The Swamp should actually move for impeachment on the basis of "Orange Man Bad". Should provide quite the entertainment.Chizzang wrote:It'll all work itself out...
Everybody at this point has already picked a side - now we watch the swamp do what it does
and see who's the last man standing
There is no such thing as AOCD, as she is just a sideshow and a joke, and really is powerless.houndawg wrote:BDKJMU wrote: Barr is a hack, but Mueller’s team of donk donors isn’t.You sound like one of the TDS libtards on CNN, MSNBC, etc..
That's just you projecting your AOCD.
No I haven't. But we're swerving off topic.CID1990 wrote:You’ve been shown to be incorrect on this from every angle.JohnStOnge wrote:
Different subject but no I didn't. The Black nut jobs instigated the situation. But that doesn't change the fact that the Covington kids were messing with the old Native American guy. That's the takeaway.
Does a puppet know there's a hand making its mouth move..?JohnStOnge wrote:There's an interesting thing going on. Barr made statements about things. Then he released a report that wasn't redacted all that much. And the report that wasn't redacted all that much contradicted some of the statements Barr made. Pretty strange. Surely he must've known that what he was going to release would contradict what he said.
Sure you have. You just don't listen or think objectively.JohnStOnge wrote:No I haven't. But we're swerving off topic.CID1990 wrote:
You’ve been shown to be incorrect on this from every angle.
css75 wrote:There is no such thing as AOCD, as she is just a sideshow and a joke, and really is powerless.houndawg wrote:
That's just you projecting your AOCD.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I was about to share this. Chiz always ruins everything.Chizzang wrote:Ivy needs to chime in on this fascinating video about the Report
BTW this is an interesting channel anyway. He reviews movies and TV shows for legal realism, along with looking into current legal things.Chizzang wrote:Ivy needs to chime in on this fascinating video about the Report
Don’t believe I have been in attack mode with her. I find her stupidity amusing.houndawg wrote:css75 wrote:
There is no such thing as AOCD, as she is just a sideshow and a joke, and really is powerless.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
in your head rent free....if she was powerless they wouldn't waste time attacking her. The bellicosity is their fear talking.
I'm not afraid of AOC.. - and progressives shouldn't be afraid of Trumphoundawg wrote:css75 wrote:
There is no such thing as AOCD, as she is just a sideshow and a joke, and really is powerless.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
in your head rent free....if she was powerless they wouldn't waste time attacking her. The bellicosity is their fear talking.
Have you read theliberaltreehouse.com yet?SeattleGriz wrote:Been following this site for awhile. The author is one of the few that has been reporting on aspects you can't find elsewhere.
The author is saying that the Trump Russiagate was really a way for the Obama administration to cover-up their domestic spying. 702 queries.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ore-162842
mainejeff wrote:Have you read theliberaltreehouse.com yet?SeattleGriz wrote:Been following this site for awhile. The author is one of the few that has been reporting on aspects you can't find elsewhere.
The author is saying that the Trump Russiagate was really a way for the Obama administration to cover-up their domestic spying. 702 queries.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ore-162842
Sounds like a competitor for Grindrmainejeff wrote:Have you read theliberaltreehouse.com yet?SeattleGriz wrote:Been following this site for awhile. The author is one of the few that has been reporting on aspects you can't find elsewhere.
The author is saying that the Trump Russiagate was really a way for the Obama administration to cover-up their domestic spying. 702 queries.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ore-162842
Honestly I recommend you don't cite sources like that. There's just too much doubt. My recommendation is to do like I used to do with Rush Limbaugh when I could stomach listening to him. If he said something I thought was interesting I would check it to see if I could find some other source for it. Then if I could find a reliable source saying it THAT'S what I would cite. I would NOT cite Rush Limbaugh because I know he justifiably has a reputation for being extremely biased and unreliable.SeattleGriz wrote:Been following this site for awhile. The author is one of the few that has been reporting on aspects you can't find elsewhere.
