The Right Wing had better be right about this "Deep State" stuff.

[M14 Shooter]

Lol you don't know what youa re reading - Mueller is talking about a demanding standard, not that it's a standard that can't be met.

Mueller states specifically:
the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

If other motives must be considered, how can there be a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

Where in the report does Mueller provide a concrete illustration that Trump acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

How is he wrong and how are you right?

 

[Redfish]

I think thats all any of us want, full disclosure of what really happened during and after the 2016 election. We are entitled to know why Hillary destroyed 30,000 emails and what they contained, we are entitled to know the entire story behind the uranium one deal and the russian dossier. We are entitled to know what exactly Strzok, Page, Comey, Brennan, and Clapper did during the election and what influence they were trying to exert from their high level civil service positions and whether it was illegal.

We are entitled to know if factions within our government were trying to execute a coup to remove a duly elected president. Any american who does not want these answers is either stupid or a total partisan hack.

Sure, we need to get it all out. But by "it", I'm talking about proven, corroborated facts.

For now, I'll take what the Right is saying at face value and I think everything should be flushed out. I'm just not convinced that the story is true, since the people telling it are not honest in my book.

What concerns me is that we are now at a point at which the two ends can't even agree on FACTS. That makes this a bit tougher.
.

ultimately its not up to the "two ends" its up to the american people, and the vast majority of them are able to discern the difference between propaganda and facts. I think the Barr team will bring it all to light, then its up to us to decide.

Part of that process will be deciding if Barr is giving the American people the full story.

But yes, that will be up to the individual.
.

Why would he not give us the full story? He released the full Mueller report. why would you assume that he is as corrupt as Lynch, Holder, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Clapper, et. al?

I don't know. If Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch issued a report that exonerated Obama on something, would you believe it out of hand?

I doubt it.

My point is that, if it's political, it can simply not be believed right now. This is evidently what we want.
.

the difference is that the Mueller team set out find any kind of criminal activity by trump or anyone in his campaign, it was truly a witch hunt, and they found nothing. When people who hate you and want you destroyed do an investigation and find nothing I think its safe to assume that there was nothing to find.

Why do you assume its political? Why is uncovering the truth about an attempted coup political?

Holder and Lynch were obama's minions, Mueller was not even close to that relationship with Trump. THATS the difference.

 

[The Original Tree]

This is not a "grammar" issue. This is an issue of Barr using very specific Trumpian dog-whistle words to assist Trump in spreading his conspiratorial bullshit.

Bar is not stupid, he is not ignorant and he knows exactly what he is doing when he is playing these political games.

History will not be kind to him.

So so repeating the findings in the report is is Trumpian-dog-whistling?
Apparently you're hearing voices or fake dog-whistles.
The facts are the facts.
Barr stated the facts.
He didn't editorialize, or add to it the way Democrats wanted.
He simply stated the findings,......and then stated that it appears that the Obama administration spied on Trump.
Sorry if that pisses you off.

???? Where the fuck do you see "government was spying on the Trump campaign" in the report?

Where the hell do you see Trump being cleared of Obstruction in the report?


Barr did not state facts. He lied and mislead the American public.

Mueller even went so far as to send him a letter of concern - a document he knew will be a historic rebuke of Barr's handling of the report.

You can't release transcripts of private Conversations between The President and The Leaders of Mexico, Australia, and Thailand without Government Spying on The President.

Also The Illegal Unmasking is also proof of The Government Spying on The Trump Campaign.

Remember Obama Bin Sucking Deek spied on Merkel?
or did you forget he spied on Journalists too?

Obama Bin Spying was a Stone Cold Criminal.

Worst President in US History.

LOL

Dumbfuck, those transcripts were released by the White House. Are you claiming trump was spying on himself??

Yeah, sure, uh-huh..... the WH was spying on Trump, not Obama holdovers.

You got it wrong........ Trump was spying on Hillary Clinton. That is why Trump released classified transcripts of Clinton's private conversations with world leaders.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nothing? Then what do you call 10 well documents episodes of Trump possibly Obstructing Justice...

Allegations of actions that do not meet the definition of a crime, because the required intent cannot be proven.

They absolutely meet the definition of a crime and absolutely intent can be proven.

Obstruction of Justice: Trying to corruptly influence an officer of the law to change an outcome of investigation.

When Trump pressured Comey to "let Flynn go", he was absolutely abusing his position to influence an officer of the law to change an outcome of investigation.

