- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump tweets... and people should be nervous now. He sounds pissed
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:21 pm to Sanfordhog
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:21 pm to Sanfordhog
Why does Mueller’s report represent the truth? It’s only part of the story.
2
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:32 pm to Halftrack
quote:
Halftrack
Have you met DoucheTerry? You two would make a cute couple. Well, the airlines would probably consider you a three some but I'm not one to make fun of unfortunate genetics. MuhThyroid and whatnot.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:35 pm to MoLiberty
quote:
would prefer he say “this will NEVER happen again”
The punishment needs to be swift and severe.
Otherwise it will happen again.
I’m gonna be honest and it might not be popular but if these people, including Hillary, aren’t prosecuted then it damn well better happen again to the next democrat POTUS. If Republicans try to turn the page I will be pissed.
They should also find some whores to “credibly accuse” some democrats of rape, preferably every cabinet nomination that comes up for confirmation. I’m more than willing to be the next Blasey-Ford. In fact, the last two trips I went on were to Minnesota and Michigan. While in Minnesota some terrorist looking chick walking behind me kept reaching out and grabbing my arse. I asked, then demanded that she stop but this looney toon then grabbed my junk. It was at this time that I recognized this count as Ilhan Omar.
Then while visiting Michigan the same thing happened, but this time it was Rashida Tlaib.
I’m ready to tell “my truth” just as soon as some patriot Senator or Congressman will allow me to
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:39 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
Woah. When was this handle red pilled.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:46 pm to Jjdoc
.....appears he was right about Bill Sessions. What a puny little little man. No fricking backbone at all.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:53 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
Kavanaugh. And red pilled isn’t an accurate description. I wasn’t a Trump fan. I’ve never said a positive word about Hillary in my life. I’ve always leaned right
This post was edited on 4/19/19 at 11:57 pm
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:43 am to DallasTiger11
Mueller and his team investigated and the report explains what they’ve found. Trump and his administration are done. Trump supporters will continue with talking points.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:52 am to Sanfordhog
quote:The investigation literally started to examine whether donald trump and his campaign team conspired with russia to interfere in the election.
Trump and his administration are done.
The investigation did not find that. It found NO INSTANCES where the campaign coordinated with russia in its two-pronged interference.
If the report is as damning as you think it is, why isn't congress going to remove him?
Posted on 4/20/19 at 1:44 am to Sanfordhog
quote:
Trump and his administration are done.
Cleary not. You are gonna have to beat him in the ballot box and that route isn’t looking too hot at the moment.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 2:41 am to Sanfordhog
Just to clarify Its officially on Page 10 of the section which is page 18 out of all pages in file if anyone looking.
You must really think Hillary should have been charged.
If anything deleted was required by law or campaign regulation to be saved wouldn’t someone be charged with obstruction or some other applicable law for these specific deletions?
This actually appears more about not being able to fully corroborate some witnesses’ statements (not all were Trump campaign) that didn’t mesh with what they thought were facts not deletions or encrypted communications to cover up a crime. Someone says something inconsistent with known facts but can’t corroborate it with their deleted or encrypted communications now. Would Mueller go with facts in conclusion or uncorroborated statements? I doubt they care to show that Trump campaign could have shown even more proof of no collusion if they didn’t delete. I would think maybe other witness pushing against Trump might have made statement inconsistent with facts but either deleted their proof or it was done with decryption and short term retention. Statement not corroborated while the facts must have been.
Regardless just using encryption, deleting communications, and using services say like Snapchat “that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records” are not abnormal and pretty standard for many people and not proof of anything much less of proof of a coverup for the crime of collusion they say didn’t happen. Cant find collision but let’s look suspiciously at using standard communication practices and assume they were used to cover up the collision that didn’t happen or used in the past to obstruct a future investigation into the collision that didn’t happen.
Inconsistencies on how between different people recalled an event is pretty normal as well. It’s investigator’s job to work through, find corroborating evidence as well as work through political opinions motivating testimonies.
To remotely make these things suspicious towards Trump is either political or just to cover themselves for not finding a crime.
Their job was to find out if collusion actually took place and if so by who not exonerate individuals of a crime that weren’t sure even happened at the start and then couldn’t find evidence that the crime actually occurred.
quote:
And one reason Mueller said that is outlined in his report on page 18:
“Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.”
You must really think Hillary should have been charged.
