Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

The population of Delaware is 967,171 and the population of California is 39.56 million. So CA is 40 times the population of DE. 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 Besides, if it were 1 person 1 vote, CA wouldn't even matter at all. Politicians would be campaigning for everyone's vote.

Protest too much?  I don't think so - this idiotic idea won't accomplish anything w/r/t establishing "fairness".   I've said what I think, you've shared your thoughts, now we'll sit back and see what happens - neither of us will influence what actually happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, nolatom said:

okay, an unwilling Mueller will be made to appear Wednesday before two committees, and to what end?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

The Report “is” his testimony, he’s told us that.  And the report has been public for months, and summarized for non-readers or too-lazy-to-be-bothered-readers (some of whom are in Congress?) by numerous summarizers, pundits, even acting troupes.  Those who care to read it have read it.

So who and what are the committees aiming at?  Civic recluses? Themselves in the mirror? A mythical piñata they’re convinced, or at least hoping, is real?  Glowing reviews of their speechifying sound-bites (oh wait, questions, sorry) from CNN or Fox, respectively?  Making old news appear shiny and new?

I’m not expecting much, aside from the usual media overreaction.  

Mr. Mueller, did the President obstruct justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Tofu?  Wasn’t he the cook on Bonanza?

I think that was Hop Singh. The guys who did the actual ranch hand work were all named Manuel Labor.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Delaware votes 90% for pizza - CA chooses a tofu burger.  All of DE voters lose.  

Delaware doesnt vote

CA doesn't vote

 

Maybe you've not thought through this, but imagine what would happen to the Parties if they needed to appeal to a majority of voters.  Don't you think they'd moderate their positions a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

The population of Delaware is 967,171 and the population of California is 39.56 million. So CA is 40 times the population of DE. 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Besides, if it were 1 person 1 vote, CA wouldn't even matter at all. Politicians would be campaigning for everyone's vote.

Exactly - CA doesn't matter. Voters in Fresno, who have no say today, would see their votes matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What you propose is the antithesis of "1 person 1 vote" - it is instead Mob Rule. 

Again - 1 person 1 vote is not how it works anymore.

You might find a more moderate less crazy Republican party (or perhaps a more moderate Democrat party) if CA votes were in play. Instead of the current "shit on the coastal states" bullshit from the elitist Conservative cranks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Delaware doesnt vote

CA doesn't vote

 

Maybe you've not thought through this, but imagine what would happen to the Parties if they needed to appeal to a majority of voters.  Don't you think they'd moderate their positions a bit?

CA and DE don't vote?  They would, and the votes cast wouldn't necessarily be the expressed will of the voters of the state. 

To your question - that absolutely is the change that we should all want, isn't it?  I can't see how the "popular vote" isn't simply going to change focus from swing states to the small group of populous states who can numerically overwhelm the EC votes of the less populous states.   I'm really not trying to be pedantic about this - and if I'm missing something, I would honestly appreciate someone helping me understand what I'm missing, because I think that this is the wrong approach.  

 

(edited because I can't fuggin' type this afternoon - bleary eyed from being too deep in too many volumetric projection .XLSs) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the will of those states.  Nebraska and Maine allocate their EC votes based on proportionality.....other states could as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proportionate EC votes or get rid of it. The people of Iowa and a few swing states would appreciate not being inundated with campaign crap non stop, win win. And when you pull the lever (figuratively since haven't seen a lever in ages) you know your vote is actually counting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

Proportionate EC votes or get rid of it. The people of Iowa and a few swing states would appreciate not being inundated with campaign crap non stop, win win. And when you pull the lever (figuratively since haven't seen a lever in ages) you know your vote is actually counting.

This is the only reasonable fix that I can see.  I don't see the popular vote doing what its proponents suggest - I fear it would instead result in a wholesale negation of voter intent.   If you and your state were 90% for the D candidate, and the R candidate took the popular vote - thus, sending all your state's EC votes to the R, contrary to your and the state's expressed intent, would you consider that a "fair election"?   

