Waiting for forthright reflection

[Dene]

Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you count the HRC paid for Russian document.

Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device destruction.

What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls in here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John. So far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.

[Bigbird]

Dene wrote:

Let's hope you find the room in your heart and mind to reflect... but
who here would believe that.

[ignorant/ill informed comments snipped]

--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,857 false claims
Last week’s total: 102 false claims
That’s the 11th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.

[Dene]

Notice the OP. I'm not interested in your response. Just the grownups, Tweety.

[Bigbird]

Dene wrote:

> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:53:47 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > Dene wrote:
> >
> > Let's hope you find the room in your heart and mind to reflect...
> > but who here would believe that.
> >
> > [ignorant/ill informed comments snipped]
> >

> Notice the OP. I'm not interested in your response. Just the
> grownups, Tweety.

You wouldn't understand a grown up if it slapped you straight, you
grade school name calling little child.

"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I' m
fucked."

“The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent
presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining
that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not
exonerate him.”

10 instances of possible obstruction of justice.

Did the campaign collude with Russians... well they certainly tried.

Reflect on your ignorance, children.

The Trump campaign were re tweeting Russian sourced election
propaganda... were you too?

[Dene]

I repeat. Your input is not relevant nor desired. I listed the grownups and you’re not one of them.

Bye Tweetie

[-hh]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless
> you count the HRC paid for Russian document.

What does the document actually say about the alleged matter of
who paid for it?

> Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction,
> unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit,
> and device destruction.

Irrelevant HRC deflection attempt.

In the meantime, Federal prosecutors are known to be pursuing 14
investigations which had been referred by the special counsel,
in addition to the guilty pleas and convictions which have already
taken place.

Plus the report actually did find extensive evidence on multiple
cases of obstruction:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/trump-obstruction-of-justice.html?module=inline>

...but a more in-depth reading is required to glean out just how
strong the evidence is, plus what rationale for why obstruction
charges were not recommended. But it has been noted that current
DoJ policy is to not charge a seated POTUS, so we just simply do not
know if this DoJ policy is the sole reason why there were no charges,
or if there were other reasons why.

For example, this NYT Opinion piece repeats this both points:

"The report makes clear that the president’s obstruction of the F.B.I.
and special counsel investigations crossed constitutional boundaries
that could have merited criminal prosecution, if not for the Justice
Department’s policy against indicting sitting presidents. Mr. Mueller’s
report notes that his office explicitly considered absolving the
president of obstruction of justice, but emphatically chose not to.

Instead, Mr. Mueller laid out 181 pages detailing the substantial
evidence that Mr. Trump obstructed justice."

<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/mueller-report-trump.html>

> What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that
> from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls
> in here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH,
> and John. So far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could
> have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.

This is my first post-release comment and I've read little so far.
Its going to take time to fully digest, so at this state, there's
just initial impressions and some potentially interesting tidbits,
such as this eye-grabber from the LAT:

"Live updates: Trump provided 33 paragraphs of answers to Mueller.
His memory failed him 34 times"

<https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-mueller-report-investigation-trump-release-live-20190418-story.html>

Plus later in the above is another key take-away:

"In the report, Mueller says Congress is allowed to conduct further
investigations and potentially act upon the information compiled in
the Russia investigation in a way that he did not.

“We concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's
corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of
the administration of justice,” Mueller wrote in a legal analysis
of whether Congress can pursue an investigation into the president.

Mueller wrote that a balance is needed between the president’s
constitutional authority and separation of power with Congress, but
that Congress is allowed to act, including pursuing impeachment.
Applying that test, “we concluded that Congress can validly make
obstruction-of-justice statutes applicable to corruptly motivated
official acts of the President without impermissibly undermining”
his constitutional authority, he wrote.""

Translation: Mueller notes that Congress has the authority and
the responsibility to continue to investigate.


-hh

[Dene]

I'm tabling the obstruction discussion for now. Here is why...

The Mueller investigation was primarily about Russia's attempts to interfere with the US election and whether Trump or any American colluded with these attempts. Despite Russian attempts to entice the Trump Campaign, Mueller concludes that no American ate this forbidden fruit. Do you agree with Mueller's conclusions?

Next question. As a liberal Democrat, are you ashamed of the rampant, over the top speculation in advance of the report's findings?

Last question. I just saw Schiffy's presser. Clearly he is not accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course too. Are you in agreement with the course?

[-hh]

I've not read enough to know for sure just what Mueller found and
concluded to draw a conclusion like you already have.

What we know right now is just the summary top level that there was
no recommendation to pursue charges. That isn't proof that "no one
ate". Between the DoJ policy to not indict sitting Presidents and
the potential for inadequate evidence (which could have been because
of obstruction) to make strong case, there's just too much ambiguity
and reasons to not assume anything yet, particularly the "lily white"
slam dunk clarity of innocence that some shameless parties are
duplicitously trying to posture for.

TL;DR: need the smoke to clear to see how dark the shade of grey really is.

> Next question. As a liberal Democrat, are you ashamed of the
> rampant, over the top speculation in advance of the report's findings?

In the political arena, there's unfortunately all too much posturing
and duplicity, to downright shameful levels, by both parties. As such,
you'll have to point to specific examples for specific comments.

For example, every person who has claimed that Mueller's report was
a total exoneration is an over-the-top shameful liar, because Mueller
himself explicitly stated that his investigation did not exonerate.

Similarly, you've attempted to label me as a liberal Democrat which
is of itself shameful and over-the-top speculation. By doing so,
you've revealed yourself as guilty of partisan posturing and duplicity.

> Last question. I just saw Schiffy's presser.

But its not Sunday night, so what the hell is he doing on TV?

> Clearly he is not
> accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward
> impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course
> too. Are you in agreement with the course?

I trust & defer to what Mueller said on that topic, quoted above.
Why aren't you doing the same?


-hh

[Dene]

> > I'm tabling the obstruction discussion for now. Here is why...
> >
> > The Mueller investigation was primarily about Russia's attempts
> > to interfere with the US election and whether Trump or any American
> > colluded with these attempts. Despite Russian attempts to entice
> > the Trump Campaign, Mueller concludes that no American ate this
> > forbidden fruit. Do you agree with Mueller's conclusions?
>
> I've not read enough to know for sure just what Mueller found and
> concluded to draw a conclusion like you already have.

You're dodging, HH. I'll make it easy for you with a direct quote from the Muller report.

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

> What we know right now is just the summary top level that there was
> no recommendation to pursue charges. That isn't proof that "no one
> ate". Between the DoJ policy to not indict sitting Presidents and
> the potential for inadequate evidence (which could have been because
> of obstruction) to make strong case, there's just too much ambiguity
> and reasons to not assume anything yet, particularly the "lily white"
> slam dunk clarity of innocence that some shameless parties are
> duplicitously trying to posture for.
>
> TL;DR: need the smoke to clear to see how dark the shade of grey really is.

There is nothing grey about the citation above. Do you need the page number?

> > Next question. As a liberal Democrat, are you ashamed of the
> > rampant, over the top speculation in advance of the report's findings?
>
> In the political arena, there's unfortunately all too much posturing
> and duplicity, to downright shameful levels, by both parties. As such,
> you'll have to point to specific examples for specific comments.

Watch any re-run of Chucky Todd's MTP. How about any Schiffy statements or pressers. I watch CNN. It was non-stop assumptions of guilt. I heard the word, "Checkmate" countless times. Also heard "Trump was guilty of collusion and he stole the election." "He is a Russian agent." "Don Jr. and Kirchner will be indicted." Worst of the worse is Carb's girlfriend, Rachel Maddow.

Given these specific examples, are you ashamed of that "journalistic" conduct? Do you agree with Ted Koppel's criticism of journalism in this country?

> For example, every person who has claimed that Mueller's report was
> a total exoneration is an over-the-top shameful liar, because Mueller
> himself explicitly stated that his investigation did not exonerate.

Re-read the citation and get back to me.

> Similarly, you've attempted to label me as a liberal Democrat which
> is of itself shameful and over-the-top speculation. By doing so,
> you've revealed yourself as guilty of partisan posturing and duplicity.

I've never seen you defend Trump or any Republican. Given my experience with you in this room, is my assumption incorrect?

> > Last question. I just saw Schiffy's presser.
>
> But its not Sunday night, so what the hell is he doing on TV?

Hahaha.

> > Clearly he is not
> > accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward
> > impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course
> > too. Are you in agreement with the course?
>
> I trust & defer to what Mueller said on that topic, quoted above.
> Why aren't you doing the same?

I will ask the 3rd question again.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:51:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene
<gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you count the HRC paid for Russian document.

I don't recall that being in Muellers report. Probably because it has
been investigated fully and there was no collusion found.

>
>Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device destruction.

There is abundant evidence but Mueller decided to let Congress delve
into that. Again, the reference to HRC is petty and laughable.

>
>What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls in
>here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John.

But if those expectations don't align with your opinions our
expectations from you will be a repeat performance.

>o far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.

My take is the same as before on collusion. I never thought Trump
himself was involved in such. I still think that some of his minions
were guilty of that. Especially Jr. That may be in a redaction.

With respect to obstruction I will simply point out that Trump was
lucky about that. Mueller wrote that If his aides had followed his
orders he definitely would be involved with obstruction. There are
many instances in which he ordered obstruction only to be ignored by
his staff.

If you think this is over.....think again. More to come.

[Dene]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:19:19 PM UTC-7, B...@onramp.net wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:51:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene
> <gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you count the HRC paid for Russian document.
>
> I don't recall that being in Muellers report. Probably because it has
> been investigated fully and there was no collusion found.

I'm glad you are able to admit that. As for the reverse collusion, i.e. the unauthorized surveillance of Trump's campaign and illegal spying and unmasking of Americans, stay tuned for the IG report or google up Carter Page, for starters.

> >Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device destruction.
>
> There is abundant evidence but Mueller decided to let Congress delve
> into that. Again, the reference to HRC is petty and laughable.

Two tiered justice system is not laughable. Do you deny that HRC destroyed evidence, despite a subpoena?

> >What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls in
> >here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John.
>
> But if those expectations don't align with your opinions our
> expectations from you will be a repeat performance.

Actually...I'm trying to determine if it's worth participating in the this room with the remaining grownups I've named, which includes MnMike on my side of aisle. I expect and hope for some honest reflection in this room.

