ADVERTISEMENT

Background on William Barr

You still haven’t addressed the links. Props to Cajun- he did.
weide, I need a favor.

I want to put SNU on Ignore (I can only take so much stoopid), but if I do that I'm pretty sure that would also block your responses to him. I usually like your stuff, and would hate to miss out. Could you just stop replying to him? Or at least not reply directly through the Reply button or Quote? I've pledged to do the same, although I did slip up earlier this evening.

I'm actually going to ask everyone else to do the same. I only singled you out since you guys have been going back and forth quite a bit today.
You can still see his replies. I’ve had him on ignore ever since his return.
 
BTW, if Trump was involved with Russian oligarchs to launder their money through sales of Trump's real estate transactions, what would your response be? Would you be ready to impeach Trump at that point? Would you favor prosecuting him?

I've always thought "collusion" was a red herring, given that Trump beat that canard to death as a means to distract the public from what he's most concerned about.

So let's see his dealings, open air and public. He's got nothing to hide, right?
“Damn, Well Russian collusion was an idiotic premise, let’s see if we can find anything else to stick him for. He HAS to be corrupt, HE JUST HAS TO DAMNIT!”
Do you really not know ANY business people from NYC? It’s honestly pretty funny that you have no idea what everyone else has known for decades.
 
Do you really not know ANY business people from NYC? It’s honestly pretty funny that you have no idea what everyone else has known for decades.

There are a lot of business people in NYC, most of whom don’t have intricate knowledge of Trumps business practices.
 
Do you really not know ANY business people from NYC? It’s honestly pretty funny that you have no idea what everyone else has known for decades.

It’s as if he’s never considered that Trump could he compromised. Since he promised us his tax returns, and then refused to do it (and is now fighting it actively), I’d say there’s something there he knows isn’t going to look good.

IF Trump has been transparent, covered up everything and then not lied about everything, even after bad behavior was uncovered, then I’d agree with your sentiment.

Realize that Trump brought this on himself through his actions. Any attempt to say that concern isn’t warranted is grade A gaslighting. Not unexpected from some folks on here- they apparently don’t care what Trump does, as long as he’s got an “R” next to his name. It amazes me that he has this much power over some people.
 
weide, I need a favor.

I want to put SNU on Ignore (I can only take so much stoopid), but if I do that I'm pretty sure that would also block your responses to him. I usually like your stuff, and would hate to miss out. Could you just stop replying to him? Or at least not reply directly through the Reply button or Quote? I've pledged to do the same, although I did slip up earlier this evening.

I'm actually going to ask everyone else to do the same. I only singled you out since you guys have been going back and forth quite a bit today.

If it wasn’t him, it would be someone else. But, point taken. I’m wasting my time. Obviously Che’s dug in, and still hasn’t addressed my original questions to him. I wish I could say I’m shocked.
 
BTW, if Trump was involved with Russian oligarchs to launder their money through sales of Trump's real estate transactions, what would your response be? Would you be ready to impeach Trump at that point? Would you favor prosecuting him?

I've always thought "collusion" was a red herring, given that Trump beat that canard to death as a means to distract the public from what he's most concerned about.

So let's see his dealings, open air and public. He's got nothing to hide, right?
My response would be that’s sooooo far fetched that it’s border line looney toons. Seriously. Mueller likely went through some financial data. What you’re saying IS a witch hunt. There is no proof. There is no reason or suspicious activity to lead us to think that’s actually took place. You’re talking about a fishing expedition. I’m not down with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glidresquirrel
And people like these presumably got a degree from IU too. Sad to see the brainwashing people in this country open themselves to.,

Can you name us one issue you have an independent thought on? Something where you’re not in complete lockstep with the progressive agenda? And please don’t cite your support for Hillary over Bernie, we all know who you would have voted for had the same candidate had been named Bernadette.

The fact that you can call people brainwashed without blinking....... it’s hard to think there are people in this world who lack such self awareness.
 
The reads you linked are interesting. My thought on Barr is simply why would anyone with and ounce of intelligence create a summary that was totally untruthful or misleading knowing that if Mueller disagreed with the summary that he(Mueller) would immediately come forward personally and discount the summary and repudiate it?

You have repeatedly voiced approval of Mueller in the past and his rep and credibility and that of his staff and their ability to investigate without bias. Don't you have enough confidence in Mueller that he would have immediately done so as I suggested?

I am not suggesting that Barr lied, veiled or whatever on the summary or that it is totally correct and it is certainly possible he did mislead in his summary. I just find it difficult to believe that he would lie or mislead knowing Mueller would see it and respond accordingly as I suggested. Mueller has not.

