rtm that grotesque last post Originally Posted by winn dixie
Have at it.
- TechPapi
- 01-29-2022, 06:47 PM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 01-29-2022, 07:54 PM
- TechPapi
- 01-29-2022, 08:00 PM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 01-29-2022, 08:07 PM
- TechPapi
- 01-29-2022, 08:36 PM
- VerySkeptical
- 01-30-2022, 12:56 AM
That's right bud. People on a hooker board were in on a voter fraud scheme.
They had to have been, they're the only ones left to blame.
5 years? Bullshit.
The only people still talking about a conspiracy charge (collusion isn't a crime) after the Mueller report came out were Trumpys. Barr misrepresented the summary and they buried any evidence/leads they found. The Justice department wouldn't pursue charges.
Other than whiney "knowing" Biden couldn't have gotten as many votes as he did, what other evidence is there?
None.
Who got convicted from the 5-6 Benghazi investigations?
No one. And now you threaten investigations just to get even. What assholes. Thanks for showing the Dems how to dodge investigations. Ignore subpoenas.
Here are 2 articles to remind you that you misrepresent the Mueller investigation. The length, its conclusions, just about everything about it. It should also remind you Trump lies when ever he thinks it is to his advantage.
Just like you.
Do you still wonder if anybody other than a Trumpy would go to one of his rallies?
"In a stinging 23-page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton said Barr’s efforts to spin the report before its public release last year raised serious doubts about whether the Justice Department faithfully applied the law when deleting certain information from the publicly disclosed version.
“The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report,” wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush.
“The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary,” the judge added."
Democrats have complained for nearly a year that Barr’s description of the report was skewed and that it altered the public narrative about Mueller’s conclusions. Shortly after Barr issued a letter describing Mueller’s findings, the special counsel wrote to Barr to complain about the framing and to ask that the report’s executive summary be released immediately.
However, Barr declined to allow what he called a piecemeal release of the report, which did not occur until almost a month after it was submitted.
Now, Democrats have a Republican-appointed judge endorsing Mueller’s view that Barr’s characterization led to confusion.
“The Court has grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report,” the judge wrote. “A review of the redacted version of the Mueller Report by the Court results in the Court’s concurrence with Special Counsel Mueller’s assessment that Attorney General Barr distorted the findings in the Mueller Report.”
Walton issued his decision in connection with two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking the report and related records. One was brought by BuzzFeed and its reporter Jason Leopold. The other was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Justice Department lawyers asked that the judge bless the deletions from the report based on a declaration submitted by a department official. But Walton declined to do so and demanded that the department provide him an unredacted copy of the report by March 30, so he could see exactly what was deleted.
“These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility and in turn, the Department’s representation that ‘all of the information redacted from the version of the [Mueller] Report released by [ ] Attorney General [Barr]’ is protected from disclosure by its claimed FOIA exemptions,” Walton wrote.
Walton’s claim that Barr displayed a “lack of candor” is likely to reverberate loudly within the Justice Department. That phrase has unusual weight in federal law enforcement, where such an accusation can and does result in dismissal. “Lack of candor” is specifically what former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was accused of before being fired by Barr’s predecessor, Jeff Sessions, in 2018.
The tongue-lashing Walton unleashed on Thursday was hardly the first time the judge has leveled criticism at Barr or the Justice Department. Even before the report was released last April, the judge said Barr’s description of it was sowing distrust in government among many Americans.
“The attorney general has created an environment that has caused a significant part of the public … to be concerned about whether or not there is full transparency,” the judge said at the time.
Walton also repeatedly teed off on the department for being slow to decide whether to drop its effort to pursue criminal charges against McCabe over statements he made to investigators.
Prosecutors finally notified McCabe’s lawyers last month that no charges were being brought. The formal word came on the same day as a deadline that Walton had set for the release of previously secret court records about the issue.
Transcripts made public that day showed that at an earlier, closed-door hearing the judge used extraordinarly sharp language as he slammed the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation of McCabe, who has been a frequent target of attacks from Trump.