> >o far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.
>
> My take is the same as before on collusion. I never thought Trump
> himself was involved in such. I still think that some of his minions
> were guilty of that. Especially Jr. That may be in a redaction.

Redaction? Please explain.

> With respect to obstruction I will simply point out that Trump was
> lucky about that. Mueller wrote that If his aides had followed his
> orders he definitely would be involved with obstruction. There are
> many instances in which he ordered obstruction only to be ignored by
> his staff.

Agree....Trump is impulsive and new to the shitty game of politics. However, it's no fun to be falsely accused before an entire nation, night after night, for 2 years. What happened to him is unprecedented and should never happen to any POTUS.

> If you think this is over.....think again. More to come.

Agree again. The investigators and instigators are under investigation. More is coming.

[-hh]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:22:15 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > > I'm tabling the obstruction discussion for now. Here is why...
> > >
> > > The Mueller investigation was primarily about Russia's attempts
> > > to interfere with the US election and whether Trump or any American
> > > colluded with these attempts. Despite Russian attempts to entice
> > > the Trump Campaign, Mueller concludes that no American ate this
> > > forbidden fruit. Do you agree with Mueller's conclusions?
> >
> > I've not read enough to know for sure just what Mueller found and
> > concluded to draw a conclusion like you already have.
>
> You're dodging, HH.

Quite the opposite: you've criticized that there's been rampant speculation
and here, I'm explicitly saying that I'm not going to speculate, for which
you're immediately flip-flopping.

> I'll make it easy for you with a direct quote from the Muller report.
>
> "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired
> or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Note that your quote directly and unambiguously documents that Russia did
indeed interfered with our election system. What is the POTUS going to do to
defend the USA and punish Russia for their actions? Just ignore it?

> > What we know right now is just the summary top level that there was
> > no recommendation to pursue charges. That isn't proof that "no one
> > ate". Between the DoJ policy to not indict sitting Presidents and
> > the potential for inadequate evidence (which could have been because
> > of obstruction) to make strong case, there's just too much ambiguity
> > and reasons to not assume anything yet, particularly the "lily white"
> > slam dunk clarity of innocence that some shameless parties are
> > duplicitously trying to posture for.
> >
> > TL;DR: need the smoke to clear to see how dark the shade of grey really is.
>
> There is nothing grey about the citation above. Do you need the page number?

Yes.

Plus do keep in mind that 'conspiracy' wasn't the sole element being investigated.

> > > Next question. As a liberal Democrat, are you ashamed of the
> > > rampant, over the top speculation in advance of the report's findings?
> >
> > In the political arena, there's unfortunately all too much posturing
> > and duplicity, to downright shameful levels, by both parties. As such,
> > you'll have to point to specific examples for specific comments.
>
> Watch any re-run of Chucky Todd's MTP.

Who?

> How about any Schiffy statements or pressers.

"pressers"?

> I watch CNN....

I don't.

> ... Worst of the worse is Carb's girlfriend, Rachel Maddow.

At least I've heard of her.

> Given these specific examples, are you ashamed of that "journalistic" conduct?

Journalism isn't law. And law isn't ethics.

> Do you agree with Ted Koppel's criticism of journalism in this country?

He's still alive? How much of his criticism was directed at Fox?

> > For example, every person who has claimed that Mueller's report was
> > a total exoneration is an over-the-top shameful liar, because Mueller
> > himself explicitly stated that his investigation did not exonerate.
>
> Re-read the citation and get back to me.

I'm told its on page 214, but I've not confirmed that yet.

> > Similarly, you've attempted to label me as a liberal Democrat which
> > is of itself shameful and over-the-top speculation. By doing so,
> > you've revealed yourself as guilty of partisan posturing and duplicity.
>
> I've never seen you defend Trump or any Republican. Given my experience
> with you in this room, is my assumption incorrect?

Yes, because you're forgetting how I recently defended McCain from Trump's
BS, plus my comments in this very thread are to not jump to conclusions.

> > > Last question. I just saw Schiffy's presser.
> >
> > But its not Sunday night, so what the hell is he doing on TV?
>
> Hahaha.

Sad but true in the greater NYC Metro area TV Market. Virtually every
damn Sunday night, he gets his FaceTime on some inane topic or another.

> > > Clearly he is not
> > > accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward
> > > impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course
> > > too. Are you in agreement with the course?
> >
> > I trust & defer to what Mueller said on that topic, quoted above.
> > Why aren't you doing the same?
>
> I will ask the 3rd question again.
>
> "Clearly he is not accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward
> impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course
> too. Are you in agreement with the course?"

Because you're now trying to dodge yourself, because when I said that I'm
trusting and deferring to Mueller, what I'm pointing out is that Mueller said
that Congress DOES have the legal authority ... and also the obligation.

So then, you're making it clear that you don't support Mueller's statement.


-hh

[Dene]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:55:30 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:22:15 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > > > I'm tabling the obstruction discussion for now. Here is why...
> > > >
> > > > The Mueller investigation was primarily about Russia's attempts
> > > > to interfere with the US election and whether Trump or any American
> > > > colluded with these attempts. Despite Russian attempts to entice
> > > > the Trump Campaign, Mueller concludes that no American ate this
> > > > forbidden fruit. Do you agree with Mueller's conclusions?
> > >
> > > I've not read enough to know for sure just what Mueller found and
> > > concluded to draw a conclusion like you already have.
> >
> > You're dodging, HH.
>
> Quite the opposite: you've criticized that there's been rampant speculation
> and here, I'm explicitly saying that I'm not going to speculate, for which
> you're immediately flip-flopping.

I look forward to your answer to the first question.

> > I'll make it easy for you with a direct quote from the Muller report.
> >
> > "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired
> > or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
>
> Note that your quote directly and unambiguously documents that Russia did
> indeed interfered with our election system. What is the POTUS going to do to
> defend the USA and punish Russia for their actions? Just ignore it?

Trump has been much tougher on Putin than his predecessors. What do you propose he do?

> > > What we know right now is just the summary top level that there was
> > > no recommendation to pursue charges. That isn't proof that "no one
> > > ate". Between the DoJ policy to not indict sitting Presidents and
> > > the potential for inadequate evidence (which could have been because
> > > of obstruction) to make strong case, there's just too much ambiguity
> > > and reasons to not assume anything yet, particularly the "lily white"
> > > slam dunk clarity of innocence that some shameless parties are
> > > duplicitously trying to posture for.
> > >
> > > TL;DR: need the smoke to clear to see how dark the shade of grey really is.
> >
> > There is nothing grey about the citation above. Do you need the page number?
>
> Yes.
>
> Plus do keep in mind that 'conspiracy' wasn't the sole element being investigated.

Of course...you have volume 1 and 2. I would like for you to acknowledge that volume 1 (collusion) is a dead horse.

> > > > Next question. As a liberal Democrat, are you ashamed of the
> > > > rampant, over the top speculation in advance of the report's findings?
> > >
> > > In the political arena, there's unfortunately all too much posturing
> > > and duplicity, to downright shameful levels, by both parties. As such,
> > > you'll have to point to specific examples for specific comments.
> >
> > Watch any re-run of Chucky Todd's MTP.
>
> Who?

Meet the Press.

> > How about any Schiffy statements or pressers.
>
> "pressers"?

Press conference.

> > I watch CNN....
>
> I don't.

You and most Americans.

> > ... Worst of the worse is Carb's girlfriend, Rachel Maddow.
>
> At least I've heard of her.

She's a beauty.

> > Given these specific examples, are you ashamed of that "journalistic" conduct?
>
> Journalism isn't law. And law isn't ethics.
>
> > Do you agree with Ted Koppel's criticism of journalism in this country?
>
> He's still alive? How much of his criticism was directed at Fox?

Yes...and Leftist journalism.

> > > For example, every person who has claimed that Mueller's report was
> > > a total exoneration is an over-the-top shameful liar, because Mueller
> > > himself explicitly stated that his investigation did not exonerate.
> >
> > Re-read the citation and get back to me.
>
> I'm told its on page 214, but I've not confirmed that yet.

Use the search function on the pdf and get back to me. The statement is clear and compelling. What remains is your affirmation.

> > > Similarly, you've attempted to label me as a liberal Democrat which
> > > is of itself shameful and over-the-top speculation. By doing so,
> > > you've revealed yourself as guilty of partisan posturing and duplicity.
> >
> > I've never seen you defend Trump or any Republican. Given my experience
> > with you in this room, is my assumption incorrect?
>
> Yes, because you're forgetting how I recently defended McCain from Trump's
> BS, plus my comments in this very thread are to not jump to conclusions.

Yeah...where was your support for McCain when he was running for POTUS?

> > > > Last question. I just saw Schiffy's presser.
> > >
> > > But its not Sunday night, so what the hell is he doing on TV?
> >
> > Hahaha.
>
> Sad but true in the greater NYC Metro area TV Market. Virtually every
> damn Sunday night, he gets his FaceTime on some inane topic or another.

Ugh... I'd lose 10 lbs if I put that weasel on my frig door.
Try Game of Thrones or the Walking Dead. Sometimes 60 Minutes is good.

> > > > Clearly he is not
> > > > accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward
> > > > impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course
> > > > too. Are you in agreement with the course?
> > >
> > > I trust & defer to what Mueller said on that topic, quoted above.
> > > Why aren't you doing the same?
> >
> > I will ask the 3rd question again.
> >
> > "Clearly he is not accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward
> > impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course
> > too. Are you in agreement with the course?"
>
> Because you're now trying to dodge yourself, because when I said that I'm
> trusting and deferring to Mueller, what I'm pointing out is that Mueller said
> that Congress DOES have the legal authority ... and also the obligation.

Agree...Congress has the choice to use Mueller's report to pursue impeachment...or just accept the report and lead the country in moving forward. Which option do you prefer?

> So then, you're making it clear that you don't support Mueller's statement.

I believe every word of it.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:40:53 -0700 (PDT), Dene

<gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:19:19 PM UTC-7, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:51:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene
>> <gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you count the HRC paid for Russian document.
>>
>> I don't recall that being in Muellers report. Probably because it has
>> been investigated fully and there was no collusion found.
>
>I'm glad you are able to admit that.

Admit what? HRC never was accused of collusion except by Trump and
wild right wingers.

