Red Defence
Full Member
Trumpty’s off to California on Friday. Maybe Nadler is holding off for something interesting happening.
Putin being a homophobe who outlawed homosexuality in Russia may have something to do with it.He doesnt "suck up to Putin" and what does him being gay have to do with anything?
Bernie's gonna be doing a bit of gleeful point scoring against the MSM. either that or he is taking an opportunity to expand his message to people who wouldn't otherwise hear it. One of the two
Just curious, I've seen plenty from Greenwald on the "mainstream" media on their coverage of Trump but what are his thoughts on FNC's coverage of the administration?
Sure but I'm just wondering what, if anything, he's said on the record as far as critiquing FNC's political coverage goes. I would think he'd have equally strong opinions as he does about CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo etc. But I haven't seen it.He’s first and foremost a self-promoter so he is quite happy to be agreeable with the likes of Tucker Carlson in order to get on national TV. I believe CNN and MSNBC banned him for a while which is likely why he feigns grievance against the MSM but is quite happy to swallow whatever Fox and RT have to say.
Sure but I'm just wondering what, if anything, he's said on the record as far as critiquing FNC's political coverage goes. I would think he'd have equally strong opinions as he does about CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo etc. But I haven't seen it.
Reason I ask is that one common thread among the Great Skeptics and Contrarians of the Internet is that they all seem to focus on coverage by those entities and ignore the blatantly right-wing outlets like FNC/Murdoch newspapers/Breitbart, which I find strange given the readership and viewers those media outlets have. Seems like they either dismiss those as non-influential entities or simply accept the biased coverage as matter-of-fact.
I'm shocked the investigators findings are more troubling for Trump.
err. not really.
Inevitable that the times would get comment from some of Mueller’s prosecutors.
His base won't shift regardless. He said it himself that he could shoot someone in times square and they'd still vote for him.Makes you wonder why Barr exaggerated in the first place (if he indeed did). There was always going to be some kind of leak if Mueller's team didn't feel that their findings were being fairly represented. And it's not like it moved the needle very much in the first place, so there's no "short-term gain" theory to lean on either. Trump's approval rating is essentially unchanged since the Barr report.
Makes you wonder why Barr exaggerated in the first place (if he indeed did). There was always going to be some kind of leak if Mueller's team didn't feel that their findings were being fairly represented. And it's not like it moved the needle very much in the first place, so there's no "short-term gain" theory to lean on either. Trump's approval rating is essentially unchanged since the Barr report.
You won't see them...Looking forward to hearing from the gloaters in this thread.
I’m sure it will be perfectly objective and full of critical analysis and they won’t just be looking for excuses and technicalities.
What's the reason for your respective gloating ? Did the house open impeachment proceedings already ? Did anyone new get indicted? If the full release of the report leads to any meaningful action I"d be the first one to tell you that you were right all along.Looking forward to hearing from the gloaters in this thread.
I’m sure it will be perfectly objective and full of critical analysis and they won’t just be looking for excuses and technicalities.
Looking forward to hearing from the gloaters in this thread.
I’m sure it will be perfectly objective and full of critical analysis and they won’t just be looking for excuses and technicalities.
It's not just possible it will go into more detail but inevitable. It's one of the two major components of the report, and the detail Barr has provided is already very clear. There was a case for obstruction of justice. It wasn't a slam dunk, as they often aren't, so the individuals chose not to prosecute. Given there were arguments on both sides, it's entirely likely that the politics of it made people err on the side of caution. In spite of that, the simple fact there is a case is huge. Reading the detail of it will drive that home, undoubtedly.
What is in the Barr summary that we think is possibly untrue? Or alternatively, what significant elements do you think we're excluded from the summary? The detail was excluded, by design. And we already know the detail is explosive on both the Russian interference and obstruction of justice cases, as so much of it has been presented to the public in drip feed. Presumably there will be similarly important, interesting and surprising details still to come. Him not including those details is exactly what you would expect in the report, and thus not justification for that kind of scepticism.
The focus of the discussion will be on the primary focus of the investigation. The one that resulted in all of the prosecutions, most of the manpower and was deemed the greatest threat to the American political system. It's just sad to try and deflect attention away from that to suit your own interests.
