America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by Speyside. 32 replies replies.
Hard to decide what is better
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Abrignac Online
#1 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 6:13 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,259
Avenatti indicted and also perhaps Marc Gerogos

Or

The fact that the Meuller led investigation couldn’t find proof that anyone on the Trump team colluded with the Russkies to throw the election.
Speyside Offline
#2 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 7:05 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Anthony, you need to read Barrs summary, the following is a direct quote from it. The Special Counsels report states that " While this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him ".
delta1 Offline
#3 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 7:15 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
no proof of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russians in election meddling is better...

unfortunately, for those on the left, his chances for re-election got a big bump by that conclusion...

Avenatti and Geragos are just attention seeking sideshows...
delta1 Offline
#4 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 7:29 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
Spey, I don't think anyone on the right cares a bit about the part where Trump is not exonerated...their "reasoning" is that the obstruction allegations were tangential to an investigation that proved nothing and didn't result in indictments...

my take...this reminds me of OJ being acquitted because the prosecution couldn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, despite a lot of incriminating stuff...like it or not, Mueller's was a criminal investigation, and that is the standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for a criminal indictment...

Trump still faces serious charges in other criminal investigations...SDNY, campaign finance, inauguration financial fraud, Trump's finances, etc...and related Congressional investigations...all the "investigations" into Hillary before the 2016 elections hurt her chances....

there is a possibility that sympathy for Trump being "persecuted" might build among independents...as happened with Hillary's hubby
bgz Offline
#5 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 7:50 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
delta1 wrote:

there is a possibility that sympathy for Trump being "persecuted" might build among independents...as happened with Hillary's hubby


My only problem with Big Willy was that he was the f***ing Pres! ... and

he coulda been hammering prime grade A tail, yet there he was feeding the blow fish.
tailgater Offline
#6 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 8:40 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
First:
Abrignac wrote:

... the Meuller led investigation couldn’t find proof that anyone on the Trump team colluded with the Russkies to throw the election.


Then:
Speyside wrote:
Anthony, you need to read Barrs summary, the following is a direct quote from it. The Special Counsels report states that " While this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him ".



You're right: someone needs to read Barrs summary. But it ain't Anthony.


Or maybe you did read it, but chose to blur the facts?

I'll let you explain yourself.



Krazeehorse Offline
#7 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 9:02 PM EST
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
So do we still have that innocent until proven guilty thing? Also, is it significant that the Russian interference happened on Barry's watch?
Speyside Offline
#8 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 9:15 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Al, I think Mueller punted. What does that statement mean? The first part seems definitive. But the second part is contradictory.
Speyside Offline
#9 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 9:41 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Tail, I read the 4 page summary, it appears that you didn't read the one quoted sentence I pointed out. The one statement I quoted is a complete contradiction, not a vindication. Read that sentence. I was not taking a pot shot at Anthony, I was pointing out something. Neither am I saying Trump has been proven guilty of anything. I think Mueller punted. I thought his job was to prove or disprove a narrow scope of questions. Did the Trump campaign collude with the Russians? In the report summary the answer is a definitive no. Did Trump obstruct the Russian investigation. That one sentence is a non answer. Mueller was supposed to provide an answer.
Speyside Offline
#10 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 9:50 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Oh, as Tim said in the other thread, time to move on.
Gene363 Offline
#11 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 9:51 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,796
Abrignac wrote:
Avenatti indicted and also perhaps Marc Gerogos

Or

The fact that the Meuller led investigation couldn’t find proof that anyone on the Trump team colluded with the Russkies to throw the election.


Smells like karma. ThumpUp
teedubbya Offline
#12 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2019, 10:39 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Avenatti is scum.
RMAN4443 Offline
#13 Posted: Tue, Mar 26 2019, 3:08 AM EST
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
definition of exonerate

exonerate
verb [ T ] uk ​ /ɪɡˈzɒn.ə.reɪt/ us ​ /ɪɡˈzɑː.nɚ.eɪt/ formal
​
to show or state that someone or something is not guilty of something:
The report exonerated the crew from all responsibility for the collision.
Synonyms
clear
exculpate formal
Opposite
convict
Compare
acquit
Thesaurus: synonyms and related words
Innocent
acquit acquittal be above/beyond reproach idiom be in the clear idiom beat beat the rap idiom clear come up/out smelling of roses idiom culpable exculpate guiltless guilty innocence reproach responsibility responsible sinless smell squeaky-clean

How can you exonerate someone not charged with a crime, who didn't commit the crime, and is not guilty of a crime?...Think
MACS Offline
#14 Posted: Tue, Mar 26 2019, 3:41 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
tailgater wrote:
First:

Then:

You're right: someone needs to read Barrs summary. But it ain't Anthony.

Or maybe you did read it, but chose to blur the facts?