>as for the reverse collusion, i.e. the unauthorized surveillance of Trump's campaign and illegal spying and unmasking of Americans,

>tay tuned for the IG report or google up Carter Page, for starters.

Pipe dream. you'd best go back and really read the history.

>
>> >Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device destruction.
>>
>> There is abundant evidence but Mueller decided to let Congress delve
>> into that. Again, the reference to HRC is petty and laughable.
>
>Two tiered justice system is not laughable. Do you deny that HRC destroyed evidence, despite a subpoena?

Do you deny that the Director of FBI said there was no criminal act
done by HRC? The only tiered justice that has been tried has been by
Donald Trump and thanks to his aides he failed.

>
>> >What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls in
>> >here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John.
>>
>> But if those expectations don't align with your opinions our
>> expectations from you will be a repeat performance.
>
>Actually...I'm trying to determine if it's worth participating in the this room with the remaining grownups I've named,

>hich includes MnMike on my side of aisle.

By now it should be evident that no one will be missed when leaving
RSG.

> expect and hope for some honest reflection in this room.

Your choice of words is questionable. Why do you think other's
opinions aren't honest?

>
>So far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.

>>
>> My take is the same as before on collusion. I never thought Trump
>> himself was involved in such. I still think that some of his minions
>> were guilty of that. Especially Jr. That may be in a redaction.
>
>Redaction? Please explain.

One of the four reasons for redactions to the Mueller report is that
of possible future legal ramifications. Jr. isn't off further
investigations.

>
>> With respect to obstruction I will simply point out that Trump was
>> lucky about that. Mueller wrote that If his aides had followed his
>> orders he definitely would be involved with obstruction. There are
>> many instances in which he ordered obstruction only to be ignored by
>> his staff.
>
>Agree....Trump is impulsive and new to the shitty game of politics. However, it's no fun to be falsely accused before an entire nation, night after night, for 2 years. What happened to him is unprecedented and should never happen to any POTUS.
>
>> If you think this is over.....think again. More to come.
>
>Agree again. The investigators and instigators are under investigation. More is coming.

Investigation by who? The Trump administration? The most ineffective
ever.

Much of the "more" is going to be aimed at the Trump's financial
dealings by the NY state AG.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:14:23 -0500, B...@Onramp.net wrote:

>
>Denegdsc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Trump is impulsive and new to the shitty game of politics.

He's no upstanding citizen but replete with shitty and underhanded
business dealings for decades. In that respect politics is right up
his alley.

>However it's no fun to be falsely accused before an entire nation,

>night after night, for 2 years.

He was questioned about his dealings. His past had a great deal to do
with that. He was a well-known crook.

> What happened to him is unprecedented
> and should never happen to any POTUS.

Why has this not ever happened to any other POTUS?
There had to be a reason and the BS about being pissed about the
election won't fly. Didn't happen to Bush because he won over Dole by
the same manner.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-18 10:51 a.m., Dene wrote:
> Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you count the HRC paid for Russian document.

Incorrect on the facts.

>
> Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device destruction.

Incorrect on the facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-18 1:10 p.m., Moderate wrote:
> Dene <gdscho...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you count the HRC paid for Russian document.Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device destruction.What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls in here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John. So far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.
>
> I went through enough of the Mueller report to realize this was as
> bad as I thought. It was obvious Mueller knew early on there was
> no collusion.
>
> He is a fucking asshole.
>

Give us the quotes that supposedly made that "obvious", doofus.

[TomS]

There was never any credible evidence from Day One that there was any collusion - if there was, point it out in the report.

[Dene]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:14:26 PM UTC-7, B...@onramp.net wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:40:53 -0700 (PDT), Dene
> <gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:19:19 PM UTC-7, B...@onramp.net wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:51:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene
> >> <gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you count the HRC paid for Russian document.
> >>
> >> I don't recall that being in Muellers report. Probably because it has
> >> been investigated fully and there was no collusion found.
> >
> >I'm glad you are able to admit that.
>
> Admit what? HRC never was accused of collusion except by Trump and
> wild right wingers.

Admit there was no collusion between Russia and any American. That is what you meant when you referenced the Mueller report...correct?

> >as for the reverse collusion, i.e. the unauthorized surveillance of Trump's campaign and illegal spying and unmasking of Americans,
> >tay tuned for the IG report or google up Carter Page, for starters.
>
> Pipe dream. you'd best go back and really read the history.

You're not paying attention. Try a real news source.

> >> >Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device destruction.
> >>
> >> There is abundant evidence but Mueller decided to let Congress delve
> >> into that. Again, the reference to HRC is petty and laughable.
> >
> >Two tiered justice system is not laughable. Do you deny that HRC destroyed evidence, despite a subpoena?
>
> Do you deny that the Director of FBI said there was no criminal act
> done by HRC? The only tiered justice that has been tried has been by
> Donald Trump and thanks to his aides he failed.

I admit that a corrupt FBI cabal rigged the outcome of her so called investigation.

> >> >What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls in
> >> >here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John.
> >>
> >> But if those expectations don't align with your opinions our
> >> expectations from you will be a repeat performance.
> >
> >Actually...I'm trying to determine if it's worth participating in the this room with the remaining grownups I've named,
> >hich includes MnMike on my side of aisle.
>
> By now it should be evident that no one will be missed when leaving
> RSG.

RSG has value to me in that there is some intelligent life in here if one is able to wade through the troll nonsense. Whether that is worth the effort remains to be seen.

> > expect and hope for some honest reflection in this room.
>
> Your choice of words is questionable. Why do you think other's
> opinions aren't honest?

New territory, in that there is conclusive evidence that Trump nor any American colluded with Russia. What remains to be seen is if any of you lefties admit it.

> >So far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.
> >>
> >> My take is the same as before on collusion. I never thought Trump
> >> himself was involved in such. I still think that some of his minions
> >> were guilty of that. Especially Jr. That may be in a redaction.
> >
> >Redaction? Please explain.
>
> One of the four reasons for redactions to the Mueller report is that
> of possible future legal ramifications. Jr. isn't off further
> investigations.

So there is hope from your side of the aisle that the SDNY will indict?

> >> With respect to obstruction I will simply point out that Trump was
> >> lucky about that. Mueller wrote that If his aides had followed his
> >> orders he definitely would be involved with obstruction. There are
> >> many instances in which he ordered obstruction only to be ignored by
> >> his staff.
> >
> >Agree....Trump is impulsive and new to the shitty game of politics. However, it's no fun to be falsely accused before an entire nation, night after night, for 2 years. What happened to him is unprecedented and should never happen to any POTUS.
> >
> >> If you think this is over.....think again. More to come.
> >
> >Agree again. The investigators and instigators are under investigation. More is coming.
>
> Investigation by who? The Trump administration? The most ineffective
> ever.

You haven't heard about the criminal referrals from the House Intelligence Committee that Nunes sent over to the AG, nor are you aware of the upcoming IG report, nor are you aware of Trump's ability to declassify the false FISA warrants?

Even CBS reports this.

> Much of the "more" is going to be aimed at the Trump's financial
> dealings by the NY state AG.

His tax returns will never see the light of day nor should they. Just because he is POTUS doesn't mean he has to surrender his rights to privacy.

[Dene]

What's the Taylor Swift song...

"and the haters will hate, hate, hate"

[Bigbird]

Dene wrote:

> I repeat.

Why? You feel the need to re-inforce your delusions?

> Your input is not relevant nor desired.

Lol, does it upset your world in the bubble little fella.

> I listed the
> grownups and you’re not one of them.
>

Like I would pay any attention to the scribblings of a self deluded
child. :)

> Bye Tweetie

Bye, bye bubble boy.

[Bigbird]

Moderate wrote:

[snip deluded nonsense from insignificant OP]

>
> I went through enough of the Mueller report to realize this was as
> bad as I thought. It was obvious Mueller knew early on there was
> no collusion.

No, you really didn't or you would have seen all the evidence that
there was plenty of reason to suspect collusion; indeed there were many
attempts to collude and many instances of the campaign using Russian
sourced data/media.

Mueller said he didn't find a conspiracy he could prove. But he did
establish in painstaking detail that the Russians and the Trump
campaign pursued a relationship of mutual benefit during the election
campaign — and afterward.

That may not worry very, very stupid people... but it really should
concern every dumbed down American.

Secondly there was no shortage of Russian interference. Did you read
the title of the report or ever notice the purpose of the investigation
during that last couple of years?

Thirdly, there is lots of evidence of corruption and attempted
obstruction of justice.

>
> He is a fucking asshole.

No, really, you are.

[Bigbird]

They scare the shit out of you?

> The Mueller investigation was primarily about Russia's attempts to
> interfere with the US election and whether Trump or any American
> colluded with these attempts. Despite Russian attempts to entice the
> Trump Campaign, Mueller concludes that no American ate this forbidden
> fruit. Do you agree with Mueller's conclusions?
>

That is not Mueller's conclusion. It is that of a deluded bubble boy.

Mueller concluded that both parties reached out to each other on many
occasions and acted in each others interests but fell short of a
provable conspiracy; just.

[Bigbird]

Moderate wrote:

> I went through enough of the Mueller report to realize this was as
> bad as I thought. It was obvious Mueller knew early on there was
> no collusion.

Just to underline that you are lying, on what page do you find any
conclusions as to collusion?

More specifically doesn't the report, at length, discuss why it did not
investigate collusion but rather the criminal offence of conspiracy.

Weren't the main conclusions, not that the suspects had not colluded
but, that they could not be proven to have done so "willfully and with
knowledge". IOW they were unlikely to secure a conviction of conspiracy
or other infringements because the suspects were too incompetent and
clueless as to whether what they were doing was unlawful.

The defence of ignorance just like Flaccid, Moderate and Dense.

[-hh]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:16:18 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:55:30 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:22:15 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > > > > I'm tabling the obstruction discussion for now. Here is why...
> > > > >
> > > > > The Mueller investigation was primarily about Russia's attempts
> > > > > to interfere with the US election and whether Trump or any American
> > > > > colluded with these attempts. Despite Russian attempts to entice
> > > > > the Trump Campaign, Mueller concludes that no American ate this
> > > > > forbidden fruit. Do you agree with Mueller's conclusions?
> > > >
> > > > I've not read enough to know for sure just what Mueller found and
> > > > concluded to draw a conclusion like you already have.
> > >
> > > You're dodging, HH.
> >
> > Quite the opposite: you've criticized that there's been rampant speculation
> > and here, I'm explicitly saying that I'm not going to speculate, for which
> > you're immediately flip-flopping.
>
> I look forward to your answer to the first question.
>
> > > I'll make it easy for you with a direct quote from the Muller report.
> > >
> > > "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired
> > > or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
> >
> > Note that your quote directly and unambiguously documents that Russia did
> > indeed interfered with our election system. What is the POTUS going to do to
> > defend the USA and punish Russia for their actions? Just ignore it?
>
> Trump has been much tougher on Putin than his predecessors.