This is just one example of many where Trump tries to interfere with investigations and the pattern of corrupt intent is reasonably clear.

To say that there is "nothing" in the report is nonsence.

Trying to interfere??
You mean like making threats, bribing officials, leaking to the press, killing witnesses???

I wonder who is guilty of all of that?

*Hillary and Obama*

 

[The Original Tree]

Ahh so the FBI is now the Grammar Nazi?

Give me a fucking break ya stooge

This is not a "grammar" issue. This is an issue of Barr using very specific Trumpian dog-whistle words to assist Trump in spreading his conspiratorial bullshit.

Bar is not stupid, he is not ignorant and he knows exactly what he is doing when he is playing these political games.

History will not be kind to him.

So so repeating the findings in the report is is Trumpian-dog-whistling?
Apparently you're hearing voices or fake dog-whistles.
The facts are the facts.
Barr stated the facts.
He didn't editorialize, or add to it the way Democrats wanted.
He simply stated the findings,......and then stated that it appears that the Obama administration spied on Trump.
Sorry if that pisses you off.

???? Where the fuck do you see "government was spying on the Trump campaign" in the report?

Where the hell do you see Trump being cleared of Obstruction in the report?


Barr did not state facts. He lied and mislead the American public.

Mueller even went so far as to send him a letter of concern - a document he knew will be a historic rebuke of Barr's handling of the report.

You can't release transcripts of private Conversations between The President and The Leaders of Mexico, Australia, and Thailand without Government Spying on The President.

Also The Illegal Unmasking is also proof of The Government Spying on The Trump Campaign.

Remember Obama Bin Sucking Deek spied on Merkel?
or did you forget he spied on Journalists too?

Obama Bin Spying was a Stone Cold Criminal.

Worst President in US History.

LOL

Dumbfuck, those transcripts were released by the White House. Are you claiming trump was spying on himself??

Wrong Vlad.

I suppose next you are going to tell me that all The Illegal Unmasking was also done by President Trump.

 

[Polishprince]

You're evading the fact that the FBI conducted espionage on the Trump campaign by using an anal retentive definition of "wiretap." No one is fooled.

You're evading the fact that the FBI conducted espionage on the Trump campaign by using an anal retentive definition of "wiretap." No one is fooled

The fact is court ordered surveillance was conducted on a subject that was no longer a member of the campaign, dope.

spying on a citizen. terrible and not what you should want from your government. just saying, the dossier was never verified, therefore, any warrant was illegally gotten.

Court ordered surveillance. Properly adjudicated.
Obviously then the warrant was not " illegally gotten".

You cannot file a False Affidavit in an Unconstitutional Secret FISA Court designed exclusively to help pursue and prosecute terrorists and other enemies of The State and at the same time claim that "COURT ORDERED SURVEILLANCE was PROPERLY ADJUDICATED."

This Unconstitutional FISA Court is not even supposed to deal with US Citizens as they have CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS from such things, like "Search and Seizure" "Right to Privacy" Due Process" "The 5th Amendment" "The right to face one's accusers or to see evidence against them" "The Right to have Exculpatory Evidence be made known to any Court or Court Official" "Probably Cause" "The Right to a Defense against any accusations" "The Presumption of Innocence" "The right to be secure in a person's possessions and effects"

But worst of All Bob Mueller knew for 18 months that Russian Collusion was a hoax. He went ahead anyways.

This was nothing more than a weaponization of our government against a US Citizen.

FISA and The Patriot Act need abolished over this.

Against a citizen who was no longer with the Trump campaign. In fact, according to the trump campaign at the time, they fired Page.

So tell the forum again how that means Obama spied on trump.

Relax, faun.

Our President and his Wing Man have the documents and have declassified them. We are getting ready for the Big Reveal.

It will be crystal clear exactly what Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, etc., all did and when they did it pretty soon in regards to the FISA warrants against loyal American citizen Carter Page and others.

Right now, Trump is just building this up. Just like before Wrestlemania 23 which was also pre-planned.

Nothing that is in the previously classified documents is new to Donald J Trump or William Barr, at least not now.

You can say, now, that the President is just "talking shit". But I don't think so, as we will all seen one way or another in not very much time. Right now, Trump is trying to make the coupsters sweat a little bit too, as well as build up the suspense.

 

[AntonToo]

Lol you don't know what youa re reading - Mueller is talking about a demanding standard, not that it's a standard that can't be met.

