To most of us who would not think of having to cover anything up we would not be thinking to claim privilege.

The GOP on the other hand is pulling all of the same tricks they used in Iran-Contra on this one and Barr was a major player in that scam.

Barr held then as he does now that the president is imbued with nearly imperial powers that preclude us mere citizens from knowing, let alone holding accountable a president for violations of the law.

I predict that the privilege claimed will be in areas meant to sculpt the released report to bolster the current exoneration narrative and hide the most damming evidence against the administration thus forcing the dems to sue for more release. this will allow the GOP to continue it's gaslight operation and will run out the clock on impeachment as by the time the real report gets released it will be time to vote at which point the GOP will transition it's messaging to much ado about nothing.

BAM! Kickass post!

goode trickle [69]:

When the president refuses to participate in an investigation, and the investigation focused on events that occurred prior to Trump taking office (the Russian assistance part of the investigation, not the obstruction of justice), how can they claim privilege?

The triple question marks don't bug me at all... just lets us all know that you're seeing multiples like a drunk man does because the amount of oxygen getting into the deep reaches of your brain is sorely deficient.

Now, isn't it past your bedtime? *waves hand* Go. ;)

Fine, I also certainly don't "give two shits", nor even a single shit for that matter, whether your speech is laden with crude and grammatically incorrect phrases, but when it appears on CW's blog, it also kinda reflects on your written language, which turns your nitpicking proclivity into sort of a "people who live in glass houses . . " situation of vulnerability, right?

What's the problem, hasn't anybody ever invented 'Gramcheck', the bad grammar users' equivalent of 'Spellcheck'???

P.S. You never shoulda told me the triple question marks bug you - now you're in bad trouble.

Actually, I'm surprised that anybody who would ever write "ME . . .discussed . . ." is so much into nitpicking, but have it your own way! I'm willing.

That's because I wasn't writing, Stucki; I was actually "talking" that particular post into my voice recognition software... and I happen to generally not give two shits what anybody thinks about my speaking habits.

Just rest assured in the knowledge that you'll never beat me in a game of "grammar teasing" with your atrocious posting habits; I can assure you that. ;)

Actually, I'm surprised that anybody who would ever write "ME . . .discussed . . ." is so much into nitpicking, but have it your own way! I'm willing.

Can anyone say Iran-Contra? I wonder if the pardons will come just before the release?

Oops...Not quite through with the nitpicking after all!

Oh, I see a capital after an ellipse and a sentence fragment. You're trying to outdo me, right?

"ME and Balthazar discussed...???

Oh, I see another sentence fragment and three question marks following an ellipse. Why? Why would anyone put three question marks after an ellipse? Is your brain so oxygen deprived that you can only see the one in the middle? If so, it is silly to assume the rest of us can't see all three of them.

Your literacy level is dropping as fast as Trumps guilt for 'collusion". Don't they teach English in Slobovia???

How would I know? I don't live on Earth 2 where "conservatives" reside. Go find a MAGAt your own age in a red hat and ask him. Who in hell is "Trumps"? Did you mean "Trump's"? If you did, then you forgot to show possessive. Oh, wait. I found it stuck over there by the word "collusion" where you should have used quotes on both sides instead of that hot mess you typed. Also, when you do use quotes around a word at the end of a sentence, the period goes inside the quote, not on the outside like you always screw up in every single post you've ever made. Lastly, you're killing everyone with those triple question marks; the rest of us can see the other two!

You do not want to get into a grammar and/or punctuation fight with me, old man. You'll get your bony ass kicked right up between your shoulders and teetering on the brink of your oxygen deprived cranium... every time! :)

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/03/26/trump-doubles-down-on-losing-strategy/

check it out.

-CW

"ME and Balthazar discussed . . .???

Your literacy level is dropping as fast as Trumps guilt for 'collusion". Don't they teach English in Slobovia???

:-)

-CW

So, now that the nitpicking is over, maybe you can visit Amy's Glen Greenwald interview. I'm gonna LOVE to hear you declare how someone on your side is lying and/or mistaken telling you the same things I've been telling you for two yrs.

While it is correct to say that I'm not a fan of the current POTUS, I don't exactly have a "side." That's something we actually do have in common... go figure.

But I'm not a Democrat... never have been and never will be. :)

Speaking of "double words" . . . How about "I've seen a jury take a set of facts and determine innocence and seen another jury take the same set of facts and determine innocence." Wow, that's a radical outcome, right?