No, the Republican Party has been doing most of the current actions; they're
definitely not being lead by Trump.

> What do you propose he do?

First step would be for Trump to say "I was wrong, we were attacked by Russia".

> > > > What we know right now is just the summary top level that there was
> > > > no recommendation to pursue charges. That isn't proof that "no one
> > > > ate". Between the DoJ policy to not indict sitting Presidents and
> > > > the potential for inadequate evidence (which could have been because
> > > > of obstruction) to make strong case, there's just too much ambiguity
> > > > and reasons to not assume anything yet, particularly the "lily white"
> > > > slam dunk clarity of innocence that some shameless parties are
> > > > duplicitously trying to posture for.
> > > >
> > > > TL;DR: need the smoke to clear to see how dark the shade of grey really is.
> > >
> > > There is nothing grey about the citation above. Do you need the page number?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Plus do keep in mind that 'conspiracy' wasn't the sole element being investigated.
>
> Of course...you have volume 1 and 2. I would like for you to acknowledge that
> volume 1 (collusion) is a dead horse.

What's been evident for quite awhile is that the Trump campaign was dancing way
too close to the fire on potential collusion (your volume 1), which even if it wasn't
literally illegal, was clearly a bad practice and ethically questionable: activity which
did exist but which fell short of the legal textbook definition of conspiracy, at least
within the evidence available which was deliberately limited. YMMV, but IMO, the
public deserves better than leaders whose qualifications are "I avoided being indicted".

For obstruction (apparently volume 2), the Mueller conclusions appear to be
that there definitely were attempts to obstruct and deflect. The question seems
to be if where they crossed the the legal definition's threshold to be illegal, just
what other considerations preempted charges. Specifically, this is referring to
current DoJ Policy that a sitting President is not to be indicted. The ramifications
of this are what happens on January 21, 2021 (or 2025 at the latest), when Trump
can no longer legally avoid being subpoenaed, etc.

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the
President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable
to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions

and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining
that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude
that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Limited context from here:
<https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/708965026/highlights-from-the-mueller-report>

> Use the search function on the pdf and get back to me. The statement is clear
> and compelling. What remains is your affirmation.
>
> > > > Similarly, you've attempted to label me as a liberal Democrat which
> > > > is of itself shameful and over-the-top speculation. By doing so,
> > > > you've revealed yourself as guilty of partisan posturing and duplicity.
> > >
> > > I've never seen you defend Trump or any Republican. Given my experience
> > > with you in this room, is my assumption incorrect?
> >
> > Yes, because you're forgetting how I recently defended McCain from Trump's
> > BS, plus my comments in this very thread are to not jump to conclusions.
>
> Yeah...where was your support for McCain when he was running for POTUS?

There's probably public comments in RSG on that too. Frankly, I was very much
supportive of McCain, but his choice of Palin for VP torpedoed that.

> > > > > Last question. I just saw Schiffy's presser.
> > > >
> > > > But its not Sunday night, so what the hell is he doing on TV?
> > >
> > > Hahaha.
> >
> > Sad but true in the greater NYC Metro area TV Market. Virtually every
> > damn Sunday night, he gets his FaceTime on some inane topic or another.
>
> Ugh... I'd lose 10 lbs if I put that weasel on my frig door.
> Try Game of Thrones or the Walking Dead.

I don't watch that crap either.

> Sometimes 60 Minutes is good.

Wish its start time was more reliable - this time of year it can be golf which
pushes it back; other times its football, etc.

> > > > > Clearly he is not
> > > > > accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward
> > > > > impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course
> > > > > too. Are you in agreement with the course?
> > > >
> > > > I trust & defer to what Mueller said on that topic, quoted above.
> > > > Why aren't you doing the same?
> > >
> > > I will ask the 3rd question again.
> > >
> > > "Clearly he is not accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward
> > > impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course
> > > too. Are you in agreement with the course?"
> >
> > Because you're now trying to dodge yourself, because when I said that I'm
> > trusting and deferring to Mueller, what I'm pointing out is that Mueller said
> > that Congress DOES have the legal authority ... and also the obligation.
>
> Agree...Congress has the choice to use Mueller's report to pursue impeachment
> ...or just accept the report and lead the country in moving forward. Which option
> do you prefer?

The moral principle is: "no man is above the law". However, Congress is very
much a political animal, so it is all too likely that partisanship will preempt equal
application of the law. Or, as I mentioned earlier, the legal charges may have to
wait until Trump leaves office in 2021 or 2025.

> > So then, you're making it clear that you don't support Mueller's statement.
>
> I believe every word of it.

Saying that you believe it isn't saying that you support it.


-hh

[Carbon]

Even the [redacted] Barr Report is damning. I assume you haven't read it.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 21:53:15 -0700 (PDT), Dene

<gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:14:26 PM UTC-7, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:40:53 -0700 (PDT), Dene
>> <gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:19:19 PM UTC-7, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:51:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene
>> >> <gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you count the HRC paid for Russian document.
>> >>
>> >> I don't recall that being in Muellers report. Probably because it has
>> >> been investigated fully and there was no collusion found.
>> >
>> >I'm glad you are able to admit that.
>>
>> Admit what? HRC never was accused of collusion except by Trump and
>> wild right wingers.
>
>Admit there was no collusion between Russia and any American. That is what you meant when you referenced the Mueller report...correct?

No. The reference was to the idiocy about HRC.

>
>> >as for the reverse collusion, i.e. the unauthorized surveillance of Trump's campaign and illegal spying and unmasking of Americans,
>> >tay tuned for the IG report or google up Carter Page, for starters.
>>
>> Pipe dream. you'd best go back and really read the history.
>
>You're not paying attention. Try a real news source.
>
>> >> >Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device destruction.
>> >>
>> >> There is abundant evidence but Mueller decided to let Congress delve
>> >> into that. Again, the reference to HRC is petty and laughable.
>> >
>> >Two tiered justice system is not laughable. Do you deny that HRC destroyed evidence, despite a subpoena?
>>
>> Do you deny that the Director of FBI said there was no criminal act
>> done by HRC? The only tiered justice that has been tried has been by
>> Donald Trump and thanks to his aides he failed.
>
>I admit that a corrupt FBI cabal rigged the outcome of her so called investigation.

You really should apply for a job writing for Breitbart.

>
>> >> >What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that from the

>>>>Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls here. In contrast,

>>>I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John.
>> >>
>> >> But if those expectations don't align with your opinions our
>> >> expectations from you will be a repeat performance.
>> >
>> >Actually...I'm trying to determine if it's worth participating in the this room with the remaining grownups I've named,
>> >hich includes MnMike on my side of aisle.
>>
>> By now it should be evident that no one will be missed when leaving
>> RSG.
>
>RSG has value to me in that there is some intelligent life in here if one is able to wade through the troll nonsense.
> Whether that is worth the effort remains to be seen.
>

Your opinion is noted, and expected.

>> > expect and hope for some honest reflection in this room.
>>
>> Your choice of words is questionable. Why do you think other's
>> opinions aren't honest?
>
>New territory, in that there is conclusive evidence that Trump nor any American
>colluded with Russia. What remains to be seen is if any of you lefties admit it.

You have a problem of selective listening or reading. That has been
admitted here, your bias doesn't recognize it.

>
>> >So far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.
>> >>
>> >> My take is the same as before on collusion. I never thought Trump
>> >> himself was involved in such. I still think that some of his minions
>> >> were guilty of that. Especially Jr. That may be in a redaction.
>> >
>> >Redaction? Please explain.
>>
>> One of the four reasons for redactions to the Mueller report is that
>> of possible future legal ramifications. Jr. isn't off further
>> investigations.
>
>So there is hope from your side of the aisle that the SDNY will indict?

Hope? NO. Interest...of course.

>
>> >> With respect to obstruction I will simply point out that Trump was
>> >> lucky about that. Mueller wrote that If his aides had followed his
>> >> orders he definitely would be involved with obstruction. There are
>> >> many instances in which he ordered obstruction only to be ignored by
>> >> his staff.
>> >
>> >Agree....Trump is impulsive and new to the shitty game of politics. However,>it's
>no fun to be falsely accused

>efore an entire nation, night after night, for 2 years. >What happened to him is unprecedented
>and should never happen to any POTUS.
>> >
>> >> If you think this is over.....think again. More to come.
>> >
>> >Agree again. The investigators and instigators are under investigation. More is coming.
>>
>> Investigation by who? The Trump administration? The most ineffective
>> ever.
>
>You haven't heard about the criminal referrals from the House Intelligence Committee that
>Nunes sent over to the AG,
>nor are you aware of the upcoming IG report, nor are you aware of Trump's ability to declassify the false FISA warrants?

Those nors should be ors because they imply that I'm not aware.
>
>Even CBS reports this.

Of course I'm aware of all of it. Nothing has transpired so far.and
you imply that the House Intelligence Committee is making
the referrals. Nunes is. He's searching for whatever he can find and
his "criminal" referrals are only his speculations. The term "witch
hunt" comes to mind.

IG reports come out regularly. What makes you think that there are
things in the upcoming one that could change the Mueller report?

Trump can declassify false warrants....if he can prove them false.

>
>> Much of the "more" is going to be aimed at the Trump's financial
>> dealings by the NY state AG.
>
>His tax returns will never see the light of day nor should they. Just because he is POTUS
>doesn't mean he has to surrender his rights to privacy.

LOL. Why is this privacy more important to him than any other POTUS
They all have released theirs ?
P.S. That's a rhetorical question.

[B...@onramp.net]

I wouldn't know, don't follow her.

>
>"and the haters will hate, hate, hate"

That's such empty BS. Comparing the two elections constitutes hate?
When you have no response you resort to vapidity.