Mueller states specifically:
the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

If other motives must be considered, how can there be a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

Where in the report does Mueller provide a concrete illustration that Trump acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

How is he wrong and how are you right?

wtf?...what is contradictory between CONSIDERING and finding a clear patern of corrupt actions that show intent?

Nothing is the answer. Just as there is no contradiction between what Mueller states in the report and what I told you.

Mueller DID NOT say that Obstruction is not provable based on the 10 episodes his report lays out.

 

[LaDairis]

The trail of dead bodies in the wake of Hillary and Obama is a pretty long list.

The List of Clinton Associates Who Allegedly Died Mysteriously. Check It Out.


For O, it is everyone who did/might reveal that he is gay....

Paul Horner
Joan Rivers
Don Young

and then there is Seth Rich....

 

[Redfish]

They absolutely meet the definition of a crime and absolutely intent can be proven.

Mueller disagreed,. and offered no declaration, designation - indeed, evidence - of a corrupt intent.

This right there is proof positive that Barr has failed you in his summary of the Mueller report.

Mueller DID NOT disagree that Trump has provably commited Obstruction.

What Mueller said was that according to DOJ policy he could not indict a sitting president and was therefore declining to make a prosecuratorial descision. Instead, he simply laid out the facts of the case based on which the Congress can hold a president accountable for abuses of his office.

Mueller found no indictable offences, THAT was HIS conclusion, not Barr's. But if you, like pencil neck Schiff, have "clear evidence" as pencil neck declared several times, just put it out there and show us all how Mueller lied about it.

 

[mudwhistle]

so if it isn't verified, how was it used to get a FISA Warrant? See, that is the issue that needs investigating. It isn't a right or left thing, it is an american thing, the government should not be allowed to spy on citizens without proper documentation. That's all Barr's doing. right? Why would any american be opposed to that?

so if it isn't verified, how was it used to get a FISA Warrant? See, that is the issue that needs investigating. It isn't a right or left thing, it is an american thing, the government should not be allowed to spy on citizens without proper documentation. That's all Barr's doing. right? Why would any american be opposed to that?

Derp...
Obviously the judge felt there was proper documentation as it was approved. Four times.

Are you suggesting the judge was incompetent or just corrupt?

well sure the judge thought so, they said it was and lied. hmmmmmm there's that lying thing again. we know it wasn't verified because the man who wrote it said so.

LOL...
You cannot possibly know that anyone lied to the judge, dope.

What you do know is that this warrant was under judicial scrutiny on four separate occasions. It passed that scrutiny each time.

Based on the reputation of the requesting official, not on the facts.
They swore an oath that they had grounds for a warrant, which means they lied to the judge.

LOL....Another one who " knows they lied" .

What absolutely inept judges the FISA court has.

I guess logic isn't one of your strengths.

 

[MarcATL]

I'm looking more at the thematic structure -the meta-story if you will- and comparing it to history.

In doing so, the pattern of powerlust joined with an alarming level of hubris and entitlement bares itself.

While I strongly suggest you read the entire book, this chapter excerpt tells you all you need to know about what's happening before us...

Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lol you don't know what youa re reading - Mueller is talking about a demanding standard, not that it's a standard that can't be met.

Mueller states specifically:
the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

If other motives must be considered, how can there be a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

Where in the report does Mueller provide a concrete illustration that Trump acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

How is he wrong and how are you right?

wtf?...what is contradictory between CONSIDERING and finding a clear patern of corrupt actions that show intent?

You avoided the questions. I'll ask again:

If other motives must be considered, how can there be a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

Where in the report does Mueller provide a concrete illustration that Trump acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

How is he wrong and how are you right?

 

[Faun]

This is not a "grammar" issue. This is an issue of Barr using very specific Trumpian dog-whistle words to assist Trump in spreading his conspiratorial bullshit.

Bar is not stupid, he is not ignorant and he knows exactly what he is doing when he is playing these political games.

History will not be kind to him.

So so repeating the findings in the report is is Trumpian-dog-whistling?
Apparently you're hearing voices or fake dog-whistles.
The facts are the facts.
Barr stated the facts.
He didn't editorialize, or add to it the way Democrats wanted.
He simply stated the findings,......and then stated that it appears that the Obama administration spied on Trump.
Sorry if that pisses you off.

???? Where the fuck do you see "government was spying on the Trump campaign" in the report?

Where the hell do you see Trump being cleared of Obstruction in the report?


Barr did not state facts. He lied and mislead the American public.

Mueller even went so far as to send him a letter of concern - a document he knew will be a historic rebuke of Barr's handling of the report.

