Apology thread

[brycejones]

The green new deal, reparations and "free" medical for all. Your party is insane. Read the damn news. I don't support either party. I'm not even sure what the republicans are doing right now but whatever it is I'm not hearing about anything new really.

I see you and your ilk as the problem, Like Pelosi said a few days ago. Put a D in front of a glass of water and democrats will vote for it. Republicans are the same.

There it is.

 

[fskimospy]

The green new deal, reparations and "free" medical for all. Your party is insane. Read the damn news.

The green new deal is a good and sensible idea and literally no one is saying that medical care for all is free. If universal health care is insane then every developed nation on earth but ours is insane. Does that sound reasonable to you?

I don't support either party. I'm not even sure what the republicans are doing right now but whatever it is I'm not hearing about anything new really.

I don’t care what party you support, I was simply telling you that if you aren’t acknowledging objective reality you’re part of the problem.

Don’t take my word for it, look at the relative partisan shift shown by changing DW-NOMINATE house ideological means by party. It’s an empirical evaluation of relative ideology and it shows the republicans have gone insane.

I see you and your ilk as the problem, Like Pelosi said a few days ago. Put a D in front of a glass of water and democrats will vote for it. Republicans are the same.

Since unfortunately our system is a two party system when one of the two parties has gone insane the right answer is in fact to vote for the other. In this case the Democrats are the ones we have to vote for until the Republican Party becomes sane again.

 

[OrByte]

If any of us did what Trump did. Any of us would be brought up on obstruction charges.

let's be real.

The only reason the special counsel did not recommend obstruction charges is because the counsel operated on the premise that you can't charge a sitting president with this crime.

He needs to be impeached first.

the rest is just noise.

 

[fskimospy]

If any of us did what Trump did. Any of us would be brought up on obstruction charges.

let's be real.

The only reason the special counsel did not recommend obstruction charges is because the counsel operated on the premise that you can't charge a sitting president with this crime.

He needs to be impeached first.

the rest is just noise.

One party is almost in lockstep supporting a president that has just been outed as a criminal.

The other party wants everyone in the US to have health care.

Clearly both sides are the same.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Once again you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Whether or not there is an underlying crime is immaterial to whether or not someone is guilty of obstruction. Whether or not someone is successful in obstructing justice is immaterial to whether or not they obstructed justice.

If you read something that echoes what you wrote then I'd suggest you find some new sources as you are clearly living in a bubble.

Take it up with Mueller and CNN

 

[OrByte]

I'm so sick of "both parties are the same" BS.

No, both parties are not behaving the same.

 

[ivwshane]

Take it up with Mueller and CNN

So an article you read was on CNN with Mueller? Now you are resorting to lying? Man you are pathetic!

 

[fskimospy]

Take it up with Mueller and CNN

Mueller pretty clearly believes Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. He simply made an affirmative statement at the beginning saying that since he couldn’t indict Trump he wouldn’t make a judgment.

Mueller also clearly believes that you do not need an underlying crime to be guilty of obstruction of justice or be successful in obstructing justice to be guilty. This is consistent with longstanding judicial precedent.

 

[JSt0rm]

I see you and your ilk as the problem, Like Pelosi said a few days ago. Put a D in front of a glass of water and democrats will vote for it. Republicans are the same.

what do you do with a problem group?

 

[Starbuck1975]

So an article you read was on CNN with Mueller? Now you are resorting to lying? Man you are pathetic!

The article cites Mueller and the report. I trust CNN’s assessment over your brilliant analysis. It’s literally on the front page. “10 takeaways from Mueller’s report.”

 

[ivwshane]

The article cites Mueller and the report. I trust CNN’s assessment over your brilliant analysis. It’s literally on the front page. “10 takeaways from Mueller’s report.”

I'll take the muellers actual words, dumb ass. He said its up to Congress and he specifically stated that he could not clear trump of obstruction.

Keep carrying that water little bitch boy.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'll take the muellers actual words, dumb ass. He said its up to Congress and he specifically stated that he could not clear trump of obstruction.

Keep carrying that water little bitch boy.

I never claimed the report clears Trump of obstruction. I said it clears him of collusion, which makes the obstruction charge tenuous. Keep moving the goal posts.

 

[fskimospy]

I never claimed the report clears Trump of obstruction. I said it clears him of collusion, which makes the obstruction charge tenuous. Keep moving the goal posts.

It does not make the obstruction charge tenuous as obstruction of justice does not require an underlying crime.

Think of the logical absurdity if it did- that would mean if you successfully obstructed justice it not only would clear you from the crime you were covering up, it would clear you from the crime of obstruction too. That would be a massive incentive to lie at all times.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/barr-is-wrong-obstruction-justice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I never claimed the report clears Trump of obstruction. I said it clears him of collusion, which makes the obstruction charge tenuous. Keep moving the goal posts.

From The Atlantic, a far more reliable and thoughtful source than TV news: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/mueller-report-impeachment-referral/587509/

"In his report, Mueller took pains to detail why he “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” as to whether the president had broken the law by obstructing justice. He began by noting that he accepted the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—which issues guidance for the executive branch on questions of law—that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

That, Mueller explained, posed an insurmountable problem. A normal investigation would end with a prosecutor deciding to bring charges, or to drop the case. It’s a binary choice. But “fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.” Ordinarily, a criminal charge would result in “a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case.” But if Mueller were to state plainly that, in his judgment, the president had broken the law and obstructed justice, it would afford “no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” In other words, because a sitting president cannot be indicted, making such a charge publicly would effectively deny Trump his day in court, and the chance to clear his name.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report explained: "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him""
...
"The constitutional mechanism for resolving this situation is impeachment. The president, no less than Calhoun, deserves a chance to clear his name. The public deserves a chance to examine the evidence against him. And his supporters and opponents alike deserve the clarity that only convening impeachment hearings can now provide. "

 

[ivwshane]

I never claimed the report clears Trump of obstruction. I said it clears him of collusion, which makes the obstruction charge tenuous. Keep moving the goal posts.