A big "what if". What if the report when released confirms the Barr summary as well as pointing out that they believe there was no collusion or were unable to prove collusion with supporting documentation?

What if Mueller also includes distressing facts regarding the dossier and questions the FISA warrants and the validity of the dossier and material of that nature unrelated to actions by Trump or his campaign etc and directed at leadership in the Justice Dept and FBI? I am almost certain that it will not happen but again what if it did?

It's almost a certainty that both sides of the aisle will find elements of the report to declare victory or to question and accuse. It's a certainty that the left will accuse Barr of protecting Trump with his redactions.

Another "what if". If and when the redacted portions are opened up and viewed and it confirms Trump and his campaigns innocence of the accusations will this then be the end of it or will those such as yourself who have supported Mueller and voiced approval and confidence is his ability then turn on him as the left has on Barr?

In my own personal opinion I think there will be issues found skirting on the accusations but difficult to prove for numerous reasons. I don't think it will exonerate Trump but they felt they couldn't prove it sufficiently. I am not a lawyer and will leave this to the legal minds to discuss. People like Schiff and Swallwell who have constantly claimed to have proof and have yet to come forward with it are as annoying as hell. If you have it bring it forward!

I know "what ifs" are annoying etc but the whole debate on this issue past and present have essentially been what if this happens or is proven..................We citizens are only privy to the material provided by biased reporting on both sides of the aisle. People interpret reality in a way that conforms to their biases and that is a fact. Partisans live in two different worlds with what is termed motivated reasoning. I am guilty as are about all of us.

I think we learned a lot about Mueller from the Cohen lie that TMZ (??) reported. His team was quick to smack down that BS. Yet, not a peep about the Barr summary. So I presume the summary is pretty dang spot on. I could not imagine Mueller sitting by while Barr and Rosenstein totally misrepresent his team's report.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4You
Question for all you hating on Barr. Did you do the same with Holder and the “Fast and Furious” scandal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
Nevertheless, arguments about Barr’s letter are senseless. Mueller’s report says whatever we’re allowed to know it says. Maybe we should defer judgment about what Mueller’s report says until we’ve seen at least some of it. A lot of embarrassingly stupid claims would never have been made if only there hadn’t been such overexuberant idiocy over Barr’s letter
I agree Rock with your statement. Both sides have demonstrated such overexuberant idiocy as you phrased it. Like I said: "We citizens are only privy to the material provided by biased reporting on both sides of the aisle. People interpret reality in a way that conforms to their biases and that is a fact. Partisans live in two different worlds with what is termed motivated reasoning." I have seen ample proof of it at the Cooler on a daily basis and in the media and in my circle of friends. Those who are tuned in to politics so to speak reject information that doesn't fit their views and love to find info that fits in or supports their biases and as I said we see it here daily. I am guilty as are about all of us.

When the report is initially released tomorrow people will read it differently and in each case try to support their narrative of events and what transpired. There will never be a sense of a common thought process or narrative on what really happened and whether Trump or his team obstructed justice etc. On collusion people will interpret reality in a way that supports their biases.

On Barr I still feel that anyone with and ounce of intelligence would not provide a false narrative in a summary knowing that Mueller would most certainly strike back with a condemnation or something. Mueller's team did so when TMZ or whoever it was published false facts. Mueller responded quickly and publicly. Why would he not do so IF Barr was lying unless Mueller is perhaps corrupted as well? This is not to say that either scenario isn't possible but as you said, "Mueller’s report says whatever we’re allowed to know it says."

Time we tell and we need to see the full report.
 
I think we learned a lot about Mueller from the Cohen lie that TMZ (??) reported. His team was quick to smack down that BS. Yet, not a peep about the Barr summary. So I presume the summary is pretty dang spot on. I could not imagine Mueller sitting by while Barr and Rosenstein totally misrepresent his team's report.
It's been widely reported that members of Mueller's team are unhappy with Barr's summary. In response to those reports, Barr said his summary wasn't really a summary. But somehow you're not hearing any "peeps".
 
It's been widely reported that members of Mueller's team are unhappy with Barr's summary.

Widely reported? A sketchy report has been widely repeated. But so what? It has also been reported that members of Mueller’s team are unhappy with no indictments. BFD. Nobody should expect unanimity. The fact is that there are no indictments. In language you might understand, you snd the Dems, are arguing about first downs when the score has been reported and the game is finished.
 