The Muller report will undoubtedly be damning about the obstruction of justice case, although it's hardly a surprise he couldn't quite prove corrupt intent. Even though they've already stated much of it was in public, and presumably the majority of it has been in the media already, having it all laid out in a single assessment from a legal expert should cause a lot of American voters to contemplate some major issues.
The evidence put forward for committing obstruction of justice is not something to take lightly. His supporters may want to focus on the other aspects but that part can't be successfully minimised. There's nothing flat about that. To me it's more important than the Russian collusion because it's something that Trump can do over and over again in all kinds of corrupt scenarios, and we have every reason to expect him to. Whereas the collusion could only ever have been that one moment in time.
What's the reason for your respective gloating ? Did the house open impeachment proceedings already ? Did anyone new get indicted? If the full release of the report leads to any meaningful action I"d be the first one to tell you that you were right all along.
About what, exactly? That there's more damaging information in the report that hasn't yet come out?
The idea that this is being presented as a new twist makes very little sense, from my perspective. Who in here didn't think there would be damaging information in the report that was excluded? We can point to lots of people who did. Here's a few snippets from me. There's more if you want to look.
It doesn't seem that complicated at this point.
In other words, your issue is one of perceptions. Even when people tell you they aren't gloating, you perceive them as gloating. Everything else they say is then misinterpreted through that lens.
- Muller didn't charge him or anyone close to him on either crime. That's obviously critical information.
- Even Barr, Trump's man, says there was an argument for obstruction of justice. That's huge. The fact that he decided against prosecuting still leaves the possibility that congress will impeach him, given the patterns previously established into special prosecutors' investigations into obstruction of justice in the past.
- We have every reason to expect the evidence collected that didn't meet the threshold of criminal prosecution on the Russian "collusion" case will be politically damaging to Trump, albeit given Muller's decision was much firmer on that one, it seems likely it won't be an impeachable issue either. But we already know that the way Trump deals with national security issues is inept and dangerous, that attitude has a ripple effect on his core team, and so it would be very surprising that after an investigation this deep, they didn't find a lot more "questionable" relationships, meetings and more. We've already heard about some of them.
Reason being it’s been fecking obvious since about an hour or so after Barr released his summary that Barr has whitewashed the whole thing and covered for Trump’s Illegal/Unethical behaviour.
A number of people have confidently declared the whole “Russia thing was clearly a hoax all along” despite all the evidence (actual indictments and court documents) suggesting the opposite.
It would be "white washing" if he stated that the report exonerates the president. Which he did not. Moreover, he did not say it was a summary.Reason being it’s been fecking obvious since about an hour or so after Barr released his summary that Barr has whitewashed the whole thing and covered for Trump’s Illegal/Unethical behaviour.
A number of people have confidently declared the whole “Russia thing was clearly a hoax all along” despite all the evidence (actual indictments and court documents) suggesting the opposite.
We can be sure that if Barr’s letter contained the most positive thing that he could salvage from the 300+ page report then what he chose not to mention is possibly very damaging indeed.Gloating is the wrong word anyway. Personally, my main point of contention was people jumping on a given narrative when there are so many unknowns (and also the I told you so shite). It made no sense then and still makes no sense.... How anyone can be sure of anything right now I do not know.
Gloating is the wrong word anyway. Personally, my main point of contention was people jumping on a given narrative when there are so many unknowns (and also the I told you so shite). It made no sense then and still makes no sense.... How anyone can be sure of anything right now I do not know.
His base won't shift regardless. He said it himself that he could shoot someone in times square and they'd still vote for him.
Gloating is the wrong word anyway. Personally, my main point of contention was people jumping on a given narrative when there are so many unknowns (and also the I told you so shite). It made no sense then and still makes no sense.... How anyone can be sure of anything right now I do not know.
Gloating is the wrong word anyway. Personally, my main point of contention was people jumping on a given narrative when there are so many unknowns (and also the I told you so shite). It made no sense then and still makes no sense.... How anyone can be sure of anything right now I do not know.
I think his base is bigger than we think.Absolutely, but his base isn't 42.1% big. It might be 30%. He needs a lot more than just the base to win in 2020.
I think his base is bigger than we think.
She hads high standardsThat's not what Stormy Daniels said!