Wrong again, Stucki! I'm explaining that most juries given virtually the same set of facts and the same jury charge will come to the same conclusion based on the scales of justice that the prosecution is required to clear. Your inability to understand an explanation of the high bar of "preponderance of the evidence" versus the penultimate bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the fact that most juries will come to the same conclusion given virtually the same set of facts is duly noted. That is exactly why prosecutors in high profile cases won't reach a determination of "conspiracy" or "coordination" unless they know it will meet that penultimate bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Thank you again for that demonstration of your inability to grasp legal concepts, although it was absolutely unnecessary for you to pile onto the evidence you've already presented that made it a slam dunk case.

Re: "CRS take notes . . ." Why would I need notes to remember the very thing I've been telling you for two yrs, and you've been disputing for those same two yrs, and now saying you agree with me and Barr???

Wrong. I never said I agreed with you, and I sure as hell NEVER said I agreed with Barr. You've been insisting it's not illegal... how many times do I have to go over the same stuff... and I've been quoting the statutes proving it was illegal. Whether or not the evidence cleared the bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or fit within the description of "conspiracy" that was the SCO's mandate was the open question.

Re: "Did anyone actually believe . . ." Not anyone with common sense, but you definitely DID believe that getting dirt on Hillary from Russians would result in Trump's downfall and exit! You made that very plain many times.

Wrong again! You claimed ad nauseam it wasn't illegal to "get dirt" from "Ruskies" while I quoted the law that proved otherwise. We never once discussed whether Mueller would find evidence that he would prosecute that met the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's still illegal to attempt to "get dirt from Ruskies" as defined by statute, and it's still illegal for a campaign to accept a "thing of value" or to take money from foreign nationals. You and I never discussed whether or not Mueller would find evidence that he would prosecute "beyond a reasonable doubt," but we did discuss that there is a Department of Justice directive that sitting presidents are not indicted. Me and Balthasar discussed multiple times that Trump wasn't "going down" for a damn thing unless and until he leaves office and still has a pulse when he exits.

The law is nuanced, Stucki, and no one on these boards would accuse any self-admitted Republican of being able to understand legal nuance... or any kind of nuance, for that matter... least of all me, especially where you and your demonstrable limited abilities are concerned.

Re: "Trying thinking outside . . ." ??? How does one "Trying" thinking?

It's obvious that you never do, even if you had the equipment to attempt the trying. :)

Glenn Greenwald? Please see his history with Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks. You know WikiLeaks, right? The cutout used by Russia to distribute hacked documents that were stolen from Americans? You should note that although Mueller has apparently cleared the Trump campaign from "conspiracy" or "coordination" with the "Russian government," unless his report says otherwise, that parsed language as written might or might not include the Russian cutout known as WikiLeaks. Who knows until we see Mueller's report? :)

Re: "CRS take notes . . ." Why would I need notes to remember the very thing I've been telling you for two yrs, and you've been disputing for those same two yrs, and now saying you agree with me and Barr???

Re: "Did anyone actually believe . . ." Not anyone with common sense, but you definitely DID believe that getting dirt on Hillary from Russians would result in Trump's downfall and exit! You made that very plain many times.

Re: "Trying thinking outside . . ." ??? How does one "Trying" thinking?

Re: "It wasn't 'ME' who identified . . ." Literate people would write . . . It wasn't 'I' . .

So, now that the nitpicking is over, maybe you can visit Amy's Glen Greenwald interview. I'm gonna LOVE to hear you declare how someone on your side is lying and/or mistaken telling you the same things I've been telling you for two yrs.

Appears the local Retard here is too dumb to avoid the conflation of the the dual concepts of "quotation" and "acceptance".

For future reference, you might want to avoid referring to anyone else as a "retard" in the same sentence where you can't accomplish the simple task of typing double words and thereby end up resembling your own description. Also, can you please get more creative with your name calling? That particular choice of yours is dull and lackluster, showing limited flair and is so dated and last century. Trying thinking outside your tiny little box.

I will say it's nice to see your acceptance of your self-anointed label, Stucki, however dull and uncreative it is, since it certainly wasn't me who identified myself and another poster as the only two "complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans" here [who] both want it released.