The author is saying that the Trump Russiagate was really a way for the Obama administration to cover-up their domestic spying. 702 queries.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ore-162842
Ha! I understand they are biased and can see that bias, as I also know what the other side says. Almost everyone here in this forum is that capable, so it's not posted to sway anyone. It's more that the author puts a good amount of effort into their work. The author happens to be in line with all those that were correct on the lack of collusion.JohnStOnge wrote:Honestly I recommend you don't cite sources like that. There's just too much doubt. My recommendation is to do like I used to do with Rush Limbaugh when I could stomach listening to him. If he said something I thought was interesting I would check it to see if I could find some other source for it. Then if I could find a reliable source saying it THAT'S what I would cite. I would NOT cite Rush Limbaugh because I know he justifiably has a reputation for being extremely biased and unreliable.SeattleGriz wrote:Been following this site for awhile. The author is one of the few that has been reporting on aspects you can't find elsewhere.
The author is saying that the Trump Russiagate was really a way for the Obama administration to cover-up their domestic spying. 702 queries.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ore-162842
Because he didn't misrepresent the report?JohnStOnge wrote:BTW I am getting to the point of thinking I have to read the whole Mueller report myself. I think it's fairly likely based on quotes I've seen that Barr misrepresented what it says. But I'd have to read it all myself to be sure. And there's the thing about Barr not redacting it so much that there appears to be ample evidence that he misrepresented it. That's pretty weird. Why would somebody misrepresent a report then fail to redact it to an extent that would keep people from being able to see that he misrepresented it?
As far as I can tell the report does not say there was no collusion. That relates to my last post. It says that there was no criminal conspiracy with respect to certain specific Russian government efforts. And Mueller specifically said he wasn't getting into the question of "collusion."SeattleGriz wrote:Ha! I understand they are biased and can see that bias, as I also know what the other side says. Almost everyone here in this forum is that capable, so it's not posted to sway anyone. It's more that the author puts a good amount of effort into their work. The author happens to be in line with all those that were correct on the lack of collusion.JohnStOnge wrote:
Honestly I recommend you don't cite sources like that. There's just too much doubt. My recommendation is to do like I used to do with Rush Limbaugh when I could stomach listening to him. If he said something I thought was interesting I would check it to see if I could find some other source for it. Then if I could find a reliable source saying it THAT'S what I would cite. I would NOT cite Rush Limbaugh because I know he justifiably has a reputation for being extremely biased and unreliable.
Pretty much every lawyer who has responded to the Barr report believes he misrepresented the reportSeattleGriz wrote:Because he didn't misrepresent the report?JohnStOnge wrote:BTW I am getting to the point of thinking I have to read the whole Mueller report myself. I think it's fairly likely based on quotes I've seen that Barr misrepresented what it says. But I'd have to read it all myself to be sure. And there's the thing about Barr not redacting it so much that there appears to be ample evidence that he misrepresented it. That's pretty weird. Why would somebody misrepresent a report then fail to redact it to an extent that would keep people from being able to see that he misrepresented it?
CID for the win again.CID1990 wrote:I'm not afraid of AOC.. - and progressives shouldn't be afraid of Trumphoundawg wrote:
in your head rent free....if she was powerless they wouldn't waste time attacking her. The bellicosity is their fear talking.
It is the people who believe them we should be afraid of
For example:
"Global warming is a Chinese hoax"... OR "The VA works fine and if it isn't broke we shouldn't fix it"
^^^^people who believe the above need to have privileges of all kinds revoked before they get too much of a foothold
He was cleared of collusion. Please don't tell me you are hanging your hat on obstruction.Chizzang wrote:Pretty much every lawyer who has responded to the Barr report believes he misrepresented the reportSeattleGriz wrote:Because he didn't misrepresent the report?
Watch the Legal Eagle Youtube report above
because by Mueller's written definition of his position
he believes the DOJ cannot indict the standing president of a crime
So there are only two possible outcomes of the report
1) Not Guilty
2) Not - Not guilty
President Trump was found "Not" not guilty