[Bigbird]

Moderate wrote:

> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:

> > On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:>
> > Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless> you

> > count the HRC paid for Russian document.What does the document

> > actually say about the alleged matter of who paid for it? >
>

> Nothing. The Dossier is mentioned one time in the whole report in
> a direct quote from Trump, page 111.
>
> No mention of FISA.
>
> The report is evidence of a Witch hunt, by the sheer absence of
> known facts.

Not only do you belittle the OP and out his ridiculous comments into
context but you belittle yourself.

It is quite clear that the only thing that prevented the special
counsel from deciding to prosecute Trump is that he conceded that it
was not his decision as to whether a sitting president could be
indicted.

If you can't accept that then you need to stop pretending you can read.

[Bigbird]

Dene wrote:

> His tax returns will never see the light of day nor should they.
> Just because he is POTUS doesn't mean he has to surrender his rights
> to privacy.

Kind of does though. It's what has maintained a sense on integrity in
previous presidents that has been lost with this presidency.

Decency, honesty, openness have no association with this presidency and
are likely lost for good in the minds of many.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:09:06 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:> Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless> you count the HRC paid for Russian document.What does the document actually say about the alleged matter of who paid for it? >
>
>Nothing. The Dossier is mentioned one time in the whole report in
> a direct quote from Trump, page 111.
>
>No mention of FISA.
>
>The report is evidence of a Witch hunt, by the sheer absence of
> known facts.

You must relish being a dumb shit.

[Bigbird]

Moderate wrote:

> "Bigbird" <bigbird.no...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> > Moderate wrote:> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in
> > message:> > On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene
> > wrote:>> > Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion,
> > unless> you> > count the HRC paid for Russian document.What does
> > the document> > actually say about the alleged matter of who paid
> > for it? >> > Nothing. The Dossier is mentioned one time in the
> > whole report in> a direct quote from Trump, page 111.> > No
> > mention of FISA.> > The report is evidence of a Witch hunt, by the

> > sheer absence of> known facts.Not only do you belittle the OP and

> > out his ridiculous comments intocontext but you belittle

> > yourself.It is quite clear that the only thing that prevented the
> > specialcounsel from deciding to prosecute Trump is that he conceded
> > that itwas not his decision as to whether a sitting president could
> > beindicted.If you can't accept that then you need to stop
> > pretending you can read.-- Trump fact check:The grand total as of

> > Sunday: 4,857 false claims Last week’s total: 102 false claims
> > That’s the 11th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so
> > far.
>

> You should read the report.

It appears I am more familiar with it than you.

> The Mueller report did not say that.
>

Have you got as far as page 2 and 3? When you see the term OLC really
try to concentrate.

> You are a liar.

Yet you said you had read the report and then look what you said. I
think we all know you were being disingenuous or lying.

Isn't it true you have only seen what has been relayed by Apologist
Barr and Fox and Friends? They are who you have paraphrased; NOT the
report. Hung by your own petard.

[-hh]

Bigbird writes:
> Dene wrote:
>> His tax returns will never see the light of day nor should they.

It had become standard practice from an ethical disclosure.

>> Just because he is POTUS doesn't mean he has to surrender his rights
>> to privacy.
>
> Kind of does though. It's what has maintained a sense on integrity in
> previous presidents that has been lost with this presidency.

Oh, it is far more than merely “kind of”: it is called a Public Office because
it is a position of responsibility and accountability to the public’s, which
ethically means maximizing transparency in potential conflicts of interests.

Even mere public employees are required to make various disclosures
and elect restrictions on their public life. So if one doesn’t want to be
thus accountable to the public ... then don’t sign up for the job in the first place.

> Decency, honesty, openness have no association with this presidency and
> are likely lost for good in the minds of many.

Hopefully, the pendulum will swing back from this extremis.

-hh

[Carbon]

Immoderate. Why don't you take a stab at reading the [redacted] report
yourself, instead of relying on spin from other clueless extremists?

Direct link:

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

[B...@onramp.net]

That won't work with him. He's mesmerized by Trump and blind to truth
when it comes to this. He'll spin it like a top....if he even
understands it.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 20:26:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 4/19/19 12:24 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:09:06 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>> wrote:>> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:>>>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:> Clearly>>> the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless> you count the>>> HRC paid for Russian document.What does the document actually say>>> about the alleged matter of who paid for it? >>>>> Nothing. The Dossier is mentioned one time in the whole report in a>> direct quote from Trump, page 111.>>>> No mention of FISA.>>>> The report is evidence of a Witch hunt, by the sheer absence of known>> facts.> > You must relish being a dumb shit. Immoderate. Why don't you take a stab at reading the [redacted] reportyourself, instead of relying on spin from other clueless extremists?Direct link:https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport
>
>It is not in the report. Mueller essentially said the opposite.
> Bird turd lied and so did you.

Just as I said. You either didn't read Mueller's 400+ page report or
didn't understand it. Now the spin begins from you.

[Carbon]

On 4/20/19 10:13 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 20:26:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
> wrote:
>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>

>>> Immoderate. Why don't you take a stab at reading the [redacted]
>>> reportyourself, instead of relying on spin from other clueless
>>> extremists?
>>>
>>> Direct link:
>>>
>>> https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport
>>
>> It is not in the report. Mueller essentially said the opposite. Bird
>> turd lied and so did you.
>
> Just as I said. You either didn't read Mueller's 400+ page report or
> didn't understand it. Now the spin begins from you.

Immoderate's real problem is laziness. He doesn't know what's in the
Report and in truth he doesn't care. He relies on comforting summaries
what conform to his biases, written by other ignoramuses who in all
likelihood also haven't bothered to read the Report.

Behold, the circle-jerk of extremism.

[Bigbird]

Moderate wrote:

> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

> > On 4/19/19 12:24 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019
> > 08:09:06 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>> wrote:>> -hh
> > <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:>>>>> On
> > Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:>
> > Clearly>>> the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless>
> > you count the>>> HRC paid for Russian document.What does the
> > document actually say>>> about the alleged matter of who paid for
> > it? >>>>> Nothing. The Dossier is mentioned one time in the whole
> > report in a>> direct quote from Trump, page 111.>>>> No mention of
> > FISA.>>>> The report is evidence of a Witch hunt, by the sheer
> > absence of known>> facts.> > You must relish being a dumb shit.
> > Immoderate. Why don't you take a stab at reading the [redacted]

> > reportyourself, instead of relying on spin from other clueless
> > extremists?Direct
> >

link:https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport
>
> It is not in the report. Mueller essentially said the opposite.

That is a blatant lie.

> Bird turd

Typical grade school name calling from infantile Trumpet.

> lied and so did you.

I do not lie.

I'll tell you who was exposed as liars... the WH and the Trump campaign.

How do you feel about America being lied to from the WH pressroom? Can
you ever trust anything the WH ever says?

So either you have not read the report or lack the intelligence to
comprehend.
What does it say on pages 2 and 3 of the relevant volume then?

Go away and actually read it.

It sets out precisely why no prosecutorial judgement was made. It
states that it is up to congress to address presidential misconduct. It
is also clear that it is only a temporary reprieve as it states that
the president is not immune from prosecution after he leaves office.

IOW he has collected the evidence, it is up to others to prosecute in
an appropriate way at the appropriate time so as not to undermine the
office. Having a puppet GA will not save him from prosecution in the
long term.

You know why I think you haven't read it? Not just your obvious denial
of stated facts but that your language is that of third parties, namely
Trump and Fox News. They and you bang on about "no collusion" whereas
the report is quite clear that "collusion" was not the test and there
are no conclusions regarding "collusion". Anyone claiming there are is
a liar.

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple
individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy
law, NOT the concept of "collusion".

First time you've read that? I thought so. It's on volume 1 page 2.

Same old Doofus. Grow up.

[Bigbird]

Moderate wrote:

> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> > On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 20:26:37 -0500 (CDT),
> > Moderate<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:>Carbon
> > <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:>> On 4/19/19
> > 12:24 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:09:06 -0500
> > (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>> wrote:>> -hh
> > <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:>>>>> On
> > Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:>
> > Clearly>>> the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless>
> > you count the>>> HRC paid for Russian document.What does the
> > document actually say>>> about the alleged matter of who paid for
> > it? >>>>> Nothing. The Dossier is mentioned one time in the whole
> > report in a>> direct quote from Trump, page 111.>>>> No mention of
> > FISA.>>>> The report is evidence of a Witch hunt, by the sheer
> > absence of known>> facts.> > You must relish being a dumb shit.
> > Immoderate. Why don't you take a stab at reading the [redacted]
> > reportyourself, instead of relying on spin from other clueless
> > extremists?Direct
> > link:https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Mueller

> > report>>It is not in the report. Mueller essentially said the
> > opposite. > Bird turd lied and so did you.Just as I said. You
> > either didn't read Mueller's 400+ page report ordidn't understand

> > it. Now the spin begins from you.
>

> I am telling you what I read in the report.

No. You are lying about what you may or may not have read in the report.

You claim that what I have said is in the report is not. If you have
read the report that is a lie; if you have not read the report you are
lying about having read it.

> You have no clue.

Oh I think you leave lots of clues; especially as to what you watch and
what you don't read for yourself.

[B...@onramp.net]

55997-MOn Sun, 21 Apr 2019 11:23:47 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 20:26:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:>> On 4/19/19 12:24 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:09:06 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>> wrote:>> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:>>>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:> Clearly>>> the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless> you count the>>> HRC paid for Russian document.What does the document actually say>>> about the alleged matter of who paid for it? >>>>> Nothing. The Dossier is mentioned one time in the whole report in a>> direct quote from Trump, page 111.>>>> No mention of FISA.>>>> The report is evidence of a Witch hunt, by the sheer absence of known>> facts.> > You must relish being a dumb shit. Immoderate. Why don't you take a stab at reading the [redacted] reportyourself, instead of relying on spin from other clueless extremists?Direct

>link:https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=59uellerreport>>It is not in the report. Mueller essentially said the opposite. > Bird turd lied and so did you.Just as I said. You either didn't read Mueller's 400+ page report ordidn't understand it. Now the spin begins from you.

>
>I am telling you what I read in the report.

I am doubting that you comprehend the report. You just
see what you want to see.
>
>You have no clue.