Now I should be having "fits of laughing and rolling on the floor", but unfortunately, my ability to differentiate 'funny' from 'pathetic' precludes that particular activity.

See then, there's your problem. There's mercifully absolutely no need to concern yourself with differentiating between funny and pathetic since you are admittedly one of the only two "complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans" here who are both.

But that's OK, 'cause I'm still laughing over her two-year insanity attack re "presidential collusion" being demolished by Mueller.

Wrong, Stucki. Explaining to you that statutes exist making it a crime to "get dirt"... your term... "from Ruskies"... your term... while you insisted over and over than doing so wouldn't even be a federal crime even if they did it isn't the same thing as insisting that Mueller would find evidence that fit within his mandate. When the Mueller report is released, we'll know more about how Mueller's mandate was defined by Rosenstein and the various assorted AG's who've made decisions regarding same and the conclusions he drew from the evidence he amassed. Simple legal term and discovery. Duh!

At my age, there are limits to how much raucus laughter one can bear without gasping for breath.

You meant "raucous" laughter, right? There's that demonstrable and uncanny resemblance to your own lackluster "ad hominems." Also, keep in mind (is that even possible) that the limited and inadequate oxygen going to your brain at your age is also an impediment to critical thinking skills and brain function. :)

Regarding "conspiracy" or "coordination," Bill Barr's letter states:

The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. [ <----- CRS, take notes so you'll remember this ] The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Regarding obstruction of justice:

The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

That isn't the equivalent of being exonerated; it's the equivalent of Mueller setting forth the facts he found during his investigation yet making no conclusion either way.

I believe many of us have had the discussion before that not being convicted or no finding of guilt isn't the equivalent of being found not guilty. Similar to the Manafort jury's determination of guilt on several charges yet no determination of guilt on several other charges. Guilty indeed means guilty, but "no determination of guilt" didn't mean "not guilty." The fact that Manafort eventually admitted guilt in every single charge is a big honking clue that "no determination of guilt" doesn't mean "not guilty." It means it's undetermined.

I would wager SCO/Mueller left it open for Congress to decide whether or not obstruction of justice had occurred versus one man's opinion in the form of the Attorney General. Mueller doesn't equivocate. He made a decision based on the evidence he had that there was no case he was willing to prosecute regarding "conspiracy" or "coordination" with the "Russian government." He declined to make a decision on the question of obstruction. I would wager that is because he wanted to leave it to Congress, and I suspect we'll know the answer eventually directly from Mueller. If the President refused to be questioned under oath by Mueller, and the question of "obstruction" is largely a determination of "intent," how would Mueller or anyone be able to make a determination regarding "intent" when the person in question refused to be questioned? They can't. That's my opinion.

I accept Mueller's findings whatever they turn out to be. Why wouldn't I? I've seen a jury take a set of facts and determine innocence and seen another jury take virtually the same set of facts and determine innocence. Why? Because a determination of guilt or innocence in a criminal case is predicated on a finding of "beyond a reasonable doubt," and that is the penultimate bar on the scale of justice... a very high hurdle. That's our legal system, ladies and gents; it ain't perfect, but it beats a huge swath of the legal systems on the rest of the planet Earth.

Bill Barr wrote a memo wherein he explained that he made a decision regarding obstruction that Mueller left open. The smaller the jury, the more cut and dried the verdict. A jury of one person in the form of Bill Barr who had already made a decision regarding guilt or innocence? Why would anyone expect anything different the second time he made it?

As far as impeachment on any grounds? Did anyone actually believe a Republican House would impeach any Republican? Of course not. Did anyone believe a Democratic House would impeach any Republican? Maybe. This "Republican"? There's a better case for "no" than there is for "yes," and Nancy Pelosi already made it. Regardless of impeachment, there isn't a single person I've found anywhere who believed any Senate would turn out the sitting POTUS... because it's happened exactly zero times in history. I love history; there's a lot to be learned by paying attention to it.

Crime comes in many forms related to issues investigated by the SCO and the evidence uncovered in the exercise that aren't necessarily related to the very narrow purview of "conspiracy/coordination" with foreign nationals from Russia, and "spin-offs" and "speaking indictments" are what Mueller utilized over and over ad nauseam regarding his findings of crime... multiple spin-offs to DC, EDVA, and multiple etceteras... some of them sung to the tune of New York, New York. :)

Greenwald (and Amy also), are staunch members of the Dem/Lib end of the political spectrum. No WAY can you POSSIBLY claim that those two people are lying to you!

