*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8652
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4140 on: July 24, 2019, 03:05:48 PM »
He didn’t say “I think I did start speaking faster.”  He said “Well, No. 1, I think I did. I started speaking very quickly.”

The first part is in response to the question, “Why didn’t you try to stop them?”

The second part is a description of how he tried to stop them. When you wait until the crowd dies down to begin speaking again, there is no mistaking that you didn’t try and silence them. I’ve worked as an actor for two decades and dealt with all permutations of audience noise and he definitely did not do what he said he did.

Now that Trump has gone and called the same people patriots, I don’t see how you can support the idea that he didn’t welcome their chant. He called for it on Twitter, it was reflected back at him by a crowd which he he did nothing to discourage and is now calling them patriots. It’s pretty clear he is trying to whip up another angry mob of republicans to do battle with democratic mobs and no one is going to come out on top.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4141 on: July 24, 2019, 03:54:56 PM »
Trump is a genius at manipulation and has used clever tactics to get things he wants out of life... enticing a mob to chant "send her back" is nothing more than a skillful tactic to get what he wants.... TBH, I hardly think Trump actually wants the gal to be sent back... he just wants to stir things up... I believe he is using tactics 2, 3 and 5.

From https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/250379

1. Make people underestimate you

2. Know who you're speaking to

3. Be polarizing

4. Ask for more than you want

5. Use misdirection
« Last Edit: July 24, 2019, 03:59:23 PM by timterroo »
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4142 on: July 24, 2019, 04:43:26 PM »
From Mueller's testimony today:
In the opening minutes of the hearing, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, asked Mueller about Trump’s claims of vindication in the investigation.

“Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked.

“No,” Mueller replied.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4143 on: July 24, 2019, 04:44:24 PM »


'nuff said.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7539
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4144 on: July 25, 2019, 04:58:48 AM »
Trump could supposedly be charged with obstruction of justice, a very vague term that Bill Clinton was impeached for, but subsequently found not guilty on all counts. The fact that the best Mueller can do is a "well, sure, I could technically charge him after he leaves office" is a clear indication that he's got nothing on Trump and Trump will never be charged with anything. That this is the very best the media can cling to is great news for Trump 2020 since it means there's nothing more serious floating around.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4145 on: July 25, 2019, 05:18:23 AM »
Trump could supposedly be charged with obstruction of justice, a very vague term that Bill Clinton was impeached for, but subsequently found not guilty on all counts. The fact that the best Mueller can do is a "well, sure, I could technically charge him after he leaves office" is a clear indication that he's got nothing on Trump and Trump will never be charged with anything. That this is the very best the media can cling to is great news for Trump 2020 since it means there's nothing more serious floating around.

Considering it takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, Trump could never be found guilty regardless of the crime or evidence.

Also: it shows alot that an innocent president would obstruct justice on an investigation into crimes he didn't commit.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4146 on: July 25, 2019, 10:29:07 AM »
From Mueller's testimony today:
In the opening minutes of the hearing, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, asked Mueller about Trump’s claims of vindication in the investigation.

“Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked.

“No,” Mueller replied.
Also from Mueller hearing:

Exoneration is not the job scope.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4147 on: July 25, 2019, 10:37:16 AM »
The entire part II of the Mueller report was shown to be 180 pages of farce.

On obstruction: "“At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?” Collins asked.

“No,” Mueller responded."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/6-takeaways-from-robert-muellers-testimony/ar-AAENp33?li=BBnb7Kz

The special counsel instructions were to provide a confidential report to the AG concerning decisions regarding prosecution or declination decisions. Period, end of sentence.

I think it was fairly well established during the hearings Mueller was shown to be a totem, having little or nothing to do with the entire escapade, including a distinct lack of knowledge of the report from his office. For instance:

"The ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Douglas A. Collins (Ga.), began by asking him whether “collusion” was colloquially the same as “conspiracy.” “No,” Mueller said flatly.

Collins then pointed to Mueller’s report, which states that certain legal dictionaries do regard the terms as “largely synonymous.” Mueller didn’t seem to have much of an answer, eventually stating that the report spoke for itself."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/6-takeaways-from-robert-muellers-testimony/ar-AAENp33?li=BBnb7Kz

He didn't shed any new light because he had been locked away in a dark room the entire time!

LMMFAO!!!

End result for the "buttrumpers?"

2020!!!

ALL HAIL OUR ILLUSTRIOUS SUPREME LEADER!!!
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 10:43:31 AM by totallackey »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8652
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4148 on: July 25, 2019, 11:06:42 AM »
That’s your evidence that Mueller didn’t know what’s in his report? That the report mentioned that collusion and conspiracy are largely synonymous in many cases? Nope no bias here.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4149 on: July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM »
I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.  And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4150 on: July 25, 2019, 11:37:04 AM »
That’s your evidence that Mueller didn’t know what’s in his report? That the report mentioned that collusion and conspiracy are largely synonymous in many cases? Nope no bias here.
A) Please note I wrote, "...a distinct lack..." I submit one very distinct instance.

II) Just for kicks, though...How many more would be necessary?

For instance, this was also overheard in the hearing...

Congressman: Mr. Mueller, is it true you're a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: Could you repeat that?

Congressman: Yes. Is it true you are a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: The report speaks for itself.