It is palpable that this is your position not mine.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-18 2:22 p.m., Dene wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 2:03:07 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:

>> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>> Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless
>>> you count the HRC paid for Russian document.
>>
>> What does the document actually say about the alleged matter of
>> who paid for it?
>>
>>

>>> Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction,
>>> unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit,
>>> and device destruction.
>>

>> Irrelevant HRC deflection attempt.
>>
>> In the meantime, Federal prosecutors are known to be pursuing 14
>> investigations which had been referred by the special counsel,
>> in addition to the guilty pleas and convictions which have already
>> taken place.
>>
>> Plus the report actually did find extensive evidence on multiple
>> cases of obstruction:
>>
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/trump-obstruction-of-justice.html?module=inline>
>>
>> ...but a more in-depth reading is required to glean out just how
>> strong the evidence is, plus what rationale for why obstruction
>> charges were not recommended. But it has been noted that current
>> DoJ policy is to not charge a seated POTUS, so we just simply do not
>> know if this DoJ policy is the sole reason why there were no charges,
>> or if there were other reasons why.
>>
>> For example, this NYT Opinion piece repeats this both points:
>>
>> "The report makes clear that the president’s obstruction of the F.B.I.
>> and special counsel investigations crossed constitutional boundaries
>> that could have merited criminal prosecution, if not for the Justice
>> Department’s policy against indicting sitting presidents. Mr. Mueller’s
>> report notes that his office explicitly considered absolving the
>> president of obstruction of justice, but emphatically chose not to.
>>
>> Instead, Mr. Mueller laid out 181 pages detailing the substantial
>> evidence that Mr. Trump obstructed justice."
>>
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/mueller-report-trump.html>
>>
>>

>>> What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that
>>> from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls

>>> in here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH,
>>> and John. So far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could

>>> have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.
>>

> I'm tabling the obstruction discussion for now. Here is why...

Because there is a HUGE amount of evidence that Trump obstructed justice
and you'd like to pretend it doesn't exist.

>
> The Mueller investigation was primarily about Russia's attempts to interfere with the US election and whether Trump or any American colluded with these attempts. Despite Russian attempts to entice the Trump Campaign, Mueller concludes that no American ate this forbidden fruit. Do you agree with Mueller's conclusions?
>

> Next question. As a liberal Democrat, are you ashamed of the rampant, over the top speculation in advance of the report's findings?
>

> Last question. I just saw Schiffy's presser. Clearly he is not accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course too. Are you in agreement with the course?
>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-18 3:22 p.m., Dene wrote:
>
>>> I'm tabling the obstruction discussion for now. Here is why...
>>>

>>> The Mueller investigation was primarily about Russia's attempts
>>> to interfere with the US election and whether Trump or any
>>> American colluded with these attempts. Despite Russian attempts
>>> to entice the Trump Campaign, Mueller concludes that no American
>>> ate this forbidden fruit. Do you agree with Mueller's
>>> conclusions?
>>

>> I've not read enough to know for sure just what Mueller found and
>> concluded to draw a conclusion like you already have.
>

> You're dodging, HH. I'll make it easy for you with a direct quote

> from the Muller report.
>
> "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump
> Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
> election interference activities.”

Which is not same as your statement that they concluded that "no
American" conspired or coordinated, is it?

>
>> What we know right now is just the summary top level that there
>> was no recommendation to pursue charges. That isn't proof that "no
>> one ate". Between the DoJ policy to not indict sitting Presidents
>> and the potential for inadequate evidence (which could have been
>> because of obstruction) to make strong case, there's just too much
>> ambiguity and reasons to not assume anything yet, particularly the
>> "lily white" slam dunk clarity of innocence that some shameless
>> parties are duplicitously trying to posture for.
>>
>> TL;DR: need the smoke to clear to see how dark the shade of grey
>> really is.
>
> There is nothing grey about the citation above. Do you need the page
> number?
>

>>> Next question. As a liberal Democrat, are you ashamed of the
>>> rampant, over the top speculation in advance of the report's
>>> findings?
>>

>> In the political arena, there's unfortunately all too much
>> posturing and duplicity, to downright shameful levels, by both
>> parties. As such, you'll have to point to specific examples for
>> specific comments.
>

> Watch any re-run of Chucky Todd's MTP. How about any Schiffy
> statements or pressers. I watch CNN. It was non-stop assumptions of
> guilt. I heard the word, "Checkmate" countless times. Also heard
> "Trump was guilty of collusion and he stole the election." "He is a
> Russian agent." "Don Jr. and Kirchner will be indicted." Worst of

> the worse is Carb's girlfriend, Rachel Maddow.
>

> Given these specific examples, are you ashamed of that "journalistic"

> conduct? Do you agree with Ted Koppel's criticism of journalism in
> this country?
>

>> For example, every person who has claimed that Mueller's report
>> was a total exoneration is an over-the-top shameful liar, because
>> Mueller himself explicitly stated that his investigation did not
>> exonerate.
>
> Re-read the citation and get back to me.
>

>> Similarly, you've attempted to label me as a liberal Democrat
>> which is of itself shameful and over-the-top speculation. By doing
>> so, you've revealed yourself as guilty of partisan posturing and
>> duplicity.
>
> I've never seen you defend Trump or any Republican. Given my
> experience with you in this room, is my assumption incorrect?
>

>>> Last question. I just saw Schiffy's presser.
>>

>> But its not Sunday night, so what the hell is he doing on TV?
>
> Hahaha.
>

>>> Clearly he is not accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the
>>> charge toward impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are
>>> pursuing this course too. Are you in agreement with the course?
>>

>> I trust & defer to what Mueller said on that topic, quoted above.
>> Why aren't you doing the same?
>
> I will ask the 3rd question again.
>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-18 4:40 p.m., Dene wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:19:19 PM UTC-7, B...@onramp.net

> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:51:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene

>> <gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless
>>> you count the HRC paid for Russian document.
>>

>> I don't recall that being in Muellers report. Probably because it
>> has been investigated fully and there was no collusion found.
>

> I'm glad you are able to admit that. As for the reverse collusion,

> i.e. the unauthorized surveillance of Trump's campaign and illegal

> spying and unmasking of Americans, stay tuned for the IG report or

> google up Carter Page, for starters.

You played that tune before and no one was impressed.

There was no unauthorized surveillance or illegal spying, and the very
fact that Americans were masked means that their conduct was
sufficiently egregious to make it necessary to unmask them.

If their identities were masked, then how can anyone have known if they
were working for Trump?

>
>>> Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction,
>>> unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and
>>> device destruction.
>>

>> There is abundant evidence but Mueller decided to let Congress
>> delve into that. Again, the reference to HRC is petty and
>> laughable.
>
> Two tiered justice system is not laughable. Do you deny that HRC
> destroyed evidence, despite a subpoena?

Yes. Do you deny that by your standards, the Bush administration did the
same with 22 million emails?

>
>>> What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of
>>> that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and
>>> trolls in here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK,
>>> Carbs, HH, and John.
>>

>> But if those expectations don't align with your opinions our
>> expectations from you will be a repeat performance.
>
> Actually...I'm trying to determine if it's worth participating in the

> this room with the remaining grownups I've named, which includes
> MnMike on my side of aisle. I expect and hope for some honest
> reflection in this room.
>

>>> o far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed
>>> it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.
>>

>> My take is the same as before on collusion. I never thought Trump
>> himself was involved in such. I still think that some of his
>> minions were guilty of that. Especially Jr. That may be in a
>> redaction.
>
> Redaction? Please explain.
>

>> With respect to obstruction I will simply point out that Trump was
>> lucky about that. Mueller wrote that If his aides had followed
>> his orders he definitely would be involved with obstruction. There
>> are many instances in which he ordered obstruction only to be
>> ignored by his staff.
>

> Agree....Trump is impulsive and new to the shitty game of politics.
> However, it's no fun to be falsely accused before an entire nation,
> night after night, for 2 years. What happened to him is

> unprecedented and should never happen to any POTUS.
>

>> If you think this is over.....think again. More to come.
>
> Agree again. The investigators and instigators are under
> investigation. More is coming.
>

Care to place a wager on that?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-19 9:05 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Dene wrote:
>
>> His tax returns will never see the light of day nor should they.
>> Just because he is POTUS doesn't mean he has to surrender his rights
>> to privacy.
>
> Kind of does though. It's what has maintained a sense on integrity in
> previous presidents that has been lost with this presidency.
>
> Decency, honesty, openness have no association with this presidency and
> are likely lost for good in the minds of many.
>

Greg the Weasel would be SHRIEKING if Obama had hidden his returns.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-20 6:26 p.m., Moderate wrote:
> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

>> On 4/19/19 12:24 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:09:06 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>> wrote:>> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:>>>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:> Clearly>>> the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless> you count the>>> HRC paid for Russian document.What does the document actually say>>> about the alleged matter of who paid for it? >>>>> Nothing. The Dossier is mentioned one time in the whole report in a>> direct quote from Trump, page 111.>>>> No mention of FISA.>>>> The report is evidence of a Witch hunt, by the sheer absence of known>> facts.> > You must relish being a dumb shit. Immoderate. Why don't you take a stab at reading the [redacted] reportyourself, instead of relying on spin from other clueless extremists?Direct link:https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

>
> It is not in the report. Mueller essentially said the opposite.

Then quote it...

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-21 9:23 a.m., Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 20:26:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:>> On 4/19/19 12:24 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:09:06 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>> wrote:>> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:>>>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:> Clearly>>> the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless> you count the>>> HRC paid for Russian document.What does the document actually say>>> about the alleged matter of who paid for it? >>>>> Nothing. The Dossier is mentioned one time in the whole report in a>> direct quote from Trump, page 111.>>>> No mention of FISA.>>>> The report is evidence of a Witch hunt, by the sheer absence of known>> facts.> > You must relish being a dumb shit. Immoderate. Why don't you take a stab at reading the [redacted] reportyourself, instead of relying on spin from other clueless extremists?Direct link:https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport>>It is not in the report. Mueller essentially said the opposite. > Bird turd lied and so did you.Just as I said. You either didn't read Mueller's 400+ page report ordidn't understand it. Now the spin begins from you.

>
> I am telling you what I read in the report.

Then quote it...