No, because I'm not that dumb. Regardless of what the report says, I have eyes and ears, and have seen and heard enough. It happened, in plain sight. Really hard to make that go down the memory hole..

Do you see what you've done? There it is. You drank the kool-aid and think that Trump/America is a thing.

America is a thing. I love America.

Trump is something else. Maybe just another slob from Queens. Shouldn't in any case be president.

Now I should be having "fits of laughing and rolling on the floor", but unfortunately, my ability to differentiate 'funny' from 'pathetic' precludes that particular activity.

But that's OK, 'cause I'm still laughing over her two-year insanity attack re "presidential collusion" being demolished by Mueller. At my age, there are limits to how much raucus laughter one can bear without gasping for breath.

We have heard from him.. Thru his legally appointed representative..

YOU just don't like what he said..

What will you do when you read the actual report and it says the exact same thing??

Don't know what it says. We'll see.

Yes, we do. You just don't like what it says so you pretend you don't know..

Then I'll pin my hopes to the ballot box, and the SDNY. Mostly the ballot box.

Will you accept that President Trump is completely exonerated of collusion with Russia when you read the full report and that's what it says??

I don't think you will.. You will always find some loophole to continue your Trump/America hate..

Whoa, we're still a long way from there. First, we have to hear from him.

You just don't like what it says, so you pretend it doesn't say anything..

Don't know what it says. We'll see.

And what will you do when the report is released and President Trump is STILL exonerated?

Then I'll pin my hopes to the ballot box, and the SDNY. Mostly the ballot box.

A distinction without a difference.. A bullshit opinion without ANY supporting facts from someone completely bigoted in favor of Hillary.

We don't.

And yet, Paula claims she knows...

Don't say you do.

I do... If Barr had mischaracterized anything, then Mueller would have spoken up.. He has done it before..

You just don't like what it says, so you pretend it doesn't say anything..

And what will you do when the report is released and President Trump is STILL exonerated??

Will you accuse Mueller of being the bad guy???

In between fits of laughing and rolling on the floor, I would just like to go on record here and congratulate Stucki for his acceptance and admission that he and another are:

"complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans"

Good form, Stucki. As for your fake quotes and your ever-present obsession with "the girls" and your utterly nonsensical notion that current events are actually indicative of anything whatsoever to do with some kind of "defeat" of anyone here on this board regardless of gender, I should think you could get out in front of that whole obvious neurosis with multiple and frequent visits to your local Podunk mental health professional before that delusion consumes what's left of your addled psyche.

It was also a super nice touch for the board troll to quote Stucki's admission about "two complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans" and chime in with his retort of:

"Exactly.."

We don't. Don't say you do.

Hillary wasn't charged because the 'evidence' was too slight. And Comey made a big deal out of presenting the case against her anyway. Will Barr do the same to Trump?

I doubt it.

According to you, you don't KNOW ANYTHING from the Mueller report..

Now you are saying what you have learned..

You EVER get tired of talking out both sides of your ass???

Or is that your penis talking??

I am sure you are familiar with the concept..

Insufficient evidence to charge was why Hillary Clinton was "exonerated"...

Now, if you want to make the claim that Hillary Clinton is not innocent of the charges against her, by all means..

Make that argument...

You can't win, Balthy... I have facts on my side..

And all you have is report that is devastating to Democrats and virtually ensures President Trump's re-election...

You, on the other hand, should hope it never gets released, so you can go on forever propagating the big lies.

Exactly.. The worse thing for Democrats is that the full report gets released...

The BEST thing for Republicans and the President is that the full report gets released..

HOW is it that Democrats always maneuver themselves into such situations??

Actually, I do know the difference..

Apparently, you don't.

President Trump was COMPLETELY exonerated on the collusion with Russians bullshit...

It was with the Obstruction bullshit that there wasn't enough evidence to charge, which is as good as exoneration..

Face reality sunshine.. You lost..

Go lick your wounds and then you can start the whole bullshit over with new accusations..

How he handled Iran-Contra is precisely the reason he was installed as attorney general.

Actually, the only two "complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans" here both want it released, so you girls have to give up on your "It ain't done yet, just wait for tomorrow" excuse for not admitting defeat.