Most of you here aren't idiots - and I know that I can be hard headed about stuff on occasion, but, I'm honestly not understanding how the concerns I express won't become the reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

CA and DE don't vote?  They would, and the votes cast wouldn't necessarily be the expressed will of the voters of the state. 

To your question - that absolutely is the change that we should all want, isn't it?  I can't see how the "popular vote" isn't simply going to change focus from swing states to the small group of populous states who can numerically overwhelm the EC votes of the less populous states.   I'm really not trying to be pedantic about this - and if I'm missing something, I would honestly appreciate someone helping me understand what I'm missing, because I think that this is the wrong approach.  

 

(edited because I can't fuggin' type this afternoon - bleary eyed from being too deep in too many volumetric projection .XLSs) 

 

if you can wrap your head around people voting, and not states, we might be able to have a conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

This is the only reasonable fix that I can see.  I don't see the popular vote doing what its proponents suggest - I fear it would instead result in a wholesale negation of voter intent.   If you and your state were 90% for the D candidate, and the R candidate took the popular vote - thus, sending all your state's EC votes to the R, contrary to your and the state's expressed intent, would you consider that a "fair election"?   

Most of you here aren't idiots - and I know that I can be hard headed about stuff on occasion, but, I'm honestly not understanding how the concerns I express won't become the reality. 

You are conflating NPV the law, with the concept of a nationwide popular vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

You are conflating NPV the law, with the concept of a nationwide popular vote.

 

Perhaps - but, what do you as the difference between the two? Why are my concerns invalid? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

if you can wrap your head around people voting, and not states, we might be able to have a conversation.

That's not the case, though, is it? Voters in a state vote, and then the states take those votes and use them in deciding how to assign their EC votes. So, states DO vote, don't they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's not the case, though, is it? Voters in a state vote, and then the states take those votes and use them in deciding how to assign their EC votes. So, states DO vote, don't they? 

I think you're conflating the two - but lets stay with the concept of the EC.

In the EC, the States do add up their votes, in whatever manner they choose to allocate them, and send them on to the EC.

if enough states sign onto NPV, then 1 person = 1 vote, REGARDLESS of any single states EC total.

 

It's a proxy that has exactly the same result as a national election.

 

In today's environment, it's likely the only way that we can get to a fair system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Barr just wrote a letter to Mueller saying his testimony “must remain in the boundaries of the report”.  Claiming essentially executive privilege.  Can he do that? Mueller a private person.  He never spoke with the president IIRC.

Sounds like someone is suddenly nervous.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/justice-mueller-congress-testimony-limit-1426035

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller ain't gonna say shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shitstain certainly doesn't want Mueller to say shit. Still, I do know one stone cold unassailable fact,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dog won't be watching.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Mueller ain't gonna say shit.

If he is the patriot they are saying they shouldn't be able to shut him up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bridhb said:

If he is the patriot they are saying they shouldn't be able to shut him up!

He's said his piece. They can try to parse it every which way they want. He won't say shit.

 "If we had found that there was no obstruction of justice, we would have said so" (Paraphrasing)

 He will not say unequivocally that there was obstruction of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nice! said:

Mr. Mueller, did the President obstruct justice?

That might be jury question someday.  Right now it is a constitutional issue.  And until the Republican Senators grow a backbone, the issue is dormant.  And of course there is no backbone for "leaders" who base their votes on polls.  Self-preservation is the tune of the day.  I don't see any heroic efforts to save the Republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nice! said:

Mr. Mueller, did the President obstruct justice?

The president is the president.   By the nature of that title, he is legally unable to obstruct justice.    There is a finding that a sitting president is above such mundane annoyances as federal law.    Such a ridiculous theory could never be entertained by the justice department, it’s employees, or those appointed by them.   Hence, there was no possibility of evidence to support any wrong committed by the President.  We just found multiple crimes committed by the mere mortals he employed (briefly, but barely knew).    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, hasher said:

That might be jury question someday.  Right now it is a constitutional issue.  And until the Republican Senators grow a backbone, the issue is dormant.  And of course there is no backbone for "leaders" who base their votes on polls.  Self-preservation is the tune of the day.  I don't see any heroic efforts to save the Republic.