>
> You have no clue.
>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-18 8:37 p.m., TomS wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:13:56 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2019-04-18 1:10 p.m., Moderate wrote:
>>> Dene <gdscho...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>>>> Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless

>>>> you count the HRC paid for Russian document.Clearly there is

>>>> insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to
>>>> count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device

>>>> destruction.What remains is honest reflection. I have no

>>>> expectations of that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and
>>>> various haters and trolls in here. In contrast, I do have

>>>> expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John. So far....I haven't

>>>> seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I rarely
>>>> checked in during my hiatus.
>>>

>>> I went through enough of the Mueller report to realize this was
>>> as bad as I thought. It was obvious Mueller knew early on there
>>> was no collusion.
>>>

>>> He is a fucking asshole.
>>>
>>

>> Give us the quotes that supposedly made that "obvious", doofus.
>
> There was never any credible evidence from Day One that there was any
> collusion - if there was, point it out in the report.
>


The doofus's claim is the report makes it "obvious". Ergo (look it up),
there must be text that supports that claim.

So let's see it.

[Dene]

22 months of Russian wet dreams from you and this is the best you can do?

[Alan Baker]

Apparently, lying about what the report has said is the best you can do,
so...

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:13:56 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 2019-04-18 1:10 p.m., Moderate wrote:
> > > Dene <gdscho...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> > >> Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless

> > you count the HRC paid for Russian document.Clearly there is

> > insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to
> > count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device

> > destruction.What remains is honest reflection. I have no

> > expectations of that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and
> > various haters and trolls in here. In contrast, I do have
> > expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John. So far....I haven't
> > seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I rarely checked
> > in during my hiatus.
> > >

> > > I went through enough of the Mueller report to realize this was as
> > > bad as I thought. It was obvious Mueller knew early on there
> > > was no collusion.
> > >
> > > He is a fucking asshole.
> > >
> >
> > Give us the quotes that supposedly made that "obvious", doofus.
>
> There was never any credible evidence from Day One that there was any
> collusion - if there was, point it out in the report.

Are you claiming to have read the report and not seen any evidence of
members and/or associates of the Trump campaign attempts to co-operate
with Russians? Attempts to arrange meetings with Putin? Arrange
meetings to help with the campaign?

You didn't read about "offers of assistance to the Campaign,
invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person,
invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian
government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian
relations,”

You look like a complete fucking dick when you make absurd claims like
above implying that you know what was in the report when you clearly
don't.

You won't get it from Fox news or the Liar in Chief, you need to
actually do a little reading to not look a dick.

If you struggle with reading just read the summary. That is credible
evidence of collusion and attempts to collude.

Figuratively speaking these guys were wearing masks and carrying bags
with swag printed on them... and the only thing that prevented very
serious charges in some cases was that it would be difficult to prove
they knew what they were doing was unlawful... even though they
subsequently conspired to cover up... including the President
attempting to obstruct or obstructing justice with repeated lying.

Now stop being a fucking idiot about it. Stop pretending to know what
is in the report and actually read some of it.

[B...@onramp.net]

Since you didn't show to whom you're responding I'll point this out:

No wet dreams from anyone here and The Barr Report tried to make Trump
look good but it did say that Mueller's findings showed that regarding
obstruction he was NOT exonerated.

[Carbon]

You're mischaracterizing the report in a rather extreme way, so I can only
conclude that you haven't read it. I'll repeat my suggestion that you read
it. It's eye-opening.

[TomS]

1. Barr DIDN'T release a "report."
2. Investigators NEVER "exonerate" anybody.

[Alan Baker]

Actually, that's not true.

When investigators discover that someone cannot have committed a crime,
they DO exonerate people who had been implicated.

[Dene]

I and most normal Americans care about the BOTTOM LINE....and neither volume 1 or volume 2 gives any credence to the plethora of wet dream Russian collusion delusions you have been spouting for 22 months.

Frankly I expect better insight from you. BK...no. He can't see beyond his hate but I thought you could see beyond your leftist ideology. Apparently not.

Nonetheless....I will lead with my own concessions. Trump is an impulsive asshole. Volume 2 reveals that. Fortunately he has good people around him who stop him and slowly he is becoming more presidential while getting things done, despite the obvious coup your side of the aisle launched against him.

But...sorry Carbs. It's not against the law to be an asshole. POTUS has no less rights than you or me. In the case of the Mueller report and Barr's summation, the standard for criminal prosecution prevailed. There are no indictments against Trump or anyone in his campaign.

Can you explain that bottom line or are you going to move the goal posts from "speeding" to "intent to speed."

[Dene]

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 7:44:14 PM UTC-7, B...@onramp.net wrote:

So cite the indictments....

[TomS]

Wrong and wrong.

[Bigbird]

Childish pedant. He did report to congress on the Mueller findings...
only not really as they were very inaccurate and misrepresented the

report.

> 2. Investigators NEVER "exonerate" anybody.
>

Yes, they do; that is exactly what they often do with respect to people
who are not to blame for the alleged offences they are investigating.
You really are a very very stupid person.

...but it interesting that you are saying that Barr and Trump lied.

There is a big difference between not exonerating someone and
specifically stating that a person was not exonerated.

You really are a very, very stupid person.

[Bigbird]

Another very, very stupid person.

If, as you have claimed, you had even glanced at the report you would
not be making such ignorant request nor attempting to contradict Bobby
for stating documented fact.

[Bigbird]

So you haven't read it and yes they do.

Don't rely on Fox and friends; doing so is making you look a very, very
stupid person.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:29:16 -0700 (PDT), Dene
<gdscho...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 8:06:58 PM UTC-7, Carbon wrote:
>> On 4/22/19 3:02 PM, Dene wrote:
>> > On 4/18/19 1:51 PM, Dene wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you
>> >>> count the HRC paid for Russian document.
>> >>>
>> >>> Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless
>> >>> you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device
>> >>> destruction.
>> >>>
>> >>> What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that
>> >>> from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls in
>> >>> here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and
>> >>> John. So far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed
>> >>> it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.
>> >>
>> >> Even the [redacted] Barr Report is damning. I assume you haven't read
>> >> it.
>> >
>> > 22 months of Russian wet dreams from you and this is the best you can
>> > do?
>>
>> You're mischaracterizing the report in a rather extreme way, so I can only
>> conclude that you haven't read it. I'll repeat my suggestion that you read
>> it. It's eye-opening.
>
>I and most normal Americans care about the BOTTOM LINE....and neither volume 1 or volume 2
>gives any credence to the plethora of wet dream Russian collusion delusions you have been spouting for 22 months.

Read the Mueller report completely. Not about collusion, that's been
settled.

That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand which was NOT
Russian collusion but Trump's obstructions of justice. There is ample
evidence of that.
>
>Frankly I expect better insight from you. BK...no. He can't see beyond his hate ....

More silliness. Try to grow up.

>.....but I thought you could see beyond your leftist >ideology.Apparently not.

>
>Nonetheless....I will lead with my own concessions. Trump is an impulsive asshole.
>Volume 2 reveals that. Fortunately he has good people around him who stop him

That is the crux of this discussion. Trump was hell bent on
obstruction and his ass was saved by some good people. The Intent
was there.

>and slowly he is becoming more presidential

\LOLOLOL
>while getting things done,

You mean like negotiating with North Korea, a tax "savings" that
isn't, ongoing close relations with his Russian pal, delivering "a
great health plan", lowering the trade deficit, taking all credit for
the economy, protecting our environment and education?

>despite the obvious coup your side of the aisle launched against him.
>
>But...sorry Carbs. It's not against the law to be an asshole.

And you prove that.

>POTUS has no less rights than you or me. In the case of the Mueller report and
>\Barr's summation, the standard for criminal prosecution prevailed.

Not so. That's still Congresses call.

>There are no indictments against Trump or anyone in his campaign.

Wanna check on that again? There's convictions already.

>
>Can you explain that bottom line or are you going to move the goal posts from "speeding" to "intent to speed."

The bottom line of this specific conversation is "intent to obstruct".
>
>

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Dene

That may come from Congress. We'll see.

[John B.]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you count the HRC paid for Russian document.
>
> Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device destruction.
>
> What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls in here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John. So far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.

I take it you haven't read the report. I have. It isn't possible to read
it objectively without concluding that Trump is guilty of multiple
counts of obstruction of justice. If you tell your subordinate to commit
a crime and he doesn't do it, you are still guilty.

[John B.]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 5:22:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 2:03:07 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:

> > On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > > Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless
> > > you count the HRC paid for Russian document.
> >

> > What does the document actually say about the alleged matter of
> > who paid for it?
> >
> >

> > > Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction,
> > > unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit,
> > > and device destruction.
> >

> > Irrelevant HRC deflection attempt.
> >
> > In the meantime, Federal prosecutors are known to be pursuing 14
> > investigations which had been referred by the special counsel,
> > in addition to the guilty pleas and convictions which have already
> > taken place.
> >
> > Plus the report actually did find extensive evidence on multiple
> > cases of obstruction:
> >
> > <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/trump-obstruction-of-justice.html?module=inline>
> >
> > ...but a more in-depth reading is required to glean out just how
> > strong the evidence is, plus what rationale for why obstruction
> > charges were not recommended. But it has been noted that current
> > DoJ policy is to not charge a seated POTUS, so we just simply do not
> > know if this DoJ policy is the sole reason why there were no charges,
> > or if there were other reasons why.
> >
> > For example, this NYT Opinion piece repeats this both points:
> >
> > "The report makes clear that the president’s obstruction of the F.B.I.
> > and special counsel investigations crossed constitutional boundaries
> > that could have merited criminal prosecution, if not for the Justice
> > Department’s policy against indicting sitting presidents. Mr. Mueller’s
> > report notes that his office explicitly considered absolving the
> > president of obstruction of justice, but emphatically chose not to.
> >
> > Instead, Mr. Mueller laid out 181 pages detailing the substantial
> > evidence that Mr. Trump obstructed justice."
> >
> > <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/mueller-report-trump.html>
> >
> >

> > > What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that
> > > from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls
> > > in here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH,
> > > and John. So far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could
> > > have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.
> >

> I'm tabling the obstruction discussion for now. Here is why...
>
> The Mueller investigation was primarily about Russia's attempts to interfere with the US election and whether Trump or any American colluded with these attempts. Despite Russian attempts to entice the Trump Campaign, Mueller concludes that no American ate this forbidden fruit. Do you agree with Mueller's conclusions?
>

> Next question. As a liberal Democrat, are you ashamed of the rampant, over the top speculation in advance of the report's findings?
>

> Last question. I just saw Schiffy's presser. Clearly he is not accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course too. Are you in agreement with the course?

I don't know why these are reasons for "tabling the obstruction discussion."