Widely reported? A sketchy report has been widely repeated. But so what? It has also been reported that members of Mueller’s team are unhappy with no indictments. BFD. Nobody should expect unanimity. The fact is that there are no indictments. In language you might understand, you snd the Dems, are arguing about first downs when the score has been reported and the game is finished.
All lies and jest
But a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
 
  • Like
Reactions: T.M.P.
It's been widely reported that members of Mueller's team are unhappy with Barr's summary. In response to those reports, Barr said his summary wasn't really a summary. But somehow you're not hearing any "peeps".

By widely reported, I assume you mean the single NY Times article? And that article quoted "some" members. There were about 30 members on the team according to CNN. If 2 or 3 were disappointed, then you have "some". Hardly a smack down like the Cohen lie. But that is how the media can shape a story to fit its narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNU0821
By widely reported, I assume you mean the single NY Times article? And that article quoted "some" members. There were about 30 members on the team according to CNN. If 2 or 3 were disappointed, then you have "some". Hardly a smack down like the Cohen lie. But that is how the media can shape a story to fit its narrative.
It was separately reported by both WaPo and the Times, perhaps the two best sources of reliable reporting we have. But again, you guys just believe whatever you choose. Who cares what Mueller’s report actually says? Barr’s summary that isn’t a summary tells us all we need to know.

Bad reading comprehension. Motivated reasoning. Willful credulity. Idiocy. All are elements of the Trumpbot posting style.
 
It was separately reported by both WaPo and the Times, perhaps the two best sources of reliable reporting we have. But again, you guys just believe whatever you choose. Who cares what Mueller’s report actually says? Barr’s summary that isn’t a summary tells us all we need to know.

Bad reading comprehension. Motivated reasoning. Willful credulity. Idiocy. All are elements of the Trumpbot posting style.

The report is not a legal document of any kind. The report is to the AG and is intended to describe the work if SC. Government being government, we can reasonably assume that the report will describe the hundreds of witnesses interviewed, the thousands if subpoenas issued, and the tens of thousands of documents read. All of that results in no indictments for collusion, conspiracy, or obstruction. Yet the Democrats will certainly claim that the redactions hold the keys to the anti-Trump treasure trove and the Dems and media will certainly march along with collusion, conspiracy, and obstruction theories while proudly wearing their tin foil hats that say “redactions!”
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNU0821
The report is not a legal document of any kind. The report is to the AG and is intended to describe the work if SC. Government being government, we can reasonably assume that the report will describe the hundreds of witnesses interviewed, the thousands if subpoenas issued, and the tens of thousands of documents read. All of that results in no indictments for collusion, conspiracy, or obstruction. Yet the Democrats will certainly claim that the redactions hold the keys to the anti-Trump treasure trove and the Dems and media will certainly march along with collusion, conspiracy, and obstruction theories while proudly wearing their tin foil hats that say “redactions!”
This isn’t responsive to anything I’ve posted.
 
weide, I need a favor.

I want to put SNU on Ignore (I can only take so much stoopid), but if I do that I'm pretty sure that would also block your responses to him. I usually like your stuff, and would hate to miss out. Could you just stop replying to him? Or at least not reply directly through the Reply button or Quote? I've pledged to do the same, although I did slip up earlier this evening.

I'm actually going to ask everyone else to do the same. I only singled you out since you guys have been going back and forth quite a bit today.
FWIW, you don't have to worry about this. If you put someone on ignore, you'll still see responses to them. You just won't see the embedded quotes that people are responding to.
 
Interesting. It doesn't work that way on the basketball board.
I think it might depend on device you are using actually. I can see on my phone but not computer.
I think you guys broke your internet when you started stacking quotes inside quotes inside quotes. On my end, I can see everyone I don't have on ignore, I just can't see the text they quote from people I do. And it looks the same on every device and every forum.
 
I agree Rock with your statement. Both sides have demonstrated such overexuberant idiocy as you phrased it. Like I said: "We citizens are only privy to the material provided by biased reporting on both sides of the aisle. People interpret reality in a way that conforms to their biases and that is a fact. Partisans live in two different worlds with what is termed motivated reasoning." I have seen ample proof of it at the Cooler on a daily basis and in the media and in my circle of friends. Those who are tuned in to politics so to speak reject information that doesn't fit their views and love to find info that fits in or supports their biases and as I said we see it here daily. I am guilty as are about all of us.

When the report is initially released tomorrow people will read it differently and in each case try to support their narrative of events and what transpired. There will never be a sense of a common thought process or narrative on what really happened and whether Trump or his team obstructed justice etc. On collusion people will interpret reality in a way that supports their biases.