And that is where I think Mueller, who obviously has a backbone, and is said to love his country, should have to be dragged from the hearing, kicking and screaming what a POS criminal organization the Trump family and administration is.  Didn't Barr  release him from the DOJ "policy" and allow him to say "yeah, he did it!"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Would a person not currently POTUS  with this fact set be found to have obstructed justice?

What are the elements of obstruction of justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question that should be asked is exactly what did  playacting Attorney General Rosenstein task Mueller with investigating, and what things was he instructed were beyond the scope of his investigation?   I want the written and any verbal instructions or understandings from when he accepted the appointment.  It seems clear he was tasked with investigating Russian interference plus assistance by Trump’s staff and non government lawyers.   Other criminal matters involving mortals were referred elsewhere.   Acts by the future president were used only as historical context for criminal actions by those not divinely anointed.   It is unclear if those anointed by an act of spunk were also considered to be above the law and beyond investigation.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Barr's letter carry any weight? Last I checked we have Executive Privilege but not AG Privilege. As was pointed out above, Mueller is a private citizen. Yeah, he's prohibited from disclosing the redacted text by NDA or whatever. But that's about it. As for Executive Privilege, it hasn't been exercised since it would be laughable because he didn't work for Shitstain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Mueller ain't gonna say shit.

Why? Mueller was not happy at all with Barr's actions. While he may not be happy having to attend and answer questions, he's an honorable man. He may just as well  take this opportunity to clear his trump/barr besmirched name and actually explain in words of two syllables what he found..and to hell with the legal bullshit.

If I were he, I'd be somewhat reluctant to go down in history as a man who's inflexibility and adherence to the letter of the law and established protocols, allowed a criminal to go unpunished and aid this ugly caricature of a president to continue to bring my country into disrepute . To hell with it all would be my reaction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Why? Mueller was not happy at all with Barr's actions. While he may not be happy having to attend and answer questions, he's an honorable man. He may just as well  take this opportunity to clear his trump/barr besmirched name and actually explain in words of two syllables what he found..and to hell with the legal bullshit.

If I were he, I'd be somewhat reluctant to go down in history as a man who's inflexibility and adherence to the letter of the law and established protocols, allowed a criminal to go unpunished and aid this ugly caricature of a president to continue to bring my country into disrepute . To hell with it all would be my reaction.  

Sorry Meli - that's exactly what a principled officer of the law is compelled to do.  Otherwise, what's enforced is someone's personal opinion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sorry Meli - that's exactly what a principled officer of the law is compelled to do.  Otherwise, what's enforced is someone's personal opinion.  

But he isn't anymore is he? :D

And who's compelling him now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

But he isn't anymore is he? :D

As it pertains to this?  He's still bound by his oath of office and NDA's.    One of my very good friends is a prosecutor.  The personal anguish he feels when he absolutely knows that someone is responsible for committing a crime, but, doesn't have sufficient supporting evidence to bring a successful prosecution really weighs on him.   I've got to think that Mr Mueller is probably feeling something similar after the submission of his findings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

As it pertains to this?  He's still bound by his oath of office and NDA's.    One of my very good friends is a prosecutor.  The personal anguish he feels when he absolutely knows that someone is responsible for committing a crime, but, doesn't have sufficient supporting evidence to bring a successful prosecution really weighs on him.   I've got to think that Mr Mueller is probably feeling something similar after the submission of his findings. 

He knows stuff and could probably speak if given leave. Spill the beans and literaly shame that devil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hermetic said:

so you think mueller left "stuff" out of his report?

Did you read the report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:
3 minutes ago, hermetic said:

so you think mueller left "stuff" out of his report?

Did you read the report?

is that an answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who need to hear what is really in the report won’t listen and won’t read. Mueller isn’t going to put this in pop-up book format for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The people who need to hear what is really in the report won’t listen and won’t read. Mueller isn’t going to put this in pop-up book format for them. 

yep.  the questions may be interesting, but the answers will be bland

I'd like someone to ask "why didn't you charge any of the administration underlings with obstruction?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, hermetic said:

so you think mueller left "stuff" out of his report?