You, on the other hand, should hope it never gets released, so you can go on forever propagating the big lies.

1) Criminal POTUS doesn't want it released.
2) Complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans don't want it released.

Republicans will lie, cheat, steal, obstruct exactly as long and as far as they can get away with.

Yours apparently did. You don't seem to know the difference between "exonerated" and "not exonerated", for instance.

'salright. You probably live in a place where higher IQ'a aren't necessary.

I predicted this EXACT thing would happen..

Democrat scumbags protecting their own...

Cops have GOT to be royally pissed off....

TRANSLATION: "fingers in ears NYAAA NYAAA NYAAAA I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!! I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!!! NYAAA NYAAAA"

"Did IQs just suddenly drop while I was away??"
-Ripley, ALIENS

You and "the rest of the political universe" might want to find a more simple way to explain the term "does not exonerate" that Bill Barr quoted from Mueller's report... something that even the MAGAts can understand... perhaps something smaller than a 4-syllable word. :)

That is exactly why I make specific predictions that have a set time frame... And I always remain to take the heat if my predictions are factually inaccurate..

I agree with you that the "Be patient Trump will go down" predictions are ludicrous and the sign of a weak mind with a weak argument..

It seems that Democrats have only the latter type of prediction...

Will Occasional Cortex be around in 12 years and take the heat if her predicted destruction of the planet DOESN'T come to pass??

You and I both know the answer to THAT question... :D

IN other words, Democrats are the Lannisters of this country...

And everyone knows a Lannister always pays their debts..

It worked out quite well, as a matter of fact...

Irregardless that was before Democrats totally and completely bit the big one with the Mueller report...

However, in the interests of accuracy, I will add a caveat...

If Democrats actually drop this incessant and futile agenda of nullifying a free, fair and legal election... If Democrats actually put forth viable and sincere legislation that puts the good of the country above all else....

If Democrats do that, then my prediction will likely not come to pass..

But you and I both know that Democrats won't do that...

This current mega-loss will simply spur them on to more hysterical and more outlandish acts in their quest to destroy President Trump...

"Democrats are going to lose and lose big in 2020... :D"

Oh yeah? Seems to me I remember you kept saying that about 2018, and look how well that turned out for you!

When all is said and done..

We come to find out that Schiff is full of shit, just like every other Trump/America hater....

Who could have possibly predicted this!!???

Oh wait.... :D

Michael Avanetti Got Arrested....

The one-time Democrat hero goes down in flames!!!

BBBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

On Monday, though, everything was coming up Trump.
https://www.apnews.com/732eb0035d994cc3b58f83bb0164200f

Oh my what complete and utter humiliation for the Left Wingery...

Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of people...

:D

A 20 month long victory lap culminating in a huge landslide win for President Trump in Nov of 2020...

Life is, indeed, good... :D

Democrats are going to lose and lose big in 2020... :D

“People kept discovering Vulcan because the way they saw the world required Vulcan to be there,” he said. “It took Albert Einstein to provide the framework in which Vulcan became not only non-existent, but unnecessary.”
http://www.realclearlife.com/history/vulcan-mania-revisited-discovering-planet-wasnt/

Interesting corollary, eh?? :D

The other day, Ted Koppel, a voice from the late-twentieth-century practice of journalism, spoke about what has become of his old business in the age of Trump. “We are not the reservoir of objectivity that I think we were,” Koppel said, in an understatement. The Left always cites Fox News in this regard. He singled out the Washington Post and the New York Times, saying that they have gone overboard in their bias, transforming themselves into anti-Trump advocates. “We are not talking about the Washington Post [or New York Times] of 50 years ago,” Koppel said. “We’re talking about organizations that . . . have decided, as organizations, that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States.”
https://www.city-journal.org/media-bias

It's ironic that, of all the news organizations, it's Fox News that comes out looking better than all the others...

It all started with a phony, unverified dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The ensuing Special Counsel investigation cost over $25 million, or an average $50,230 per day. With at least 19 attorneys working on Mueller’s staff, it was a drain on resources, time, and manpower. But the White House cooperated from day one because truth was always on the president’s side.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/rnc-chairwoman-ronna-mcdaniel-mueller-report-vindicates-trump-and-american-voters

Sore Luser'ism on a hitherto undreamt of scale..