I'll let you explain yourself.



My sentiments exactly.

There was no collusion. That was definitive.

Now are we going to investigate Hillary, the DNC, and the fake dossier they paid for? Are we going to investigate the perjury committed when it was used to obtain FISA warrants to illegally investigate the "collusion" in the first place? All the indictments brought about by Mueller were process crimes that never should have occurred because the investigation was a farce to begin with.

Why would Trump try to obstruct an investigation into a crime he KNEW he didn't commit?
MACS Offline
#15 Posted: Tue, Mar 26 2019, 4:11 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
Weren't the democrats saying that the conservatives had to accept the results of the Mueller investigation?

And now that it doesn't go in their favor... it's a cover up.
Abrignac Online
#16 Posted: Tue, Mar 26 2019, 5:41 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,259
delta1 wrote:
Spey, I don't think anyone on the right cares a bit about the part where Trump is not exonerated...their "reasoning" is that the obstruction allegations were tangential to an investigation that proved nothing and didn't result in indictments...

my take...this reminds me of OJ being acquitted because the prosecution couldn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, despite a lot of incriminating stuff...like it or not, Mueller's was a criminal investigation, and that is the standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for a criminal indictment...

Trump still faces serious charges in other criminal investigations...SDNY, campaign finance, inauguration financial fraud, Trump's finances, etc...and related Congressional investigations...all the "investigations" into Hillary before the 2016 elections hurt her chances....

there is a possibility that sympathy for Trump being "persecuted" might build among independents...as happened with Hillary's hubby



This was a much larger investigation than the OJ investigation. On the other hand, most Libs will believe he was guilty regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.
teedubbya Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Mar 26 2019, 9:07 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Abrignac wrote:
This was a much larger investigation than the OJ investigation. On the other hand, most Libs will believe he was guilty regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.



Let’s be honest.... vice versa as well. It’s a game that’s odd to see folks playing.
delta1 Offline
#18 Posted: Tue, Mar 26 2019, 2:09 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
MACS wrote:
Weren't the democrats saying that the conservatives had to accept the results of the Mueller investigation?

And now that it doesn't go in their favor... it's a cover up.


I don't believe there's been a cover-up. Mueller did a thorough job, but I'd like to read his report for myself. No offense to Barr's summarization skills, but wouldn't you rather have a rib-eye than my description of one?
tailgater Offline
#19 Posted: Tue, Mar 26 2019, 9:27 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
Tail, I read the 4 page summary, it appears that you didn't read the one quoted sentence I pointed out. The one statement I quoted is a complete contradiction, not a vindication. Read that sentence. I was not taking a pot shot at Anthony, I was pointing out something. Neither am I saying Trump has been proven guilty of anything. I think Mueller punted. I thought his job was to prove or disprove a narrow scope of questions. Did the Trump campaign collude with the Russians? In the report summary the answer is a definitive no. Did Trump obstruct the Russian investigation. That one sentence is a non answer. Mueller was supposed to provide an answer.



Anthony was talking about collusion.

To reply the way you did is misleading and/or disingenuous.



tailgater Offline
#20 Posted: Tue, Mar 26 2019, 9:30 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
I don't believe there's been a cover-up. Mueller did a thorough job, but I'd like to read his report for myself. No offense to Barr's summarization skills, but wouldn't you rather have a rib-eye than my description of one?



You CAN be quite seductive when you want to be.
Krazeehorse Offline
#21 Posted: Tue, Mar 26 2019, 9:44 PM EST
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
I'd rather have a rib-eye than read the report.
Speyside Offline
#22 Posted: Tue, Mar 26 2019, 10:25 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Anthony was pointing out part of the Barr, summary. I pointed out another part of the summary. One that I think is odd. Muellers job was to reach a conclusion on 2 points as I understand it. He reached one conclusion which I think is great for all of us. He punted on the other that he was supposed to reach a conclusion on. Trump deserved better than that. So do we. I was neither trying to be disingenuous or misleading. If I was it was unintentional. Sometimes I think what I write is obvious and it isn't.
ZRX1200 Online
#23 Posted: Wed, Mar 27 2019, 1:40 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,577
Who could have been helping Mueller write it? Hmmmmm....

You know what, and investigation is supposed to start with enough probable cause to warrant it. And the way this investigation was hatched and the people that were allowed in shouldn’t happen to any POTUS regardless of party. I hope this gets unraveled quickly. The fact that Ds refuse to discuss this part speaks volumes. Had there been actual evidence I was willing to speculate with regards to Trump. Who again, I didn’t vote for but the left is making me want to now......get ready for 6 more years bitches
Burner02 Offline
#24 Posted: Wed, Mar 27 2019, 5:59 AM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,876
Look at the make up of Mueller's investigative team. Not a bunch of conservatives. If they could have found something you better believe they would have.