We know that “stuff” was redacted. We know that Trump and his associates limited their cooperation with the investigation with no responsive responses, hiding requested documents and destruction of communications and more. All that is in the report.

The question is: why don’t you care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

We know that “stuff” was redacted. We know that Trump and his associates limited their cooperation with the investigation with no responsive responses, hiding requested documents and destruction of communications and more. All that is in the report.

The question is: why don’t you care?

Are you suggesting that the redactions were inappropriate?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Are you suggesting that the redactions were inappropriate?  

Cute!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The people who need to hear what is really in the report won’t listen and won’t read. Mueller isn’t going to put this in pop-up book format for them. 

Why not? If that's the format ordinary Americans need to understand, it behooves the likes of mueller to put in in such a format in the name of transparency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lark said:

It is unclear if those anointed by an act of spunk were also considered to be above the law and beyond investigation.   

That is poetry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, phillysailor said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

so you think mueller left "stuff" out of his report?

We know that “stuff” was redacted. We know that Trump and his associates limited their cooperation with the investigation with no responsive responses, hiding requested documents and destruction of communications and more. All that is in the report.

The question is: why don’t you care?

from my reading of the report, trump - at a minimum - attempted to obstruct the investigation.  if the house wants to get to the truth they need to start an impeachment hearing at which point the courts will work with them

what "stuff was left out of the report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Why not? If that's the format ordinary Americans need to understand, it behooves the likes of mueller to put in in such a format in the name of transparency.

Foxy News isn't going to show clips that do not comport with the version of the report put forth by the Attorney General, because the truth isn't newsworthy enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Why not? If that's the format ordinary Americans need to understand, it behooves the likes of mueller to put in in such a format in the name of transparency.

Ah.  The "Mueller report for Dummies"..

Problem is, no one can summarize without slanting, and the only ones really interested have a slant.   And whichever summary it is, it's not the "need to understand", it's getting the non-readers, and non-carers, to care, and of course to care in the "right" way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nolatom said:

Ah.  The "Mueller report for Dummies"..

Problem is, no one can summarize without slanting, and the only ones really interested have a slant.

Oh FFS. we all read Trumps tweets...witness tampering, witness intimidation attempts to undermine the investigation...bet Mueller's got the goods on the money laundering too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, hermetic said:

from my reading of the report, trump - at a minimum - attempted to obstruct the investigation.  if the house wants to get to the truth they need to start an impeachment hearing at which point the courts will work with them

what "stuff was left out of the report?

Well, for starters, the “stuff” that was encrypted, WH communications that were destroyed in violation of protocols, and answers not submitted in full.

The coverup was described by Mueller in both general and specific terms. Reciting some of that on national News might be Mueller’s biggest impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

CA chooses a tofu burger.

Have you been to California?   Do you know how few places actually serve tofu out here?    You are much more likely to get an offering of grass fed, hormone free $15+ burger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that, for a large number of Americans, the Report "totally vindicated" Trump. My hope is that Mueller is unhappy with the Trump/Barr version and will try to correct the record. This is history in the making, hopefully he has his legacy top of mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, solosailor said:

Have you been to California?   Do you know how few places actually serve tofu out here?    You are much more likely to get an offering of grass fed, hormone free $15+ burger.

Yup - not to many of the "nice places" though - most of my time there has been at China Lake.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

That is poetry.

Thank you.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

from my reading of the report, trump - at a minimum - attempted to obstruct the investigation.  if the house wants to get to the truth they need to start an impeachment hearing at which point the courts will work with them

what "stuff was left out of the report?

Well, for starters, the “stuff” that was encrypted, WH communications that were destroyed in violation of protocols, and answers not submitted in full.

The coverup was described by Mueller in both general and specific terms. Reciting some of that on national News might be Mueller’s biggest impact.

I think you mean redacted.  and again, if the house wants to see the info you describe - they need to start impeachment hearings and get the courts to release that data and compel testimony from those who dodged it in the investigation.

I'm all for that.  as opposed to the electioneering we're going to see tomorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I think you mean redacted.  and again, if the house wants to see the info you describe - they need to start impeachment hearings and get the courts to release that data and compel testimony from those who dodged it in the investigation.