"Thanos could destroy life on a scale, heitherto undreamt of."
"Did you seriously say hitherto undreamt of?"
-AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR

The long-awaited report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller sensationally cleared Trump of any collusion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6847671/PIERS-MORGAN-Mueller-report-shows-collusion-disgraceful-hoax.html

Ya'all KNOW it's bad for liberals when ya'all have Piers Morgan capping on ya'all.... :D

But he is spot on here..

Democrats all up and down the line have just insured that President Trump will be re-elected in a landslide election..

No matter WHAT Democrats say in the run up to Nov of 2020, NONE of it will have any credibility.. Not a SINGLE IOTA OR SMIDGEN of credibility...

Congrats, Dumbocrats.. Ya'all just guaranteed a President Trump administration thru 2024...

Although it's hard to imagine, the Leftist MSM's (and ya'all's incidentally) is LOWER than it was before this embarrassing debacle..

There will be no new indictments from Mueller beyond the few already issued, none of which charges a U.S. person with anything related to collusion. This is a big disappointment to the people in politics and the press who were openly hoping to see Trump, and his family, kicked out of the White House and thrown into jail.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/24/mueller-report-findings-collusion-news-media-donald-trump-column/3263167002/

Just think, people.. Ya'all have TWO YEARS of these kinds of stories to look forward to..

Won't it be grand and joyous!!!?? :D

The one we need is for all the intelligence officials—including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Central Intelligence Agency chief John Brennan, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—who pushed the Russia conspiracy theory. The special counsel has just made clear they did so with no real evidence.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-exposes-spy-chiefs-11553555713

And what's hilarious is that ya'all think ya have even a SMIDGEN of credibility... :D

That's so funny...

Funny how you didn't care about any of that that applied to Odumbo, eh??

Oh, that's right... Odumbo has a -D after his name, so he gets a pass..

Which simply proves you don't really care about any of that..

All you want is a nice shiny bludgeon to beat the head of the POTUS that you don't like, due to bigotry and hate..

Glad we have established the facts here..

I completely agree.. Release the full report, which is rumored to be 3 thousand pages long..

Let Democrats tie themselves in knots re-doing the Mueller investigation over and over and over and over again..

By the time Nov of 2020 comes around, the American people will be so sick and tired of these do nothing Democrats that Democrats won't be able to be elected county dogcatcher..

So, release the report... Drag this out until the election...

What a perfect way to put the final nail in the coffin that carries the diseased and putrid carcass of the Democrat Party...

Our contenders are divided into four groups (not unlike NCAA conferences): the print journalists, the cable TV talkers, the Twitterati and the network news reporters and “analysts.” And the brackets are seeded, with the most visible and influential figures contending against the lesser-known.
https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/

I'm just trying to catch up on the memes I missed while udder the weather, as it were...

Heh.

-CW

That’s a nice dichotomy you have there. So which one is our “billionaire”, skyscraper-dwelling, golfing, multiple divorcee New Yorker president?

* When you're the one claiming you have "nothing to do with Republicans" while at the same time being a registered Republican, you are undoubtedly the stupid one.

* When you're the one claiming that "there is really no realistic viable way for a pres. to pay a foreign power to influence U.S. elections," even in light of our current national discourse, you are undoubtedly the stupid one.

* When you're the one confirming in writing that you actually do pull your repetitive shit out of your "Podunkian cow" ass, it is you who is undoubtedly the stupid one.

Nice of you to admit it, though, Stucki.

- Point to Neal for recognizing BS when he reads it.
- Point to me for getting Stucki to admit he was a girl.

Mooooooooo cow. :)

See? That's where it's wrong. You just described Bullshit. That's bullshit. You should learn to recognize it. Doesn't matter who gives it to you.

And anyone who says this is over because Barr says it is, is smoking it.

And we can all tell that it gets downright embarrassing when the wisdom and knowledge pulled out of a Podunkian cow turns out to be far more factual than whatever it is that's frequently pulled out of those pseudo-sophisticated Slobovian's asses!

There were some McCain people who took a piece of garbage and tried to go after Trump after the election. But I told the president it was not John McCain. I know because John McCain showed me the dossier, and I told him the only thing I know to do with it, it could be a bunch of garbage, it could be true, who knows, turn it over to somebody whose job it is to find out. And John McCain acted appropriately. ~ Senator Lindsey Graham

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/lindsey-graham-says-he-urged-mccain-to-turn-over-steele-dossier-to-fbi

Setting aside the caginess of his concession, ask yourself why it is that Lindsey Graham would finally make a public admission that it was him and McCain that made the decision to turn over to the FBI the dossier of Christopher Steele that was initially financed by Republicans against Trump?