Time to move on but that is not going to happen.
teedubbya Offline
#25 Posted: Wed, Mar 27 2019, 9:41 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Burner02 wrote:
Look at the make up of Mueller's investigative team. Not a bunch of conservatives. If they could have found something you better believe they would have.

Time to move on but that is not going to happen.



Funny thing investigators. Their party should not be an issue if they are good at their jobs. We don't want republican investigators investigating some things and dems others. Congress does that and it's dysfunctional. We've had a good look at that between last congress and this one.

The investigators party should not exclude or include them and the only reason to bring it up is to smear or deligitimize. They should be trying to find something, its their job. And if they don't find anything they should say so. The folks bringing up their party are participating in partisan hack work. Some folks seem to think party designation drives all action and suspends a persons ability to remain logical, independent and to do their jobs. That may say more about you (the royal you, not burner) than others.

Mueller is a lifelong Republican. The 14 angry democrat line is a marketing hook line trying to taint the results if they didn't come back as wanted. Apparently it worked. It's sort of like saying the elections are rigged prior to the elections. Mueller did a good job weeding out potential or possible appearance of conflict of interest in this regard. He removed folks before anyone else knew of the appearance and didn't hide from it or cover it up. He took issue with the appearance of the same issue the partisan folks did. Appearance is as important as reality. He removed it and they just did their job.

They cleared the Prez on collusion. That's a good thing. They didn't on obstruction but didn't condemn him for it either. I'd guess that became a judgement call, IE a case could be made for and against but the DOJ has to decide if they want to go after it or not. Of course Barr wouldn't.

It is time to move on on the collusion. Obstruction may be worth further discussion once the report actually comes out. Personally I think we should move on on that too, but personally should have nothing to do with justice, neither should party.

This appears to be a good investigation despite folks being upset about it happening or the result. Investigations can clear as well as convict. This one primarily cleared. Cool. That is the best and hoped for result as long as it is accurate and not manipulated, predetermined or contrived. I suspect this one is solid.


Those wanting to investigate the investigators are over playing their hand in my view and are simply playing the game or being vindictive. The investigation cleared your guy for the most part. Take the win. I'm relieved by the results on many levels. Not the least of which would have been what may have happened in the markets had it been damning. It's all about me.
tailgater Offline
#26 Posted: Wed, Mar 27 2019, 11:33 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
Anthony was pointing out part of the Barr, summary. I pointed out another part of the summary. One that I think is odd. Muellers job was to reach a conclusion on 2 points as I understand it. He reached one conclusion which I think is great for all of us. He punted on the other that he was supposed to reach a conclusion on. Trump deserved better than that. So do we. I was neither trying to be disingenuous or misleading. If I was it was unintentional. Sometimes I think what I write is obvious and it isn't.


What you wrote was obvious.
It was a misdirection.

Read the OP.
Read your reply.

He spoke ONLY of collusion and made a factual statement based on Barr's response.
You countered with the suggestion that he should read it.

that's not vague at all.

Now, I'll accept that you claim it wasn't what you wanted to convey.
But Oy Vey. How the hell did you ignore the obvious?
Speyside Offline
#27 Posted: Wed, Mar 27 2019, 12:40 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I give up, you win because you always know what others are trying to say. You are not worth the effort.
tailgater Offline
#28 Posted: Thu, Mar 28 2019, 10:10 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
I give up, you win because you always know what others are trying to say. You are not worth the effort.


You have a very special type of disorder, don't you?
It's like you can probably function in society, but just barely. And I'm being generous.


Not once did I tell you what you were trying to say. I told you how your post came across when read.

I gave you the benefit of doubt and said I accept your explanation.
Now it appears I shouldn't have.
Speyside Offline
#29 Posted: Thu, Mar 28 2019, 10:45 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I wonder how much of the Mueller report is made public. It's time to move on from this, but it sure seems the Democrats are gearing up for another fight. It's done dam it.
delta1 Offline
#30 Posted: Thu, Mar 28 2019, 2:54 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
Let's read it first, then decide if we should move on...

like the cons finally did with Hillary when the FBI said she didn't intentionally commit any crimes, but was reckless...those cons are sure good role models...
DrafterX Offline
#31 Posted: Thu, Mar 28 2019, 3:00 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Ya, she accidentally deleted those subpoenaed emails and smashed those blackberrys... Not talking
Speyside Offline
#32 Posted: Thu, Mar 28 2019, 3:57 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Al, at this point it is pure political BS. Find out what is in it before gearing up for a fight. I think Mueller has integrity. I think Barr has integrity. I doubt there is a fight to gear up for. Let's not turn this into a but Hillary. That would be bad for the country. Nor do I care what the Republicans did or didn't do. This is about what the Democrats do, no more, no less.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top