[Dene]

Firing Mueller is not a crime. Stupid....yes....but not a crime. Trump is the leader of the Executive Branch. Mueller worked for the same branch.

[Dene]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 8:26:30 AM UTC-7, B...@onramp.net wrote:

> >
> >Can you explain that bottom line or are you going to move the goal posts from "speeding" to "intent to speed."
>
> The bottom line of this specific conversation is "intent to obstruct".

See comments to John. You are dead wrong about this.

[Dene]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 8:39:11 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

And your thoughts about the collusion delusion are?

[Dene]

You will see history repeat itself, namely the misguided Clinton impeachment. Most fair Americans accept the bottom line. They will not appreciate Congressional idiots using committee power to harass POTUS or sidestep the Mueller investigation's bottom line. Only idiotic partisans want this course. Those with half a brain, like Pelosi and Hoyer, see beyond Trump Delusion Syndrome.

[Alan Baker]

So then how does one investigate the leader of the executive branch,
Weasel?

[Alan Baker]

It's not a delusion and the correct word is conspiracy...

...and "did not establish" is far from exoneration.

[Dene]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 8:45:48 AM UTC-7, Carbon wrote:

> On 4/18/19 1:51 PM, Dene wrote:
>
> > Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless you count
> > the HRC paid for Russian document.
> >
> > Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, unless you
> > want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and device
> > destruction.
> >
> > What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of that from
> > the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and trolls in here.
> > In contrast, I do have expectations from BK, Carbs, HH, and John. So
> > far....I haven't seen any admissions but I could have missed it. I
> > rarely checked in during my hiatus.
>

> Even the [redacted] Barr Report is damning. I assume you haven't read it.

Nice try....I know the bottom lines and so do you. What is quite apparent is that you do not have the insight to state that your Russian Collusion Delusion wet dreams were way off course.

Frankly I expected more from you.

[Bigbird]

It's called being disingenuous.

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

[John B.]

Again, you obviously haven't read the report. His attempt to get
rid of Mueller was one of many attempts by Trump to obstruct justice.

[John B.]

I accept that Mueller found no evidence of collusion.

[Bigbird]

I am sure most Americans recognise that the bottom line is not what
you, your president or his lackeys claim it is...

[Bigbird]

Dene wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 8:39:11 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > > Clearly the notion of Russian collusion was a delusion, unless
> > > you count the HRC paid for Russian document.
> > >
> > > Clearly there is insufficient evidence to prove obstruction,
> > > unless you want to count HRC's deletion of emails, bleachbit, and
> > > device destruction.
> > >
> > > What remains is honest reflection. I have no expectations of
> > > that from the Dem leadership, MSDNC, CNN, and various haters and
> > > trolls in here. In contrast, I do have expectations from BK,
> > > Carbs, HH, and John. So far....I haven't seen any admissions but
> > > I could have missed it. I rarely checked in during my hiatus.
> >
> > I take it you haven't read the report. I have. It isn't possible to
> > read it objectively without concluding that Trump is guilty of
> > multiple counts of obstruction of justice. If you tell your
> > subordinate to commit a crime and he doesn't do it, you are still
> > guilty.
>
> Firing Mueller is not a crime.

Depends on the intent; your premise is false.

[Alan Baker]

But then "collusion" has no meaning in that context...

[Dene]

Good John.
Be curious if you accept the IG report and any subsequent indictments of the so-called investigators. Any fair minded American knows that the HRC investigation was rigged, as was the genesis of the Mueller investigation. I'm just relieved there were a few honest men within the Mueller investigation. Finding honest, insightful people in here, CNN, MSDNC, and some congressional Dems, is an exercise in futility.

Sad state of affairs for the US.

[Dene]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:02:02 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> Bigbird writes:
> > Dene wrote:
> >> His tax returns will never see the light of day nor should they.
>
> It had become standard practice from an ethical disclosure.

> >> Just because he is POTUS doesn't mean he has to surrender his rights
> >> to privacy.
> >
> > Kind of does though. It's what has maintained a sense on integrity in
> > previous presidents that has been lost with this presidency.
>
> Oh, it is far more than merely “kind of”: it is called a Public Office because
> it is a position of responsibility and accountability to the public’s, which
> ethically means maximizing transparency in potential conflicts of interests.
>
> Even mere public employees are required to make various disclosures
> and elect restrictions on their public life. So if one doesn’t want to be
> thus accountable to the public ... then don’t sign up for the job in the first place.

The IRS is more than capable of determining fraud and illegalities with Trump's return. The country doesn't need any more half ass speculations and investigations.

> > Decency, honesty, openness have no association with this presidency and
> > are likely lost for good in the minds of many.

The Left, especially it's leadership, and news media is far more corrupt.

> Hopefully, the pendulum will swing back from this extremis.
>
> -hh

It's happening. Note the ratings of discredited CNN and MSDNC.

[Bigbird]

There is nothing to support such an assertion.

There are 4857 lies (last time I took note), a dozen acts of
obstruction or attempted obstruction and many instances of profiteering
that support my assertion not to mention accusations of sexual abuse,
overt racism and misogyny and infantile name calling.

The presidency has been reduced to a reality show, good rating but fuck
all integrity.

Your attempts to divert are trivial and pathetic in comparison.

[Bigbird]

...because he never looked for it? It is there in plain sight though.
Of course it may depend on what definition of collusion you are using.
If on the other hand one looks at what was actually investigated,
conspiracy, you will see that there was evidence but not sufficient to
bring criminal charges, in the investigators opinion. Conspiring was
not enough, they wanted to be able to prove they knew what they were
doing was illegal.

[B...@onramp.net]

No I'm not. Your comment to John were steadfast idiocy. A total
whoosh.

[B...@onramp.net]

There's no delusion and he stated his thoughts in the sentence above.
You read that about as carefully as you did Mueller's report, seeking
every possibility of absolving Donald Trump from any wrongdoing.
He's a crook Greg.

Incidentally why don't you call John, Carbon, HH, Alan and others
"haters"? They all say the same as I about Trump. Because their eyes
are wide open unlike apologists like you.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Dene

>nvestigation's bottom line. Only idiotic partisans want this course. Those with half a brain,
> like Pelosi and Hoyer, see beyond Trump Delusion Syndrome.

Tripe. So now you have ESP and know what will transpire? Then you
take the mantle of speaking for fair Americans, as if you are a fair
thinker yourself. You have a skewed vision of what has transpired and
will not try to see the writing on the wall. That's sad.

[Alan Baker]

As I've said before, Bobby:

It's not that Greg doesn't understand that Trump is a crook; an evil man...

...it's that he DOES NOT CARE.

Greg puts his agenda before honesty and integrity.

[B...@onramp.net]

The apparent thing here is that you are FOS.

>
>Frankly I expected more from you.

Frankly we expected this diatribe from you.

[B...@onramp.net]

Of all Greg's latest posts this one deserved a monster WHOOOOOOOOSH!

[Dene]

We...as in your fellow circle jerkers.

[Dene]

You can reason with John, Carbs, and HH. Alan is troll. You are the B.O.B.

[B...@onramp.net]

Not quite. He just thought better of making decisions of pursuing the
evidence he found and leaving it to Congress.

[Alan Baker]

What you mean is that you start calling people names when you lose...

[B...@onramp.net]

Rigged? Let's see your proof of that.

>Sad state of affairs for the US.

Agreed, as of January 2017.

[B...@onramp.net]

An opinion that doesn't seem to be worthwhile.

>
>> Hopefully, the pendulum will swing back from this extremis.
>>
>> -hh
>
>It's happening. Note the ratings of discredited CNN and MSDNC.

Note that Trump's POTUS rating has averaged minus 53%, lowest of any
modern president.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Dene

We as in the majority of sane posters.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT), Dene

No Greg, just more blindness of yours. You're the laughingstock of all
of the above and are continually and decidedly dismissed because of
your puppet-like opinions. But you can count on Mod who's in your
same position.

[Dene]

Fine....you jerkers can have Mod.

I got the answers I needed, essentially confirming that RSG is a waste of time, especially reasoning with jerkers like yourself.

I'll be back to check on the response to the upcoming indictments and amuse myself with the excuses y'all will offer.

Same when Trump beats the leftist contender for POTUS. On that note, it's really quite sad that a legitimate moderate Dem hasn't arisen. I don't count Creepy Joe Biden. If such a candidate were on hand, I'd probably vote for him or her. Instead....Dems have gone too far left. Ordinary Americans will not go for it. A redux of 1972.

I'll leave you with a parting gift. It's full of insight but I doubt if anybody here will get it.

https://binged.it/2ITbKTg

[Alan Baker]

I'll leave you with one...

...and everyone will get it:

<quote>
From: "Greg Schoenberg" <de...@ipns.com>
To: "newellsatwsu" <newel...@adelphia.net>
References: <1148531417....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<1148573801....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Turd in a Punchbowl?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:44:11 -0700

Saw your various posts about this incident. I had hoped there would be
sufficient maturity on your part to acknowledge and apologize, thus
putting this indicident to rest for good. Instead, you brought it out
in a public forum, praising it for it's hilarity. Next you admit to
naming me the "turd in the punchbowl." Finally, you attempt to spin it
vs. apologizing.

Fact is, a fourth of the participants are not in RSG. Explanation
would have been necessary in order for them to understand "the joke."

This fact and others will be revealed in deposition. I consulted with
my attorney/client/friend two days ago and under Washington laws of
libel, which are more strict/definitive than Oregon's, I have a solid
case to bring toward you and the other TITPB participants. He's
willing to do this on a contigency basis, so the financial risk to me
is minimal.

Hope you and Kelli haven't spent that down payment yet.


-------------------------------------


From: "Greg Schoenberg" <de...@ipns.com>
To: "newellsatwsu" <newel...@adelphia.net>
Subject: Fw: Turd in a Punchbowl?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:20:04 -0700

Now that's maturity. RD is no longer in my crosshairs. You, OTOH,
remain.

We can settle this with or without the legal system. Given that I
truly like your wife, I prefer without. The solution I have in mind
does not involve attorneys or $$. It requires that you respond to this
e-mail by tonight, sincerely inquiring about the terms I have in mind.
Otherwise, I will turn Mr. Salisbury loose tomorrow.
</quote>

[John B.]

Neither investigation was rigged. As is the case with most
of your predictions, you'll turn out to be wrong about
Mueller's investigators being indicted.