I'm all for that.  as opposed to the electioneering we're going to see tomorrow

"I'm all for that" except I never support the public pressure necessary to do that. Typical stupid bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sean said:

I suspect that, for a large number of Americans, the Report "totally vindicated" Trump. My hope is that Mueller is unhappy with the Trump/Barr version and will try to correct the record. This is history in the making, hopefully he has his legacy top of mind.

That would be nice, but I suspect that if it appears that there is any chance of that happening, Rep. Jordan will launch a circus clown routine to derail the whole thing.  We've seen much the same right here with the poster formerly known as Dog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I think you mean redacted.  and again, if the house wants to see the info you describe - they need to start impeachment hearings and get the courts to release that data and compel testimony from those who dodged it in the investigation.

I'm all for that.  as opposed to the electioneering we're going to see tomorrow

I meant encrypted. In particular, questions about Manafort working with Kilimnik and why Eric Prince went to the  Seychelles went unanswered because phones utilizing WhatsAp and Signal effectively encrypted and then deleted messages.

Jared’s communications with other world leaders (like MBS), in particular, have gone unrecorded despite their importance in maintaining a historical record mandating their being kept for later reference.

Funny how Hillary’s use & destruction of her emails prompts one set of responses from the faithful, and yet provoke completely opposite reactions from these same blowhards when used to thwart justice in this case.

It’s almost as if the political agenda of the GOP is hypocrisy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I meant encrypted. In particular, questions about Manafort working with Kilimnik and why Eric Prince went to the  Seychelles went unanswered because phones utilizing WhatsAp and Signal effectively encrypted and then deleted messages.

Jared’s communications with other world leaders (like MBS), in particular, have gone unrecorded despite their importance in maintaining a historical record mandating their being kept for later reference.

Funny how Hillary’s use & destruction of her emails prompts one set of responses from the faithful, and yet provoke completely opposite reactions from these same blowhards when used to thwart justice in this case.

It’s almost as if the political agenda of the GOP is hypocrisy.

 

Pretty much been that way since GW Shrub was POTUS....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That would be nice, but I suspect that if it appears that there is any chance of that happening, Rep. Jordan will launch a circus clown routine to derail the whole thing.  We've seen much the same right here with the poster formerly known as Dog. 

You’re probably right. Wishful thinking on my part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, phillysailor said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

I think you mean redacted.  and again, if the house wants to see the info you describe - they need to start impeachment hearings and get the courts to release that data and compel testimony from those who dodged it in the investigation.

I'm all for that.  as opposed to the electioneering we're going to see tomorrow

I meant encrypted. In particular, questions about Manafort working with Kilimnik and why Eric Prince went to the  Seychelles went unanswered because phones utilizing WhatsAp and Signal effectively encrypted and then deleted messages.

Jared’s communications with other world leaders (like MBS), in particular, have gone unrecorded despite their importance in maintaining a historical record mandating their being kept for later reference.

got it - I though we were discussing the obstruction section

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, hermetic said:

got it - I though we were discussing the obstruction section

Well, presumably the answers Mueller was looking for in texts and emails could have been answered during interviews, but were not. 

Why are you dancing around this? Obstruction happened in a variety of ways with s variety of tools & methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phillysailor said:
43 minutes ago, hermetic said:

got it - I though we were discussing the obstruction section

Well, presumably the answers Mueller was looking for in texts and emails could have been answered during interviews, but were not. 

Why are you dancing around this? Obstruction happened in a variety of ways with s variety of tools & methods.

because mueller is not going to talk about information he didn't see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

On another note Trump is suing the House Ways and Means committee to block disclosure of his tax returns.  He’s going to lose that one like most of the lawsuits that involve him.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/trump-sues-house-ways-and-means-panel-to-block-disclosure-of-his-tax-returns.html

It's just a delay tactic.  That is all he knows - tie it up in court.  Most of the folks in this country have the attention span of a gnat.

How many things have we heard he would get done, only to have that replaced by another debacle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also breaking is that Mueller got his deputy sworn in to help him answer questions.  GOP’rs are predictably apoplectic.  The DOJ objected but can’t do squat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

It's just a delay tactic.  That is all he knows - tie it up in court.  Most of the folks in this country have the attention span of a gnat.