You can't release transcripts of private Conversations between The President and The Leaders of Mexico, Australia, and Thailand without Government Spying on The President.

Also The Illegal Unmasking is also proof of The Government Spying on The Trump Campaign.

Remember Obama Bin Sucking Deek spied on Merkel?
or did you forget he spied on Journalists too?

Obama Bin Spying was a Stone Cold Criminal.

Worst President in US History.

LOL

Dumbfuck, those transcripts were released by the White House. Are you claiming trump was spying on himself??

Yeah, sure, uh-huh..... the WH was spying on Trump, not Obama holdovers.

Dumbfuck, those transcripts were released by the White House. Are you claiming trump was spying on himself??

Transcripts of Trump's calls with Mexican, Australian leaders reveal president worried about the politics of immigration

President Trump told Mexico's president that a proposed border wall between the two countries was "the least important thing we are talking about," according to a transcript of the January call published by the Washington Post on Thursday.

The Post said it obtained the transcripts of Trump’s talks with President Enrique Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull from White House staff.​

... I know, I know, it sucks having a Liberal blow up your nonsensical conspiracies. Too bad.

Speaking of conspiracies... why do you refuse to post a link the that conspiracy you posted to me earlier? Exactly how disreputable is your source??

 

[The Original Tree]

spying on a citizen. terrible and not what you should want from your government. just saying, the dossier was never verified, therefore, any warrant was illegally gotten.

Court ordered surveillance. Properly adjudicated.
Obviously then the warrant was not " illegally gotten".

based on a bogus unverified document, makes it illegal. and those who presented it in trouble.

You don't know what it was "based on", dope.
What you do know is that it was approved. Four separate times.
Approval means the supporting documentation was obviously acceptable to the judge.

If that crap was acceptable to The Judge, then The Judge was crooked too.

Abolish FISA.

DemNazis Hate them Some Guantanamo Bay, but Love THE FISA COURT that put those people there.

Explain that one Lib Tards?

LOL...
There it is. The judge is now crooked too.
And the conspiracy grows.

Well, how else to you explain a FISA Warrant based on Russian Propaganda, that was never verified, and that everyone knew was paid for by The Clinton Obama Political Operations?

Since it's obvious and was proven there was No Russian Collusion, then either The FISA Court is Corrupt, or the People Submitting False Affidavits are Corrupt.

So which is it?

Was it crooked Obama FISA Judges?

Or was it a crooked Obama FBI and DOJ Leadership that was committed Treason?

OR WERE THEY WORKING TOGETHER TO OVERTHROW OUR ELECTIONS?

Someone is going to go to jail from The Obama-Clinton Cabal.

So why don't you get out in front of this, and tell us who you think is going to hang from your favorite political party?

 

[AntonToo]

Lol you don't know what youa re reading - Mueller is talking about a demanding standard, not that it's a standard that can't be met.

Mueller states specifically:
the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

If other motives must be considered, how can there be a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

Where in the report does Mueller provide a concrete illustration that Trump acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

How is he wrong and how are you right?

wtf?...what is contradictory between CONSIDERING and finding a clear patern of corrupt actions that show intent?

You avoided the questions. I'll ask again:

If other motives must be considered, how can there be a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

Where in the report does Mueller provide a concrete illustration that Trump acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

How is he wrong and how are you right?

And you clearly denying the obvious - Mueller DID NOT say that intent cannot be reasonably established.


I gave you an exmaple of Trump pressuring Comey to drop investigation into a guilty man named Flynn.

Go ahead, consider the motives and tell us in what fucking world that is done without a corrupt intent.

 

[hunarcy]

They absolutely meet the definition of a crime and absolutely intent can be proven.

Mueller disagreed,. and offered no declaration, designation - indeed, evidence - of a corrupt intent.

This right there is proof positive that Barr has failed you in his summary of the Mueller report.

Mueller DID NOT disagree that Trump has provably commited Obstruction.

What Mueller said was that according to DOJ policy he could not indict a sitting president and was therefore declining to make a prosecuratorial descision. Instead, he simply laid out the facts of the case based on which the Congress can hold a president accountable for abuses of his office.

Horseshit.
Mueller found no collusion.
Obstruction was pure speculation.
First you need a crime, then you need an illegal act.
None of this was satisfied.

You wrong again - Mueller specifically talks about Obstruction of Justice as a crime of it's own, commited at times over non-criminal underlying matters.

For example in Clinton's case there was no underlying crime - the sex was legal.

