Donald Trump
Comments
-
He didn't just benefit from it. He explicitly did not tell the FBI that it was happening....after they warned him about their efforts to help him.mace1229 said:
So the fact he benefited by something that, according to the report, he had no part of is impeachable? Is that what you're saying? How does that make sense?mrussel1 said:
His lack of a moral compass shield be disqualifying.tbergs said:
Wow, that is really disheartening to hear. I don't like Bernie, but good god, to say you'd vote Trump, again, over him? Yikes! Sorry, I know you are about to get flamed in here, but I can't understand your rationale.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
His desire to capitalize politically on a crime by an adversarial govt is impeachable even if not criminal.
www.myspace.com0 -
The whole situation with Trump only further proves how pathetic this country is at handling white collar criminals. If you have enough money and either ignore or act like you don't know something is an issue, then nothing can be done. But man, we are really good at nailing that guy selling smack on the corner or the person doing 5 miles over the speed limit. Justice fucking blows in this country and some of the statements over the last few days provide zero hope of everyday people being able to exact justice from at least a social acceptance standpoint. I mean, don't you (speaking figuratively for those who think this should just go away) know people like this who work the system and do shady things, but don't get caught or are you also morally compromised so all of this seems normal. It's so fucked, all of it.It's a hopeless situation...0
-
You mean it’s easy to bust someone when you specifically see and have undeniable evidence? Weirdhippiemom = goodness0
-
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.0 -
I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that.mace1229 said:
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Spend the 10 bucks. Be responsible for your sources of information.
https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Special-Counsel-Collusion/dp/1510750169
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Intro by Trump schill Alan Dershowitz on a DOJ-issued document? Nice.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
Your still wrong not that they tried ! THEY DID !mace1229 said:
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
You know what I mean, or maybe you don't. Both of those scenarios involve either a dickhead trooper with a hard-on hiding somewhere to bust some middle class schmuck to meet a quota or some undercover narc surveilling an underling. They aren't any more openly obvious. Deception and cover is needed to catch both. Most likely in both cases, the person will just pay a fine or plead guilty because they don't have the time or resources to get off. Low hanging fruit. Whatever, this isn't worth it.cincybearcat said:You mean it’s easy to bust someone when you specifically see and have undeniable evidence? WeirdIt's a hopeless situation...0 -
Dude. Everything in my reply to you is true. Read the report.mace1229 said:
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.www.myspace.com0 -
Again for the clueless, Russia fucking interfered successfully in our elections get that through your head !jesus greets me looks just like me ....0
-
My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work. At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed. I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.oftenreading said:
I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that.mace1229 said:
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.0 -
Bezos proving he is the smartest and richest again selling this on Amazon. Easy money.Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0
-
You caught a bunch of things that you think essentially exonerate Trump and you missed the most significant take away regarding obstruction? Probably just a coincidence.mace1229 said:
My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work. At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed. I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.oftenreading said:
I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that.mace1229 said:
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
I mean, if you were waiting for an indictment from the Mueller report to tell you Trump is a criminal and a con, then you were a lost cause from the start and there is no turning back.
I didn't need the Starr report to tell me that Clinton was a liar or a philandering womanizer.
It seems that some are using this as their scape goat to clear their conscious. Whatever makes you feel better...It's a hopeless situation...0 -
I'm a single dad on Thursdays, what can you expect? Kids are lucky if they don't get sick Friday morning.oftenreading said:
You caught a bunch of things that you think essentially exonerate Trump and you missed the most significant take away regarding obstruction? Probably just a coincidence.mace1229 said:
My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work. At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed. I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.oftenreading said:
I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that.mace1229 said:
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.0 -
You don't need to justify your time as a parent. No one has time to keep up with all this bullshit and if they do, wow, that must be exhausting and maddening. I think the point is that there should be more of an unknown view at this point if someone truly wasn't sure what was all found. I can't stand Trump, but I also don't know if what is in the report will make a difference at this point. Most of it was already known or assumed if you were being reasonable. The fact that there is no bombshell in there just speaks to the level of normal we've come to expect with him as President.mace1229 said:
I'm a single dad on Thursdays, what can you expect? Kids are lucky if they don't get sick Friday morning.oftenreading said:
You caught a bunch of things that you think essentially exonerate Trump and you missed the most significant take away regarding obstruction? Probably just a coincidence.mace1229 said:
My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work. At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed. I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.oftenreading said:
I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that.mace1229 said:
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
So then come here and ask questions. Don't come in like you know what's in the report after seeing a few talking heads talk about.....mace1229 said:
My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work. At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed. I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.oftenreading said:
I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that.mace1229 said:
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.www.myspace.com0 -
Better yet, read the report for yourself. It’s available online for free or spend 10 bucks and read 3 pages a night before you fall asleep. 147 nights you’re done.The Juggler said:
So then come here and ask questions. Don't come in like you know what's in the report after seeing a few talking heads talk about.....mace1229 said:
My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work. At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed. I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.oftenreading said:
I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that.mace1229 said:
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
That is exactly what I did. My first post started with "Am I missing something?" And stated my point of view.The Juggler said:
So then come here and ask questions. Don't come in like you know what's in the report after seeing a few talking heads talk about.....mace1229 said:
My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work. At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed. I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.oftenreading said:
I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that.mace1229 said:
I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.The Juggler said:
No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime.mace1229 said:I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt? Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.
I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon.
And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
I almost never comment in this thread, and wouldn't have if I didnt want answers.Post edited by mace1229 on0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help