How many things have we heard he would get done, only to have that replaced by another debacle?

Except that in this case the courts have been moving this through quickly knocking down Trump delay tactics.  I don’t think the SCOTUS will want to hear this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

because mueller is not going to talk about information he didn't see

If emails are not produced, texts are destroyed, and conversations forgotten or simply never described, those are all reportable.

A systematic program to prevent Investigators from discovering that which should be discoverable, and in some cases must be retained for precisely thus purpose but was instead destroyed, would satisfy requirements for evidence of obstruction.

The GOP pretended to care about this when discussing Hillary. I guess they aren’t so interested in the rule of law anymore.

Yawn. It seems the day is full of their (& your) hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Also breaking is that Mueller got his deputy sworn in to help him answer questions.  GOP’rs are predictably apoplectic.  The DOJ objected but can’t do squat.

Is the deputy going to get the same letter Mueller got from the DOJ?

Or does the original "threat" apply to him as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checking in......  Impeachment pending?

Asking for  a friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:

Just checking in......  Impeachment pending?

Asking for  a friend.

Tell your friend to rest easy. No impeachment in the near future. A aneurysm, or stroke, maybe, but no impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, warbird said:

Just checking in......  Impeachment pending?

Asking for  a friend.

Did Russia interfere? Yep. Did campaign officials go to jail. Why, tell your friend, yes, they did.

are all Wisconsinites as stupid as you? Maybe that’s why you’all fell for the Foxconn con. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Did Russia interfere? Yep. Did campaign officials go to jail. Why, tell your friend, yes, they did.

are all Wisconsinites as stupid as you? Maybe that’s why you’all fell for the Foxconn con. 

I know one guy who isn’t...but he moved there from FL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool as a cucumber -

 

 

IMG_5926.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poor Donny dead and gone. Left me here to sing his song. Poor Donnie dead and gone. Pretty little girl with a red dress on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Why? Mueller was not happy at all with Barr's actions. While he may not be happy having to attend and answer questions, he's an honorable man. He may just as well  take this opportunity to clear his trump/barr besmirched name and actually explain in words of two syllables what he found..and to hell with the legal bullshit.

If I were he, I'd be somewhat reluctant to go down in history as a man who's inflexibility and adherence to the letter of the law and established protocols, allowed a criminal to go unpunished and aid this ugly caricature of a president to continue to bring my country into disrepute . To hell with it all would be my reaction.  

Sometimes the best way to screw someone who's given you a stupid order is to obey it. 

   I'm not at all sure this will happen, but don't be surprised if Mueller clams up and cites DOJ orders as the reason. The clearest evidence that our DOJ is now just a lackey for the President and the President is above the law could there possibly be. Mueller will feel he's done as good a job as can be done to demonstrate that. What's the point of sacrificing yourself for people who lack the balls to act on what is in plain sight already?    

   He is a civil servant, they are elected officials. Them asking him to tell them what to do is not the way things should be. Not in a republic. 

 

  

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is Trump so frantic about Mueller having a Lawyer sit with him?

Tweets at 4am? a bit extreme even for trump

 

  1. It was NEVER agreed that Robert Mueller could use one of his many Democrat Never Trumper lawyers to sit next to him and help him with his answers. This was specifically NOT agreed to, and I would NEVER have agreed to it. The Greatest Witch Hunt in U.S. history, by far!

    5,417 replies2,828 retweets11,125 likes
    Reply
     5.4K
     
    Retweet
     2.8K
     
     
    Like
     11K
  2.  

    So Democrats and others can illegally fabricate a crime, try pinning it on a very innocent President, and when he fights back against this illegal and treasonous attack on our Country, they call It Obstruction? Wrong! Why didn’t Robert Mueller investigate the investigators?

    6,006 replies4,162 retweets15,910 likes
    Reply
     6.0K
     
    Retweet
     4.2K
     
     
    Like
     16K
  3.  