On Barr I still feel that anyone with and ounce of intelligence would not provide a false narrative in a summary knowing that Mueller would most certainly strike back with a condemnation or something. Mueller's team did so when TMZ or whoever it was published false facts. Mueller responded quickly and publicly. Why would he not do so IF Barr was lying unless Mueller is perhaps corrupted as well? This is not to say that either scenario isn't possible but as you said, "Mueller’s report says whatever we’re allowed to know it says."

Time we tell and we need to see the full report.
What is this obsession you have with inserting "both sides" in every post you make? There's only one side that was badly mischaracterizing what Barr actually said, and it's the same side that is today badly mischaracterizing what Mueller actually said - the pro-Trump side.

Everyone can be an idiot, but on this topic, not everyone is. The actual idiots today are almost exclusively the Trumpbots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockfish1
What is this obsession you have with inserting "both sides" in every post you make? There's only one side that was badly mischaracterizing what Barr actually said, and it's the same side that is today badly mischaracterizing what Mueller actually said - the pro-Trump side.

Everyone can be an idiot, but on this topic, not everyone is. The actual idiots today are almost exclusively the Trumpbots.
As I said: "Those who are tuned in to politics so to speak reject information that doesn't fit their views and love to find info that fits in or supports their biases and as I said we see it here daily". I am guilty as are about all of us.

You to are guilty Goat and you demonstrate it constantly. I haven't posted for months as I don't think and active mod should. Today I broke my rule. I knew for a fact that I would get a snippet from you. I always do. Funny thing is I am probably closer to your opinion on the topic than not. You just don't like hearing two sides of the opinion and anyone in disagreement with yours is often referred to as idiots. This is termed motivated reasoning. You use it a lot as do most here. Often times the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There is another reason I don't post often. I have rediscovered why. Over and out.
 
As I said: "Those who are tuned in to politics so to speak reject information that doesn't fit their views and love to find info that fits in or supports their biases and as I said we see it here daily". I am guilty as are about all of us.

You to are guilty Goat and you demonstrate it constantly. I haven't posted for months as I don't think and active mod should. Today I broke my rule. I knew for a fact that I would get a snippet from you. I always do. Funny thing is I am probably closer to your opinion on the topic than not. You just don't like hearing two sides of the opinion and anyone in disagreement with yours is often referred to as idiots. This is termed motivated reasoning. You use it a lot as do most here. Often times the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There is another reason I don't post often. I have rediscovered why. Over and out.

There is some truth to what you write. We look at information with bias. But that doesn't give you an excuse to not dig deeper and acknowledge where the facts lead us. Just saying the truth lies somewhere in the middle is a convenient excuse to hide from the facts. The Mueller report seems to conclude that while the Russians certainly interfered in the election AND Trump associates attempted to gain advantage from that interference, there was no compelling evidence that the Trump campaign or associates colluded with the Russians. My personal belief is they were far too inept to do that.

What also seems to be true is that Trump and his associates attempted to obstruct the Mueller investigation. We witnessed this continuously, as Trump denigrated the Justice Department and Mueller's investigation. Mueller has concluded that Trump tried to fire Mueller and then later asked his attorney to lie to the Mueller team. It looks to me that Mueller has held that Congress is responsible for oversite of the president and has presented evidence to them. To deny these facts is to shine a light on your bias.
 
As I said: "Those who are tuned in to politics so to speak reject information that doesn't fit their views and love to find info that fits in or supports their biases and as I said we see it here daily". I am guilty as are about all of us.

You to are guilty Goat and you demonstrate it constantly. I haven't posted for months as I don't think and active mod should. Today I broke my rule. I knew for a fact that I would get a snippet from you. I always do. Funny thing is I am probably closer to your opinion on the topic than not. You just don't like hearing two sides of the opinion and anyone in disagreement with yours is often referred to as idiots. This is termed motivated reasoning. You use it a lot as do most here. Often times the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There is another reason I don't post often. I have rediscovered why. Over and out.
What two sides?

It's true that the Trumpbots on here badly misrepresented what Barr said, and are now badly misrepresenting what Mueller said. There's no way to both sides this. The Trump defenders are being dishonest, or stupid. There's no other explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Circlejoe
What are you going to say if the Mueller investigation is concluded and there is no collusion? If there is no collusion then there can't be any obstruction of justice because why would someone obstruct what doesn't exist?
Because what you said is not true -- under Section 1503, a person who "corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice" is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice.

https://law.jrank.org/pages/8891/Obstruction-Justice.html

Collusion is not a required element of obstruction, because it is not a legal term at all. Nor is it required that an effort to obstruct actually succeed in obstruction -- all that the statute quoted above requires is that a person "endeavor" to obstruct the administration of justice.