“The public is listening to what’s going on, and I don’t think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted,” Walton said. “I just think it’s a banana republic when we go down that road.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ll-barr-122449
WASHINGTON (AP) — In opening arguments of the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump’s defense misrepresented the findings of a special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election by claiming the president was cleared of obstruction of justice.
A look at some of his legal team’s claims Tuesday during debate on the format of the Senate trial:
JAY SEKULOW, on special counsel Robert Mueller: “We had the invocation of the ghost of the Mueller report. I know something about that report. It came up empty on the issue of collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction, in fact.”
THE FACTS: He’s wrong to suggest that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report cleared the Trump campaign of collusion with Russia. Nor did the report exonerate Trump on the question of whether he obstructed justice.
Instead, the report factually laid out instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice, leaving it open for Congress to take up the matter or for prosecutors to do so once Trump leaves office.
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared after the report was released.
Mueller’s two-year investigation and other scrutiny revealed a multitude of meetings with Russians. Among them: Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer who had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.
On collusion, Mueller said he did not assess whether that occurred because it is not a legal term.
He looked into a potential criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and said the investigation did not collect sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges on that front.
___
SEKULOW: “During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The president was denied the right to access evidence. And the president was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings.”
THE FACTS: That’s false. The House Judiciary Committee, which produced the articles of impeachment, invited Trump or his legal team to come. He declined.
Absent White House representation, the hearings proceeded as things in Congress routinely do: Time was split between Democratic and Republican lawmakers to ask questions and engage in the debate. Lawyers for Democrats and Republicans on the committee presented the case for and against the impeachment articles and members questioned witnesses, among them an academic called forward by Republicans.
The first round of hearings was by the House Intelligence Committee and resembled the investigative phase of criminal cases, conducted without the participation of the subject of the investigation. Trump cried foul then at the lack of representation, then rejected representation when the next committee offered it.
___
SEKULOW: “I remember in the Mueller report there were discussions about insurance policies. Insurance policy that didn’t work out so well, so then we moved to other investigations.”
THE FACTS: Sekulow is attempting to give weight to a 2016 text message between two FBI employees that Trump continually misrepresents. Trump depicts the two as referring to a plot — or insurance policy — to oust him from office if he won the election. It’s apparent from the text that it wasn’t that.
Agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page, both now gone from the bureau, said the text he sent to her was about how aggressively the FBI should investigate Trump and his campaign when expectations at the time were that he would lose anyway.
Strzok texted about something Page had said to the FBI’s deputy chief, to the effect that “there’s no way he gets elected.” But Strzok argued that the FBI should not assume Clinton would win: “I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.” He likened the Trump investigation to “an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” He was not discussing a post-election cabal to drive Trump from office."
https://apnews.com/article/donald-tr...459adc065bab18
They had to have been, they're the only ones left to blame.
5 years? Bullshit.
The only people still talking about a conspiracy charge (collusion isn't a crime) after the Mueller report came out were Trumpys. Barr misrepresented the summary and they buried any evidence/leads they found. The Justice department wouldn't pursue charges.
Other than whiney "knowing" Biden couldn't have gotten as many votes as he did, what other evidence is there?
None.
Who got convicted from the 5-6 Benghazi investigations?
No one. And now you threaten investigations just to get even. What assholes. Thanks for showing the Dems how to dodge investigations. Ignore subpoenas.
Here are 2 articles to remind you that you misrepresent the Mueller investigation. The length, its conclusions, just about everything about it. It should also remind you Trump lies when ever he thinks it is to his advantage.
Just like you.
Do you still wonder if anybody other than a Trumpy would go to one of his rallies?
"In a stinging 23-page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton said Barr’s efforts to spin the report before its public release last year raised serious doubts about whether the Justice Department faithfully applied the law when deleting certain information from the publicly disclosed version.
“The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report,” wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush.