    So Robert Mueller has now asked for his long time Never Trumper lawyer to sit beside him and help with answers. What’s this all about? His lawyer represented the “basement server guy” who got off free in the Crooked Hillary case. This should NOT be allowed. Rigged Witch Hunt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

why is Trump so frantic about Mueller having a Lawyer sit with him?

Tweets at 4am? a bit extreme even for trump

 

  1. It was NEVER agreed that Robert Mueller could use one of his many Democrat Never Trumper lawyers to sit next to him and help him with his answers. This was specifically NOT agreed to, and I would NEVER have agreed to it. The Greatest Witch Hunt in U.S. history, by far!

    5,417 replies2,828 retweets11,125 likes
    Reply
     5.4K
     
    Retweet
     2.8K
     
     
    Like
     11K
  2.  

    So Democrats and others can illegally fabricate a crime, try pinning it on a very innocent President, and when he fights back against this illegal and treasonous attack on our Country, they call It Obstruction? Wrong! Why didn’t Robert Mueller investigate the investigators?

    6,006 replies4,162 retweets15,910 likes
    Reply
     6.0K
     
    Retweet
     4.2K
     
     
    Like
     16K
  3.  

    So Robert Mueller has now asked for his long time Never Trumper lawyer to sit beside him and help with answers. What’s this all about? His lawyer represented the “basement server guy” who got off free in the Crooked Hillary case. This should NOT be allowed. Rigged Witch Hunt!

“A very innocent president”

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fakenews said:

“A very innocent president”

LOL

going to have a nap now so I can watch later. who's streaming it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still at it -

 
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
So why didn’t the highly conflicted Robert Mueller investigate how and why Crooked Hillary Clinton deleted and acid washed 33,000 Emails immediately AFTER getting a SUBPOENA from the United States Congress? She must have GREAT lawyers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sean said:

Still at it -

 
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
So why didn’t the highly conflicted Robert Mueller investigate how and why Crooked Hillary Clinton deleted and acid washed 33,000 Emails immediately AFTER getting a SUBPOENA from the United States Congress? She must have GREAT lawyers!

huh? you must have a different donald Trump. I'm not seeing that. He delete it?

  1. NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION!

    1 reply0 retweets0 likes
    Reply
     1
     
    Retweet
     
     
     
    Like
     
  2.  

    ....interview, including the Vice President of the United States!

    265 replies484 retweets1,768 likes
    Reply
     265
     
    Retweet
     484
     
     
    Like
     1.8K
  3.  

    It has been reported that Robert Mueller is saying that he did not apply and interview for the job of FBI Director (and get turned down) the day before he was wrongfully appointed Special Counsel. Hope he doesn’t say that under oath in the we have numerous witnesses to the.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Did Russia interfere? Yep. Did campaign officials go to jail. Why, tell your friend, yes, they did.

are all Wisconsinites as stupid as you? Maybe that’s why you’all fell for the Foxconn con. 

Don’t know about all Wisconsinites; but drunk, fat and stupid is a way of life among cheeseheads.  I just live here, I’m not a native.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm expecting to be underwhelmed, again.  But Trump sure isn't acting like a person about to hear from the guys that completely exonerated him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

Don’t know about all Wiscinites; but drunk, fat and stupid is a way of life among cheeseheads.  I just live here, I’m not a native.

But you can't help but assimilate the lifestyle.  How many beers so far today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

But you can't help but assimilate the lifestyle.  How many beers so far today?

Haven’t had a beer in months.  Don’t do brandy either which as far as I can tell is the state drink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerseyguy said:

Haven’t had a beer in months.  Don’t do brandy either which as far as I can tell is the state drink

Just a matter of time until you have a red 'X' spray painted on your front door.  Such a disappointment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

Just a matter of time until you have a red 'X' spray painted on your front door.  Such a disappointment...

When someone drops a bag of cheese curds at my front door it’s all over.  They will have found me.  Fortunately I’m less than 25 miles from the Illinois border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mike G said:

I'm expecting to be underwhelmed, again.  But Trump sure isn't acting like a person about to hear from the guys that completely exonerated him.

It doesn’t matter. The people who Most need to hear from someone who tells the truth won’t be listening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites