Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1666
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GW Hayduke

  1. Blahhh if Dotard hadn’t fired the FBI Director beacuSe of the “russia thing,” we wouldn’t have had special counsel. I’m amazed that someone would comment on a topic while knowing so little
  2. You might be trying to say “no crime, so no obstruction.” There has been plenty of crimes surrounding the russia investigations. 5 people sentenced to prison, 7 guilty pleas, 37 entities charged.
  3. There are a ton of unanswered questions. Was Barr’s conclusion of no obstruction based on his 2018 memo that argued any presidential action under Article II can never ever be obstruction?
  4. “Barr’s letter to Congress makes clear that there was substantial evidence supporting the possibility that the president obstructed justice—enough that Mueller did not feel he could draw a conclusion—but that Barr nonetheless concluded that prosecution was not warranted. By using the same language that Mueller used with respect to “establishing” coordination with Russia, Barr’s letter suggests the possibility that, rather than “no evidence” of collusion, Mueller did find such evidence—but similarly did not conclude it warranted a criminal prosecution. Clearing up this ambiguity is yet another reason why the Mueller report should be released promptly.” https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-barr-letter-actually-say-about-collusion
  5. No one cares. Add to the discussion or post less.
  6. Why the right wing shout down while not adding to any discussion? Post less
  7. He’s a grifter because he wrote a book and has a social media presence? That’s your threshold for grifting? If a person has a message and perspective to counterbalance the current narrative presented by the WH, how would you prefer that be communicated in a way that isn’t grifting?
  8. You think they took this subpoena issue to the Supreme Court because there might not be “anything important at play?”
  9. Not sure if this has been shared concerning Barr’s letter and his obstruction finding. It appears the lawfare folks indicate Mueller’s report may have all the obstruction evidence laid out for Congress to weigh rather than for Barr. Barr’s obstruction conclusion potentially may have been based heavily on Barr’s belief that Article II authorities (such as firing comey or request to drop Flynn’s investigation) can never be considered obstruction. “It also makes clear that the Mueller report creates an extensive record on the obstruction question. And that may well be the point. After all, what is the point of a prosecutor’s amassing a factual record and then refusing, as Mueller apparently has refused, to evaluate it in a traditional prosecutorial framework? The answer the letter suggests but does not state is that the Mueller report has teed up the question of presidential obstruction for evaluation by a different actor—to wit, by Congress—on a decidedly noncriminal basis. Mueller, being barred from indicting the president, has done the investigation, has apparently declined even to evaluate the matter as a prosecutor, and has laid out all of the facts and the arguments for and against treating the president’s behavior as criminal. It is now for other actors to decide whether the conduct Mueller describes is acceptable in a president.”” “While Mueller left the question of criminality unaddressed, Barr himself did not. Barr opines that Mueller’s “decision to describe the facts of his obstruction inquiry without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime”—though it is not clear why Barr felt this to be the case. Barr includes his own determination, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s, that Mueller’s evidence “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”” “Though Barr does not make reference to any concerns over the interaction between presidential authority and possible obstruction offenses, it is worth keeping in mind his memorandum on the subject from June 2018, in which he argued that conduct authorized by Article II definitionally cannot constitute obstruction.” https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-bill-barrs-letter
  10. I'm not sure I follow. Whether he feels the investigation is justified or not, why lie? How does lying make sense? I understand you say that he may feel pissed and upset if he truly is innocent. Your point seems to be that he is acting on his emotion. That might make sense for a day or two maybe, but his emotions wouldn't last that long. Why continuously attack the investigation if there was nothing to hide, if it was an opportunity to clear himself? He could say "Yeah, I'm mad about being investigated but I have nothing to hide, so let's support the investigation so everyone knows I'm innocent?"
  11. This is a measured, fair, and balanced discussion on the the current situation. Only 12 minutes.
  12. Honest question. Ignoring the stuff that has already come out in public like the Trump Tower meeting, the project in Moscow, firing of Comey cause of the "the russia thing, and providing polling data to russia and then imagining that Trump and those close to him did nothing wrong, why was everyone lying about everything? Also if he is innocent and did nothing wrong, why constantly attack the Mueller investigation? Why go with "witch hunt" rather than "clear my name and I'll testify under oath!"
  13. This totally clears the President and is a giant win for the GOP. I'm not concerned that we have no idea what is in the report. Everything is clear if you just put all the pieces together. This means that a campaign manager providing detailed polling data to a russian is totally legal, appropriate, and definitely not "collusion." I know in my bones that this is a win for America. This means that a candidate publicly asking russia to hack his opponent is totally legal and definitely not collusion. My gramps would be fuckin proud if he was still with us. This means that meeting with russians at trump tower to exchange dirt on opponent for sanction relief is totally legal and definitely not collusion. Alexander Hamilton and George Washington could only dream of this moment. This means that firing the investigator that is investigating russia and then telling russians it "eased pressure" without that "nut job" is totally legal and definitely not collusion. God bless the USA. For folks that might be confused by Trump's and everyone else's constant lies about all things Russia and the GOP and Trump's constant attacks on the DOJ and Mueller just don't know how to mensa or understand 2D checkers.
  14. I agree with all this. I would add that Israel has been our ally for a long time and that we should expect a dem nominee and future president to work with Israel to shift their policies and hopefully place the US back into the peace process as a near-neutral arbiter. Part of that will likely require walking back many of Trump’s actions
  15. We are talking about the fair treatment of candidates. I’m talking broader than you and that’s ok. I understand you are still upset and feel the DNC rigged it for Hillary. That conspiracy I understand was limited to the passing of debate questions.
  16. My definition of collusion is based on feelings. I don’t feel like passing detailed polling data to Russians is collusion. I don’t feel like publicly asking russia to hack my opponents emails is collusion. I don’t feel like meeting with Russians at trump tower to get dirt on my opponent is collusion. I don’t feel like firing the investigator investigating russia because of the “russia thing” is collusion. Feels are greater than reals when it comes to collusion.
  17. Is anyone not aware of the decade plus campaign by Fox News, right-wing talking heads, and right-wing politicians to paint Hillary as corrupt and dishonest? Fox News + whitewater + Benghazi+ HeR eMaIls + 2015/16 social media manipulation + uranium one + Clinton foundation were all hammered into half of the US population.
  18. He might be trying to drive a wedge further between the GOP and the never-trumpers. He might be trying to hijack the new cycle a bit. He might be acting without reason and solely on scattered emotions
  19. I apologize. I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that we should ban knives? That would be dumb. How would the vegetables be cut?
  20. Knives do considerably less damage to the human body when compared to guns. Knives are also used to cut vegetables. This isn’t hard
  21. I think a person’s wealth and how acquired is part of their story. Their story should be just like any other factor. Does the person’s story make them more electable, able to defeat trump and mobilize votes? It’s a factor just like their oratory ability, charisma, honesty, etc. A person’s wealth, color isn’t a prerequisite though as some seem to feel. It shouldn’t disqualify them from being able to implement Dem policies once in office. We are searching for a candidate to represent the values, policies, and direction of the Dem party.
  22. Your entire spiel of why Beto can’t affect change is that he is white and has money. That’s it. His identity prevents him from the possibility of affecting change in your eyes. His identity makes all his actions, the actions of a privledged white guy. Question his record, experience, policies, intelligence, or methods but identity politics is lame
  23. “We’re all Americans” has been every recent president’s line including the Bushs and Reagan. Trump is the odd man out on this line.
  24. Beto isn’t going to affect change while in office because he’s a white guy. Makes sense
×
×
  • Create New...