“The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary,” the judge added."
Democrats have complained for nearly a year that Barr’s description of the report was skewed and that it altered the public narrative about Mueller’s conclusions. Shortly after Barr issued a letter describing Mueller’s findings, the special counsel wrote to Barr to complain about the framing and to ask that the report’s executive summary be released immediately.
However, Barr declined to allow what he called a piecemeal release of the report, which did not occur until almost a month after it was submitted.
Now, Democrats have a Republican-appointed judge endorsing Mueller’s view that Barr’s characterization led to confusion.
“The Court has grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report,” the judge wrote. “A review of the redacted version of the Mueller Report by the Court results in the Court’s concurrence with Special Counsel Mueller’s assessment that Attorney General Barr distorted the findings in the Mueller Report.”
Walton issued his decision in connection with two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking the report and related records. One was brought by BuzzFeed and its reporter Jason Leopold. The other was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Justice Department lawyers asked that the judge bless the deletions from the report based on a declaration submitted by a department official. But Walton declined to do so and demanded that the department provide him an unredacted copy of the report by March 30, so he could see exactly what was deleted.
“These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility and in turn, the Department’s representation that ‘all of the information redacted from the version of the [Mueller] Report released by [ ] Attorney General [Barr]’ is protected from disclosure by its claimed FOIA exemptions,” Walton wrote.
Walton’s claim that Barr displayed a “lack of candor” is likely to reverberate loudly within the Justice Department. That phrase has unusual weight in federal law enforcement, where such an accusation can and does result in dismissal. “Lack of candor” is specifically what former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was accused of before being fired by Barr’s predecessor, Jeff Sessions, in 2018.
The tongue-lashing Walton unleashed on Thursday was hardly the first time the judge has leveled criticism at Barr or the Justice Department. Even before the report was released last April, the judge said Barr’s description of it was sowing distrust in government among many Americans.
“The attorney general has created an environment that has caused a significant part of the public … to be concerned about whether or not there is full transparency,” the judge said at the time.
Walton also repeatedly teed off on the department for being slow to decide whether to drop its effort to pursue criminal charges against McCabe over statements he made to investigators.
Prosecutors finally notified McCabe’s lawyers last month that no charges were being brought. The formal word came on the same day as a deadline that Walton had set for the release of previously secret court records about the issue.
Transcripts made public that day showed that at an earlier, closed-door hearing the judge used extraordinarly sharp language as he slammed the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation of McCabe, who has been a frequent target of attacks from Trump.
“The public is listening to what’s going on, and I don’t think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted,” Walton said. “I just think it’s a banana republic when we go down that road.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ll-barr-122449
WASHINGTON (AP) — In opening arguments of the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump’s defense misrepresented the findings of a special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election by claiming the president was cleared of obstruction of justice.
A look at some of his legal team’s claims Tuesday during debate on the format of the Senate trial:
JAY SEKULOW, on special counsel Robert Mueller: “We had the invocation of the ghost of the Mueller report. I know something about that report. It came up empty on the issue of collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction, in fact.”
THE FACTS: He’s wrong to suggest that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report cleared the Trump campaign of collusion with Russia. Nor did the report exonerate Trump on the question of whether he obstructed justice.
Instead, the report factually laid out instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice, leaving it open for Congress to take up the matter or for prosecutors to do so once Trump leaves office.
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared after the report was released.
Mueller’s two-year investigation and other scrutiny revealed a multitude of meetings with Russians. Among them: Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer who had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.
On collusion, Mueller said he did not assess whether that occurred because it is not a legal term.
He looked into a potential criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and said the investigation did not collect sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges on that front.
___
SEKULOW: “During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The president was denied the right to access evidence. And the president was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings.”
THE FACTS: That’s false. The House Judiciary Committee, which produced the articles of impeachment, invited Trump or his legal team to come. He declined.