If anything deleted was required by law or campaign regulation to be saved wouldn’t someone be charged with obstruction or some other applicable law for these specific deletions?
This actually appears more about not being able to fully corroborate some witnesses’ statements (not all were Trump campaign) that didn’t mesh with what they thought were facts not deletions or encrypted communications to cover up a crime. Someone says something inconsistent with known facts but can’t corroborate it with their deleted or encrypted communications now. Would Mueller go with facts in conclusion or uncorroborated statements? I doubt they care to show that Trump campaign could have shown even more proof of no collusion if they didn’t delete. I would think maybe other witness pushing against Trump might have made statement inconsistent with facts but either deleted their proof or it was done with decryption and short term retention. Statement not corroborated while the facts must have been.
Regardless just using encryption, deleting communications, and using services say like Snapchat “that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records” are not abnormal and pretty standard for many people and not proof of anything much less of proof of a coverup for the crime of collusion they say didn’t happen. Cant find collision but let’s look suspiciously at using standard communication practices and assume they were used to cover up the collision that didn’t happen or used in the past to obstruct a future investigation into the collision that didn’t happen.
Inconsistencies on how between different people recalled an event is pretty normal as well. It’s investigator’s job to work through, find corroborating evidence as well as work through political opinions motivating testimonies.
To remotely make these things suspicious towards Trump is either political or just to cover themselves for not finding a crime.
Their job was to find out if collusion actually took place and if so by who not exonerate individuals of a crime that weren’t sure even happened at the start and then couldn’t find evidence that the crime actually occurred.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 5:27 am to BamaNixon
quote:Some of us are not so weak-minded. That's why we cry hypocrisy when we see it. It's called having character -- where you are willing to admit your own faults and apologize when you are wrong. This is not a fricking game where the ends justify the means for the sake of gaining power. We make our own reality and it's your type of thinking that is turning this country into a shite hole.
You root for your team, and anything that looks bad for your team has to hit a higher standard (usually impossibly high) to get you to change your mind about them.
EDIT: On second thought, I need to clarify. The above is completely who I used to be. Innately that's me, but I'm being forced to a different place today. The cynic I've become no longer cares to appeal to the 'better nature' of those across the aisle. In my view, their lust for power and hypocrisy are inexcusable. We are at 'war' and I may one day put my cynicism aside and be prepared again to reach out to reasonable individuals. For now, frick that. Provide no quarter. Burn them all. Justice need be served before I can trust our institutions again.
This post was edited on 4/20/19 at 6:06 am
Posted on 4/20/19 at 7:27 am to Sanfordhog
quote:
I’ve actually read both volumes
Great. What does the first volume say?
I see you are only talking about a few opinions in the 2nd article. Why don't you tell us what's in the 1st article?
Does it say anything about collusion? I was told there was collusion with Russia for 2 years. Is that in there anywhere?
This post was edited on 4/20/19 at 7:32 am
Posted on 4/20/19 at 1:26 pm to DallasTiger11
Trump had a chance to tell the other part of the story but he repeatedly answered Mueller’s questions with “I don’t recall”. Trump couldn’t answer simple questions without implicating himself in a conspiracy and obstruction.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 1:31 pm to Sanfordhog
quote:
Trump had a chance to tell the other part of the story but he repeatedly answered Mueller’s questions with “I don’t recall”.
What the frick are you talking about? He never talked to Mueller.
and a fricking leftist criticizing the "I don't recall" answer?
Seriously?
the self-awareness of a doorknob
Posted on 4/20/19 at 1:39 pm to Sanfordhog
quote:
Mueller and his team investigated and the report explains what they’ve found.
For once you are correct. It proves exactly what illegal happened. NOTHING!
Posted on 4/20/19 at 2:04 pm to Sanfordhog
quote:
Trump had a chance to tell the other part of the story but he repeatedly answered Mueller’s questions with “I don’t recall”. Trump couldn’t answer simple questions without implicating himself in a conspiracy and obstruction.
odd, since we’re talking about one of the greatest memories of all time. maybe he’s hiding something
Posted on 4/20/19 at 2:05 pm to gthog61
quote:
What the frick are you talking about? He never talked to Mueller
written answers genius
try and keep up
This post was edited on 4/20/19 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 4/20/19 at 2:06 pm to Halftrack
Solid melt numbnuts. Chalk me down in your record books as saying frick a Democrat, any Democrat. Trump all day, MAGA
Posted on 4/20/19 at 2:12 pm to gthog61
Trump wouldn’t agree to sit down for a interview with SC but did agree to provide written answers, e.g.:
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
Response to Question l, Parts (a) through (c): I have no recollection of learning at the time that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in June 2016 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton. Nor do I recall learning during the campaign that the June 9, 2016 meeting had taken place, that the referenced emails existed, or that Donald J. Trump Jr., had other communications with Emin Agalarov or Robert Goldstone between June 3, 2016 and June 9, 2016.