And it's just silly to ask your "why" question: "why would someone obstruct what doesn't exist?" Asking "why" never proves anything to defend your buddy, Trump. Nonetheless, people lie and obstruct because they think they're going to get caught. A minister would know why people lie, so you should probably ask your minister the next time.
 
I guess you didn’t hear “No further indictments”. Glad I could clear this up for you.
Just so you don't mess up your underwear with an excited overreaction, let me point out that Barr redacted some things from today's version of the report based upon ongoing investigations.

Your dream of "no further indictments" may be premature.
 
As I said: "Those who are tuned in to politics so to speak reject information that doesn't fit their views and love to find info that fits in or supports their biases and as I said we see it here daily". I am guilty as are about all of us.

You to are guilty Goat and you demonstrate it constantly. I haven't posted for months as I don't think and active mod should. Today I broke my rule. I knew for a fact that I would get a snippet from you. I always do. Funny thing is I am probably closer to your opinion on the topic than not. You just don't like hearing two sides of the opinion and anyone in disagreement with yours is often referred to as idiots. This is termed motivated reasoning. You use it a lot as do most here. Often times the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There is another reason I don't post often. I have rediscovered why. Over and out.

There is some truth to what you write. We look at information with bias. But that doesn't give you an excuse to not dig deeper and acknowledge where the facts lead us. Just saying the truth lies somewhere in the middle is a convenient excuse to hide from the facts. The Mueller report seems to conclude that while the Russians certainly interfered in the election AND Trump associates attempted to gain advantage from that interference, there was no compelling evidence that the Trump campaign or associates colluded with the Russians. My personal belief is they were far too inept to do that.

What also seems to be true is that Trump and his associates attempted to obstruct the Mueller investigation. We witnessed this continuously, as Trump denigrated the Justice Department and Mueller's investigation. Mueller has concluded that Trump tried to fire Mueller and then later asked his attorney to lie to the Mueller team. It looks to me that Mueller has held that Congress is responsible for oversite of the president and has presented evidence to them. To deny these facts is to shine a light on your bias.
Why isn’t Manafort sharing polling information with the Russians tangible proof? It also is pretty astonishing that Trump has known since he came down that escalator on that dark day in history that Russia has been trying to help him. All the while lying about it, blaming it on Hillary, witch hunt, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Circlejoe
What is this obsession you have with inserting "both sides" in every post you make? There's only one side that was badly mischaracterizing what Barr actually said, and it's the same side that is today badly mischaracterizing what Mueller actually said - the pro-Trump side.

Everyone can be an idiot, but on this topic, not everyone is. The actual idiots today are almost exclusively the Trumpbots.

What is this obsession you have with judging other posters? Nobody cares what you think of Cajun or others. If you think criticizing posters, posts, or threads makes you look good, you are mistaken.
 
Just so you don't mess up your underwear with an excited overreaction, let me point out that Barr redacted some things from today's version of the report based upon ongoing investigations.

Your dream of "no further indictments" may be premature.

Right. I commented about that several days ago. “No further indictments” refers to the investigations and prosecutions Mueller was tasked with.
 
There is some truth to what you write. We look at information with bias. But that doesn't give you an excuse to not dig deeper and acknowledge where the facts lead us. Just saying the truth lies somewhere in the middle is a convenient excuse to hide from the facts. The Mueller report seems to conclude that while the Russians certainly interfered in the election AND Trump associates attempted to gain advantage from that interference, there was no compelling evidence that the Trump campaign or associates colluded with the Russians. My personal belief is they were far too inept to do that.

What also seems to be true is that Trump and his associates attempted to obstruct the Mueller investigation. We witnessed this continuously, as Trump denigrated the Justice Department and Mueller's investigation. Mueller has concluded that Trump tried to fire Mueller and then later asked his attorney to lie to the Mueller team. It looks to me that Mueller has held that Congress is responsible for oversite of the president and has presented evidence to them. To deny these facts is to shine a light on your bias.
You have absolutely no idea what my biases might be. My last post on the Cooler with the exception of those relating to moderating consisting of about 6 post was Feb 12 2018. I don't post much at all as I feel a moderator should not. I don't think you have the ability to determine my alleged bias.
 
ADVERTISEMENT