Absent White House representation, the hearings proceeded as things in Congress routinely do: Time was split between Democratic and Republican lawmakers to ask questions and engage in the debate. Lawyers for Democrats and Republicans on the committee presented the case for and against the impeachment articles and members questioned witnesses, among them an academic called forward by Republicans.
The first round of hearings was by the House Intelligence Committee and resembled the investigative phase of criminal cases, conducted without the participation of the subject of the investigation. Trump cried foul then at the lack of representation, then rejected representation when the next committee offered it.
___
SEKULOW: “I remember in the Mueller report there were discussions about insurance policies. Insurance policy that didn’t work out so well, so then we moved to other investigations.”
THE FACTS: Sekulow is attempting to give weight to a 2016 text message between two FBI employees that Trump continually misrepresents. Trump depicts the two as referring to a plot — or insurance policy — to oust him from office if he won the election. It’s apparent from the text that it wasn’t that.
Agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page, both now gone from the bureau, said the text he sent to her was about how aggressively the FBI should investigate Trump and his campaign when expectations at the time were that he would lose anyway.
Strzok texted about something Page had said to the FBI’s deputy chief, to the effect that “there’s no way he gets elected.” But Strzok argued that the FBI should not assume Clinton would win: “I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.” He likened the Trump investigation to “an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” He was not discussing a post-election cabal to drive Trump from office."
https://apnews.com/article/donald-tr...459adc065bab18
... They KNOW what really happened... They all knew
the night of the election.
Go back and read the posts.
... But the Investigations are continuing.
We heard "Trump/Russia collusion" for FIVE years...
Let's all give these election findings some more time.
What could be more fair than that?
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
- VitaMan
- 01-30-2022, 06:24 AM
- winn dixie
- 01-30-2022, 08:15 AM
- SpeedRacerXXX
- 01-30-2022, 08:54 AM
In a cult, they want you to repeat the magic mantra several times a day. Especially when presented evidence that you may be repeating a lie. That whole, 'there is no proof of election fraud" is most definitely a magic mantra. Originally Posted by the_real_BarleycornThe mantra of you and others, illustrated by this thread, is that unproven voter fraud cost Trump the 2020 election. There is no evidence of fraud as I showed concerning the claim in this thread. If you have solid proof of fraud, please present it.
- VitaMan
- 01-30-2022, 09:03 AM
So you think that image is ok? Very disturbing!!!! Originally Posted by winn dixie
Care to explain what it is you are trying to say ? It sounds like you are trying to take responsibility for corrupt threads. Can't be sure.
Exactly what does your post have to do with the thread topic ?
Maybe you are just a "fly by night" poster who is "whistling Dixie". If you want to be relevant, why not fly up to Oshkosh WI for the airplane meets, and attend a Trump rally while you are there ?
Better yet, why not just fly up your drone, so you can stay in your basement and post on ECCIE ?
- VitaMan
- 01-30-2022, 09:06 AM
Your drone
- VitaMan
- 01-30-2022, 09:07 AM
my drone
- Yssup Rider
- 01-30-2022, 09:57 AM
These dudes are all about the rules, TP!
Especially on images. Seems that a picture of a person hanging from a tree or multiple Dick pics is OK with them
Your post, oddly, is grotesque. It is against the rules, though.
The DPSTs are hungry for any kind of win. And when they can’t get one, they’ll come for you.
This thread is a prime example: op posts a blatant lie; others call bullshit on the blatant lie; the odd squad attacks. RTMs ensue.
Especially on images. Seems that a picture of a person hanging from a tree or multiple Dick pics is OK with them
Your post, oddly, is grotesque. It is against the rules, though.
The DPSTs are hungry for any kind of win. And when they can’t get one, they’ll come for you.
This thread is a prime example: op posts a blatant lie; others call bullshit on the blatant lie; the odd squad attacks. RTMs ensue.
- Yssup Rider
- 01-30-2022, 09:59 AM
- VitaMan
- 01-30-2022, 10:23 AM
Back in the correct lane now.