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:
d. For the period June 6, 2016 through June 9, 2016, for what portion of each day were you in Trump Tower?
i. Did you speak or meet with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on June 9, 2016? If yes, did any portion of any of those conversations or meetings include any reference to any aspect of the June 9 meeting? If yes, describe who you spoke with and the substance of the conversation.
TRUMP:
Response to Question I, Part (d): I have no independent recollection of what portion of these four days in June of 2016 I spent in Trump Tower. This was one of many busy months during a fast-paced campaign, as the primary season was ending and we were preparing for the general election campaign.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
Response to Question l, Parts (a) through (c): I have no recollection of learning at the time that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in June 2016 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton. Nor do I recall learning during the campaign that the June 9, 2016 meeting had taken place, that the referenced emails existed, or that Donald J. Trump Jr., had other communications with Emin Agalarov or Robert Goldstone between June 3, 2016 and June 9, 2016.
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE:
d. For the period June 6, 2016 through June 9, 2016, for what portion of each day were you in Trump Tower?
i. Did you speak or meet with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on June 9, 2016? If yes, did any portion of any of those conversations or meetings include any reference to any aspect of the June 9 meeting? If yes, describe who you spoke with and the substance of the conversation.
TRUMP:
Response to Question I, Part (d): I have no independent recollection of what portion of these four days in June of 2016 I spent in Trump Tower. This was one of many busy months during a fast-paced campaign, as the primary season was ending and we were preparing for the general election campaign.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 5:18 pm to Sanfordhog
quote:
I have no recollection of learning at the time that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in June 2016 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton. Nor do I recall learning during the campaign that the June 9, 2016 meeting had taken place, that the referenced emails existed, or that Donald J. Trump Jr., had other communications with Emin Agalarov or Robert Goldstone between June 3, 2016 and June 9, 2016.
In regards to the 2016 Campaign and meetings mentioned were any laws broken by these 3 in regards to actions in questions? Did Mueller find they colluded with Russia in June 2016 as part of Trump’s 2016 campaign in these actions? They happened or they did not, and they were a crime or they weren’t. If they were charged and if it was also illegal for Trump to even know about meetings & emails about the opposition during the 2016 campaign I would grant answer would be at least negative for Trump and worse if other evidence or testimony contradicting answer existed, but no collusion, no mention that anything else in regards to meetings and emails in questions or even knowing about them during campaign actually consisted of anyone breaking the law and being charged, and no proof that Trump lies and did recall hearing of these items during campaign.
Unless someone is 100% certain of the exact times over 4 days they were at one location especially while campaigning how else would that be answered? I am sure records collected and people interviewed, news & media reports on Trump and campaign schedule reviewed, and if something illegal happened they would have a more specific time to ask a yes or no question as to if he was at the Trump Tower.
I am just amazed at how much weak sauce you keep cherry picking from over 400 pages detailing a 2 year investigation with a head start from NSA submitted to the office that asked for the Independent council. At least find a crime of collusion first before you start pushing not recalling hearing about meetings other people are going to or the emails they received during his Presidential campaign is a cover up of collusion (or your earlier using encryption for communications like anyone using iMessage or WhatsApp does daily).
We all get it. You bought collusion story and think Trump is bad; and since collusion couldn’t be found you have moved to collusion not found only due to obstruction which report did not conclude took place while including the unique & questionable statement that they also could not 100% exonerate him for basically obstructing an investigation into collusion that was also not found. It’s almost as if not telling Mueller’s team what they wanted to hear and believed going in along with not finding any actual proof is just a bitter pill for some Democrats.
At least we can probably agree that Hillary should be charged and a large scale investigation into her actions as well as the Clinton Foundation should take place excluding oversight by supporters and tarmac meetings with AG and Cigar poker in chief.
quote:
Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News