And I addressed that you fucking dumb ass. As I explained to you and as backed up by muellers own words, collusion is not a prerequisite for committing obstruction.

How about you link up the article you are referring to.

Here is mine:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...tion-russia-investigation-20190418-story.html

The report indicated that Mueller decided earlier in his investigation that he would not make a specific decision about obstruction charges and would, instead, defer to lawmakers.
“We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes,” the report said. Because Justice Department policy holds that a sitting president can’t be subject to trial, an accusation of criminal conduct would put a president in limbo, under a cloud, but unable to clear himself, he wrote.

No where in his report does he state that because no underlying crime was committed that was why he couldn't charge trump with obstruction.

Your move water boy.

 

[Starbuck1975]

From The Atlantic, a far more reliable and thoughtful source than TV news: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/mueller-report-impeachment-referral/587509/

"In his report, Mueller took pains to detail why he “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” as to whether the president had broken the law by obstructing justice. He began by noting that he accepted the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—which issues guidance for the executive branch on questions of law—that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

That, Mueller explained, posed an insurmountable problem. A normal investigation would end with a prosecutor deciding to bring charges, or to drop the case. It’s a binary choice. But “fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.” Ordinarily, a criminal charge would result in “a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case.” But if Mueller were to state plainly that, in his judgment, the president had broken the law and obstructed justice, it would afford “no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” In other words, because a sitting president cannot be indicted, making such a charge publicly would effectively deny Trump his day in court, and the chance to clear his name.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report explained: "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him""
...
"The constitutional mechanism for resolving this situation is impeachment. The president, no less than Calhoun, deserves a chance to clear his name. The public deserves a chance to examine the evidence against him. And his supporters and opponents alike deserve the clarity that only convening impeachment hearings can now provide. "

I read the Atlantic article, and WAPO commentary as well. The full release of the Mueller report does not substantially change what we learned from the more favorable Barr summary. Can we agree that there was no collusion knock out blow, and that obstruction is open to interpretation.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And I addressed that you fucking dumb ass. As I explained to you and as backed up by muellers own words, collusion is not a prerequisite for committing obstruction.

How about you link up the article you are referring to.

Here is mine:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...tion-russia-investigation-20190418-story.html



No where in his report does he state that because no underlying crime was committed that was why he couldn't charge trump with obstruction.

Your move water boy.

He could certainly try, but Mueller also acknowledges that without underlying proof of collusion, the obstruction charge is tenuous, and Mueller also acknowledges the purview of the executive branch to directs its own resources in defense of itself.

You can set the goal post down over there and then fetch me a cup of water.

 

[ivwshane]

He could certainly try, but Mueller also acknowledges that without underlying proof of collusion, the obstruction charge is tenuous, and Mueller also acknowledges the purview of the executive branch to directs its own resources in defense of itself.

You can set the goal post down over there and then fetch me a cup of water.

Link it up bitch boy.

 

[fskimospy]

The obstruction section was not very ambiguous, it laid out a pretty clear case and I think from the information presented Trump would be under indictment if he were not the president.

 

[Jhhnn]

The green new deal, reparations and "free" medical for all. Your party is insane. Read the damn news. I don't support either party. I'm not even sure what the republicans are doing right now but whatever it is I'm not hearing about anything new really.

I see you and your ilk as the problem, Like Pelosi said a few days ago. Put a D in front of a glass of water and democrats will vote for it. Republicans are the same.

You've been reading Breitbart again, huh? Townhall? American Thinker? Newsmax? WND? RT?

 

[ivwshane]

There is no arguing with a "both sides" bitch, bubble dweller. He'll only dig in his heels or mysteriously stop posting until he thinks people forget his ridiculous claims.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Forget collusion for a minute.

1. The report is definitive proof of the Russian effort to influence the election in favor of Trump. A proven fact, by now. And one that the Republicans are reluctant to condemn. Many of them openly express the opinion that the end justifies the means.

2. The report makes one thing clear. “President Trump is a liar”. They never use those words but there are pages and pages of narrative that reach the hard conclusion that the facts do not support President Trump’s story.

3. The narrative presented in the report is the story of a man with absolutely no moral compass or true sense of right vs. wrong. While one of their “no obstruction” arguments was the fact that the obstruction didn’t succeed, that certainly wasn’t because Trump didn’t try. It would be because the people around him - Don McGahn, Rob Porter, Jeff Sessions, even Chris Christie - purposefully didn’t do things that Trump explicitly asked them to do. They danced around it or outright lied to Trump. And the narrative of the all the attempts at collusion is incredibly sleazy. And ironically, one reason they drew the attention that lead to the investigation is all his toadies were exaggerating their Russian ties and contacts in order to impress Trump.

 

[MrSquished]

He could certainly try, but Mueller also acknowledges that without underlying proof of collusion, the obstruction charge is tenuous, and Mueller also acknowledges the purview of the executive branch to directs its own resources in defense of itself.

You can set the goal post down over there and then fetch me a cup of water.

Are you Barr's like water boy or something?

 

[ivwshane]

Are you Barr's like water boy or something?

You must forgive him, he is incapable of thinking for himself which is why he resorts to "both sides". He's intellectually lazy and when he can't figure something out for himself he'll rely on those that "both sides" the issue.

 

[UberNeuman]

Are you Barr's like water boy or something?

More like a poor liar attempting to mask his true intentions.