And lying under oath is a crime called perjury.

 

[Mac1958]

Why do you assume its political? Why is uncovering the truth about an attempted coup political?

What is NOT political at this point?

If it's a story that is being discussed and debated by politicians, pundits, politicos or partisans, all conversation, accusations, assumptions, facts and information is suspect unless and until corroborated and verified independently. I believe nothing based solely on the "word" of one of these people.

And part of that is this: I have absolutely no doubt that, if the parties were reversed for any of the last dozen or so "investigations" and "bombshells" and "scandals", the two ends of the spectrum would be behaving in precisely 180 degrees the opposite way. One side accusing, the other laughing.
.

 

[Faun]

The fact is court ordered surveillance was conducted on a subject that was no longer a member of the campaign, dope.

spying on a citizen. terrible and not what you should want from your government. just saying, the dossier was never verified, therefore, any warrant was illegally gotten.

Court ordered surveillance. Properly adjudicated.
Obviously then the warrant was not " illegally gotten".

You cannot file a False Affidavit in an Unconstitutional Secret FISA Court designed exclusively to help pursue and prosecute terrorists and other enemies of The State and at the same time claim that "COURT ORDERED SURVEILLANCE was PROPERLY ADJUDICATED."

This Unconstitutional FISA Court is not even supposed to deal with US Citizens as they have CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS from such things, like "Search and Seizure" "Right to Privacy" Due Process" "The 5th Amendment" "The right to face one's accusers or to see evidence against them" "The Right to have Exculpatory Evidence be made known to any Court or Court Official" "Probably Cause" "The Right to a Defense against any accusations" "The Presumption of Innocence" "The right to be secure in a person's possessions and effects"

But worst of All Bob Mueller knew for 18 months that Russian Collusion was a hoax. He went ahead anyways.

This was nothing more than a weaponization of our government against a US Citizen.

FISA and The Patriot Act need abolished over this.

Against a citizen who was no longer with the Trump campaign. In fact, according to the trump campaign at the time, they fired Page.

So tell the forum again how that means Obama spied on trump.

If you would take the Putin Look A Like Bobble Head out of Your Ass, instead of act like a Russian Whore from a Russian Troll Farm, people have repeatedly told you how all The Leaks were Clear Evidence of Spying by Obama on Trump Tower, and wiretapping his phone.

Obama even went to the extraordinary and Illegal Lengths of Unmasking The Targets of His Surveillance Machine.

It was all done to smear President Trump. It was all done to attempt to initiate impeachment proceedings even before he was sworn in.

Conversation with Mexican President Peña Nieto
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/australia-mexico-transcripts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c51f8f09831d

Someone Leaked Classified Transcripts Of Trump’s Phone Calls With Foreign Leaders

Dumbfuck.... they were not leaked...

Transcripts of Trump's calls with Mexican, Australian leaders reveal president worried about the politics of immigration

President Trump told Mexico's president that a proposed border wall between the two countries was "the least important thing we are talking about," according to a transcript of the January call published by the Washington Post on Thursday.

The Post said it obtained the transcripts of Trump’s talks with President Enrique Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull from White House staff.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I gave you an example of Trump pressuring Comey to drop investigation into a guilty man named Flynn.

So?
How is this a concrete illustration that Trump acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

Mueller did not think so - indeed, he said other motives must be considered
How is he wrong and how are you right?

If other motives must be considered, how can there be a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others?

 

[AntonToo]

They absolutely meet the definition of a crime and absolutely intent can be proven.

Mueller disagreed,. and offered no declaration, designation - indeed, evidence - of a corrupt intent.

This right there is proof positive that Barr has failed you in his summary of the Mueller report.

Mueller DID NOT disagree that Trump has provably commited Obstruction.

What Mueller said was that according to DOJ policy he could not indict a sitting president and was therefore declining to make a prosecuratorial descision. Instead, he simply laid out the facts of the case based on which the Congress can hold a president accountable for abuses of his office.

Horseshit.
Mueller found no collusion.
Obstruction was pure speculation.
First you need a crime, then you need an illegal act.
None of this was satisfied.

You wrong again - Mueller specifically talks about Obstruction of Justice as a crime of it's own, commited at times over non-criminal underlying matters.

For example in Clinton's case there was no underlying crime - the sex was legal.

And lying under oath is a crime called perjury.

Thats a right, even though there was no underlying crime, the perjury was still chargable. And by the way, perjury is just a veriety of Obstruction.