Anyone who was thinking that Trump and Nunes were alone in their wish to keep the Mueller report under wraps might want to take note. :)

I know, right!? Awesome post.

No matter how many times and in no manner how many ways the "cowpoke" posts this ridiculous repetitive nonsensical drivel to the contrary, it simply does not and will not change the multiple different sections of the United States Code that make it illegal to conspire with Russia or any other foreign nationals to defraud the United States by interfering in elections. Typing out his repetitive bullshit multiple times will also not change campaign finance law:

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

Opposition research is a "thing of value." If it wasn't, there'd be absolutely no reason whatsoever for Trump and company to attempt to purchase it and/or to cover up trying to obtain it from Russia. Another quite obvious reason to obfuscate and outright lie to the entire country about working with Russia to build a Trump Tower Moscow while at the same time denying you had any dealings with Russia would be the possible receipt of funds into your campaign by foreign nationals. Although this violation of law might not qualify as a crime under a statute for "conspiracy," it would certainly meet the definition of violations of campaign finance... as it would equally be illegal to receive money from a foreign national into your inauguration committee.

Of course, not everyone who commits a crime will be prosecuted for violations of said statutes since "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar to clear, and people who violate said laws going unprosecuted does not remotely and in any way change the statutes.

Of course, I'm certain you and most everyone here knows all this, but my aim here is to educate the goobers of the country... one "cowpuke" at a time. Since CRS seems unable to understand, comprehend or even demonstrate the tiniest ability to grasp this simplest of legal concepts, I would wager that Chris Weigant would be happy to change his moniker on these boards to "local retard girl" in honor of his sitewide demonstrable and repeated slow-wittedness and in deference to the fact that Stucki really has come up with an absolutely perfect description for himself.

Well, he did say he was very inclusive of girls with penises, and I would wager that's because he is one. :)

Since our own rural cowpoke representative has decided he has bragging rights because he thinks he knows what is in the Mueller report, even though we've only been given the spin from two very biased sources so far, I'd like him to answer a question using the inside knowledge he is bragging about:

Did Mueller conclude that, even though there was evidence of a conspiracy including top Trump campaign members with Russian operatives, that there was insufficient grounds for a prosecution that met the standards of "beyond reasonable doubt"?

I expect a nonsense reply as the real depth of knowledge that is being bragged about turns out to be "I pulled it out of my cow".

I suppose that represents a fairly accurate overall assessment, but if I can point out without bragging too much - Oh what the hell, I'm gonna brag at least a little - 'some' of us knew damn well a thing or two that were NOT in it.

Common sense told some of us that regardless of how many times local retard girl spouted off to the contrary, that if getting political dirt on your opponent is legal SOP for any and all politicians, that getting it from Russians could not possible cause it to become illegal, meaning 'collusion' and 'conspiracy' were NOT "in it"!

I look forward to an interesting week as more of the details of the report become public, especially as Trump has claimed "total vindication" which means it is only downhill from here for him - not a good idea.

Also, after 2 years of Mueller being the most evil person on the planet, it will be hilarious to watch a pivot and then are recant as the Mueller findings start to cast a darker and darker cloud over the 2016 election and the actions thereafter.

Normally I wouldn't speculate, but with Trump announcing a complete, 100%, whiter-than-white, "Not Guilty" verdict, things are obviously going to get more nuanced and problematic.

Also, now we'll see Trump start to realize that Mueller was always going to be the easiest of the legal hurdles, based on the remit he had - all his spin-offs, and in particular the NY investigations, are going to come to the front of the press attention. This is only going to get worse, because, as your column states, the lack of leaking is almost unbelievable - the likelihood of negative leaks against Trump from the rest of the investigations, as the decent part of America starts to re-assert itself, will be frequent and damaging.

I would again like to thank everyone for their patience. I'll try to get to reading some comments later tonight, and there should be new columns up all this week for everyone to enjoy...

Stay healthy, everyone. Wash your hands. Take some vitamin C. I wouldn't wish this flu on anyone, personally...

-CW