President. Let's hear polly and bob-tel defend this.

Mark Levin has it right. This letter needs to be modified and sent to the accountants for Cummings, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and all the rest of them.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Elijah Cummings decides he wants to see everything about trump.

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ ... Mazars.pdf

Yeah, this is why we need democrats. No problem that he has NO AUTHORITY to get this information from anyone, much less the President. Let's hear polly and bob-tel defend this.

Mark Levin has it right. This letter needs to be modified and sent to the accountants for Cummings, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and all the rest of them.

I take it that none of the questionable transactions Cummings mentions causes you any concern about possible fraud committed by Trump.

It's called OVERSIGHT. It's something that has been non-existent the last two years when Trump's Republican bootlickers were running things in the House. That's now changed.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Elijah Cummings decides he wants to see everything about trump.

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ ... Mazars.pdf

Yeah, this is why we need democrats. No problem that he has NO AUTHORITY to get this information from anyone, much less the President. Let's hear polly and bob-tel defend this.

Mark Levin has it right. This letter needs to be modified and sent to the accountants for Cummings, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and all the rest of them.

I take it that none of the questionable transactions Cummings mentions causes you any concern about possible fraud committed by Trump.

It's called OVERSIGHT. It's something that has been non-existent the last two years when Trump's Republican bootlickers were running things in the House. That's now changed.

If there is any fraud, that is a concern of the court system. Congress has no role in this. If they can do this, they can do it against anybody. And so can republicans do it against democrats. And you know as well as I do that Mr. Cummings wants this information to see if he can find mud to sling. Why can't he spend his time fixing the broken immigration system? This is pathetic and has got to stop.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Elijah Cummings decides he wants to see everything about trump.

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ ... Mazars.pdf

Yeah, this is why we need democrats. No problem that he has NO AUTHORITY to get this information from anyone, much less the President. Let's hear polly and bob-tel defend this.

Mark Levin has it right. This letter needs to be modified and sent to the accountants for Cummings, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and all the rest of them.

I take it that none of the questionable transactions Cummings mentions causes you any concern about possible fraud committed by Trump.

It's called OVERSIGHT. It's something that has been non-existent the last two years when Trump's Republican bootlickers were running things in the House. That's now changed.

If there is any fraud, that is a concern of the court system. Congress has no role in this. If they can do this, they can do it against anybody. And so can republicans do it against democrats. And you know as well as I do that Mr. Cummings wants this information to see if he can find mud to sling. Why can't he spend his time fixing the broken immigration system? This is pathetic and has got to stop.

You are completely and utterly mistaken as a matter of constitutional law. Did it ever occur to you to wonder WHY Congress has subpoena power? One of the most important reasons is to allow it to compel testimony to obtain facts allowing it to serve its role as a check and balance on the executive branch. I don’t recall you having any problem whatsoever with interminable and clearly partisan Republican investigations of the executive branch that resulted in a Presidential candidate giving nine hours of testimony under oath.

Congress can, should, and at some point probably will subpoena Donny. In addition to Donny’s utter disregard for the importance of maintaining classified information as secure (which demands Congressional investigation and a full airing of the facts in the light of day), it’s become increasingly obvious that legislative action is necessary and proper to enforce both the foreign and domestic Emoluments Clause. And when it does, Donny will almost certainly commit another crime because he can’t tell the truth for nine minutes, let alone nine hours. —Bob