Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Ghengis Jon]

I think a redacted version of the report will be released. They can't release some information (like grand jury testimony), but the bulk of it will eventually come out. But it would take some real, real, real chutzpah from Barr to intentionally mis-summarized a report that he knows will eventually be public. Even the Obamaian Bootlicker Eric Holder thinks the collusion bullshit is done.

True enuff. Barr's not mis-summarizing, he's cherry picking for his boss. That's easy when no one else can see the report. Barr can honestly state that there was nothing non-factual in his letter, he simply plucked out passages that fit his boss's narrative.

The last time there was a Constitutional crisis (Nixon), the DOJ went to Fed Court and obtained permission to reveal grand jury testimony in it's report to Congress. For transparency since the issues investigated involved the POTUS. You think Barr is going to do that? He's too busy licking you-know-who's boots.

William Barr = Eric Holder

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Kapture1]

Screen-Shot-2017-01-04-at-1.39.21-PM.png

[Ghengis Jon]

Winning Trump's trade war.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/03/26/Experts-China-tariffs-have-sacked-US-income-by-14B-a-month/1751553600849/

[iam416]

True enuff. Barr's not mis-summarizing, he's cherry picking for his boss. That's easy when no one else can see the report. Barr can honestly state that there was nothing non-factual in his letter, he simply plucked out passages that fit his boss's narrative.

\

If you want to triple down on collusion at this point then knock yourself out.

[Jeff Buchanan]

\

If you want to triple down on collusion at this point then knock yourself out.

Wait......at some point you posted Trump won't be impeached or indicted as a sitting president but you did think he had legal problems facing him for illegal business activities as a private citizen, right?

this seems to imply he has acted illegally at some point. In or outof office, right?

[iam416]

I've always been very skeptical of collusion. WRT to financial activities, I've said that's the Ds much better chance. I don't think I've ever put a likelihood on it.

The basic reason I found the collusion narrative farcical -- a bungling bunch of ne'er-do-wells conspiring with a huge foreign government to fix the election and there's no smoking gun? -- lol. For the same reason I could see them on the wrong side of technical campaign finance laws. They're bungling incompetents. Paying Stormy, e.g., out of any sort of campaign fund is just beyond stupid. Whether there was an intent or not, it's way easier to avoid the whole issue and pay her from some other source. Whatever.

I'm generally skeptical of really bad financial crimes stuff -- laundering money for the Russians, e.g.

But, we shall see.

[Ghengis Jon]

If you want to triple down on collusion at this point then knock yourself out.

What are you talking about? I've stated from day one that Trump would never be found guilty of collusion - he has neither the cunning or the intellectual firepower to collude, despite his narcissistic lack of morals. My issue with First Traitor is for activities after the election acting as a Russian asset and his wiping of his ass with the Constitution (see fake emergency).

Bill Barr is enabling Vladimir Trump by pulling out 2 quotes and painting with a broad brush. It's akin to claiming that the Bible condones murder based on the quote "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." What I am really interested in is what activities Mueller thought constituted obstruction and what activities did not. Mueller punted the damned if you do damned if you don't decision. He obviously thought Trump engaged in obstruction but perhaps not to the level of indictment. He did not draw a conclusion one way or the other and clearly stated that his findings did not exonerate Trump. He left the final call to Barr, which I find very disappointing in Mueller. I trust Mueller and if he says there was no collusion, then so be it, case closed. Mueller punted the obstruction charge to Trump's lapdog. Barr's public disposition clearly showed he'd side with Trump no matter what the evidence showed. That's why full disclosure would end this discussion one way or the other. Lets see it.

I'm sure the ever so fair GOP will release the Mueller Report as fully and as quickly as they released the Starr report.

[Kapture1]

i hope some people get the mental help they desperately need

[Kapture1]

the Jussie Smollett case shows clearly the two tiered justice system is alive and well

[iam416]

The obstructions "evidence" is going to be PDJT's public statements and nothing more. You already know what it is. And Mueller could not recommend an obstruction charge.

What are you talking about? I've stated from day one that Trump would never be found guilty of collusion - he has neither the cunning or the intellectual firepower to collude, despite his narcissistic lack of morals. My issue with First Traitor is for activities after the election acting as a Russian asset and his wiping of his ass with the Constitution (see fake emergency).

He isn't colluding with Russia but he's a Russian asset. Whatever, dude. You and I are so fucking far apart on this it's not worth it. As I said, godspeed tripling down on this bullshit.

[Kapture1]

[Dr. Strangelove]

Mayor Rahm was pretty hot talking about the Smollett stuff

[Kapture1]

not so much as an apology from the little shit

[Dr. Strangelove]

I've always been very skeptical of collusion. WRT to financial activities, I've said that's the Ds much better chance. I don't think I've ever put a likelihood on it.

The basic reason I found the collusion narrative farcical -- a bungling bunch of ne'er-do-wells conspiring with a huge foreign government to fix the election and there's no smoking gun? -- lol. For the same reason I could see them on the wrong side of technical campaign finance laws. They're bungling incompetents. Paying Stormy, e.g., out of any sort of campaign fund is just beyond stupid. Whether there was an intent or not, it's way easier to avoid the whole issue and pay her from some other source. Whatever.

I'm generally skeptical of really bad financial crimes stuff -- laundering money for the Russians, e.g.

But, we shall see.

Casinos have tight reporting regulations on them because, otherwise, they are one of the easiest places in the world to launder money. The Trump Taj Mahal was cited numerous times, including 106 violations in its first year of operations, for failing to keep required records of who was cashing out over $10,000 in 'winnings'. I've read articles a year or two ago that talked about how the Taj Mahal in its early days was a known mob hangout because they didn't ask questions.

Now. It's one thing to actively help criminals launder dirty money. It's another thing to be lazy, incompetent, and have contempt for the rule of law. No one ever accused the Trump Org of deliberately assisting criminals using his casino, just that they were so negligent and sloppy as to make it a haven for crooks.

Switch over to the current real estate "empire". I have close to zero doubt that some of his condo units purchased by Russian and Chinese nationals were bought with dirty money. Proving Trump knows about any of it is a tough task but he'd have to be clueless to not at least suspect certain people. My guess is he comes pretty close to straddling the line in being an accessory. This is someone who, during the campaign, complained about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act because he thinks it puts American businessmen at an unfair disadvantage to not be allowed to bribe foreign govt officials. Not someone who I think is terribly hung up on scruples.

So while I'd be surprised that there's a direct connection between him and criminality (in part because he shuns paper records and prefers to do everything by word of mouth), I wouldn't be surprised if his properties are currently being used for criminal purposes.