LMMFAO!
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 12:25:36 PM by totallackey »

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4151 on: July 25, 2019, 11:41:15 AM »
I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.
It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 
And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.
The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8652
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4152 on: July 25, 2019, 12:24:57 PM »
That’s your evidence that Mueller didn’t know what’s in his report? That the report mentioned that collusion and conspiracy are largely synonymous in many cases? Nope no bias here.
How many more would be necessary?

Perhaps evidence that he wasn’t aware of the facts of the case?

Quote
For instance, this was also overheard in the hearing...

Congressman: Mr. Mueller, is it true you're a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: Could you repeat that?

Congressman: Yes. Is it true you are a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: The report speaks for itself.

LMMFAO!

Stay classy.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8652
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4153 on: July 25, 2019, 12:27:04 PM »
I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.
It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 
And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.
The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.

So then Trump was spreading misinformation when he said he was exonerated? Good stuff.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4154 on: July 25, 2019, 12:28:53 PM »
That’s your evidence that Mueller didn’t know what’s in his report? That the report mentioned that collusion and conspiracy are largely synonymous in many cases? Nope no bias here.
How many more would be necessary?

Perhaps evidence that he wasn’t aware of the facts of the case?
As stated in my now revised OP, and indisputably, I provided one, extremely distinct instance.

But here's another for you just in case:
"REP. STEVE CHABOT (R-OH): Thank you. Director Mueller, my Democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to say something along the lines of here's why President Trump deserves to be impeached, much as Ken Starr did relative to President Clinton back about 20 years ago. Well, you didn't, so their strategy had to change.

Now they allege that there's plenty of evidence in your report to impeach the president, but the American people just didn't read it. And this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort of groundswell across America to impeach President Trump. That's what this is really all about today.

Now, a few questions. On page 103 of Volume 2 of your report, when discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you referenced "the firm in that produced the Steele reporting." The name of that firm was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?

ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: And you're on page 103?

CHABOT: 103, that's correct, Volume 2. When you talk about the--the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?

MUELLER: I--I'm not familiar with--with that."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/24/mueller_not_familiar_with_fusion_gps_outside_my_purview.html
Quote
For instance, this was also overheard in the hearing...

Congressman: Mr. Mueller, is it true you're a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: Could you repeat that?

Congressman: Yes. Is it true you are a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: The report speaks for itself.

LMMFAO!

Stay classy.
My commentary, along with the rest here, displays all the class befitting this circus sideshow of the past 3 years.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 12:37:33 PM by totallackey »

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4155 on: July 25, 2019, 12:32:03 PM »
I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.
It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 
And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.
The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.

So then Trump was spreading misinformation when he said he was exonerated? Good stuff.
No.

Because a person not indicted can continue to lay claim that state of being all they want.

I am exonerated.

You are exonerated.

ALL GOD'S CHILDREN ARE EXONERATED!!!

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4156 on: July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM »
I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.
It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 
You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?  If he were to walk to your house, stab you, and rape your mom, he could not be arrested or charged with a crime.  Not until he was removed from office.  Thats what impeachment is for: to remove a president so you can charge him for a crime.

Quote
And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.
The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.
You can't exonerate someone with a report if the report can't exonerate them. 
Nor can you claim "I wasn't charged, therefore I'm exonerated" because if that's the case then Hillary is exonerated of all acusations against her.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4157 on: July 25, 2019, 01:18:54 PM »
Because a person not indicted can continue to lay claim that state of being all they want.

I am exonerated.

You are exonerated.

ALL GOD'S CHILDREN ARE EXONERATED!!!
Not being indicted is not the same as being exonerated.  If Trump says that the report exonerates him, then he is lying.  Simple as that.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4158 on: July 25, 2019, 02:53:32 PM »
I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.
It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 
You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?
Trump is consistently persecuted...

Where have you been?

You are here persecuting him on a daily basis. 
If he were to walk to your house, stab you, and rape your mom, he could not be arrested or charged with a crime. Not until he was removed from office.
That is laughable on a few points:
1) He isn't the complete moron or monster you or others claim him to be;
B) My mom is dead; and,
III) Despite the rhetoric, anyone in the US can be charged with a crime. You are here charging him with a crime. 
Quote
And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.
The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.
You can't exonerate someone with a report if the report can't exonerate them. 
Nor can you claim "I wasn't charged, therefore I'm exonerated" because if that's the case then Hillary is exonerated of all acusations against her.
Hillary does stand exonerated.

What part of "ALL GOD'S CHILDREN," was lost?

As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7539
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4159 on: July 25, 2019, 02:55:27 PM »
Trump could supposedly be charged with obstruction of justice, a very vague term that Bill Clinton was impeached for, but subsequently found not guilty on all counts. The fact that the best Mueller can do is a "well, sure, I could technically charge him after he leaves office" is a clear indication that he's got nothing on Trump and Trump will never be charged with anything. That this is the very best the media can cling to is great news for Trump 2020 since it means there's nothing more serious floating around.

Considering it takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, Trump could never be found guilty regardless of the crime or evidence.

Also: it shows alot that an innocent president would obstruct justice on an investigation into crimes he didn't commit.

A person hasn't obstructed justice until they have been convicted of doing so in a court of law. You don't have sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed anything. The entire purpose of these hearings is to try to convict Trump in the court of public opinion. Luckily, the only people falling for it are people that decided they weren't voting for Trump several years ago. This is more-or-less what Dems tried to do to Kavanaugh. Just replace Mueller with a crying woman and boom, the court of public opinion is ever that much more obvious.