Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Link

What about your fee-fees?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Link

Schiff is saying Trump colluded and the proof is in plain sight.

So...why did we need to waste millions of dollars on an investigation if the proof was in plain sight?

EDIT: Ever notice whenever democrats mention the trump tower meeting they never mention the fact the russian woman Trump Jr. met has connections to Fusion GPS?

Originally posted by Surtur
Schiff is saying Trump colluded and the proof is in plain sight.

So...why did we need to waste millions of dollars on an investigation if the proof was in plain sight?

EDIT: Ever notice whenever democrats mention the trump tower meeting they never mention the fact the russian woman Trump Jr. met has connections to Fusion GPS?

He should be forced to show his evidence from his statements in the past stating that he had seen evidence and fed the media monster or leave his position.



It isn't about feelings when the man made a statement that is contrary to the Mueller findings (months before Mueller even finished his investigation.)

Also democrats can't whine since I'd be shocked if none of them has ever called for Trump to resign.

The shitty precedents Republicans keep setting just to appease the Giant Dorito manchild, it's truly amazing.

I really hope they don't cry foul if/when it comes back to bite them in the ass.

Cool, I just hope that information Schiff had previously that said absolutely proved collusion with Russia was shared with Mueller:



Schiff did a great job whitewashing answers that were already covered by Mueller. Once again Schiff should release his foolproof information that showed collusion.



Brain-numbing sound bites, no one said anything was ok in regards to Russia messing with our elections, those are Schiffs words..........I suppose Schiff also believes that someone controlls Russia operatives in the Republican party to believe they controlled the Russians offering data (that they sold to Hillary already.)

Going through that bit by bit is just trashing sound bites. Show your report Schiff that proves collusion....

Originally posted by snowdragon
Cool, I just hope that information Schiff had previously that said absolutely proved collusion with Russia was shared with Mueller:



Schiff did a great job whitewashing answers that were already covered by Mueller. Once again Schiff should release his foolproof information that showed collusion.



Brain-numbing sound bites, no one said anything was ok in regards to Russia messing with our elections, those are Schiffs words..........I suppose Schiff also believes that someone controlls Russia operatives in the Republican party to believe they controlled the Russians offering data (that they sold to Hillary already.)

Going through that bit by bit is just trashing sound bites. Show your report Schiff that proves collusion....

The difference is that Schiff is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and has seen the evidence, whereas you have not even seen the report.

Will say Schitt better have some solid reasoning if not plausible proof, if this is just a shit tactic, it's lame and he should just shut up.

Having said that, calling for Schitt to resign because he's seemingly doing his job is typical Trumper intimidation tactics and FFS, release the full report to Congress at least, if the public is deemed not worthy/too stupid to see it my Trump Co.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The difference is that Schiff is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and has seen the evidence, whereas you have not even seen the report. oh wow... Fair point!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The difference is that Schitt is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and has seen the evidence, whereas you have not even seen the report.

Fixed that for you

As if all of the Mueler lawyers and Mueller himself would not be on national TV right now saying Barr is lying and there was collusion.

Your point is laughable.

There was no collusion get it through you thick skull.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The difference is that Schiff is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and has seen the evidence, whereas you have not even seen the report.

Right:



Yeah, clearly there seems to be a problem with communication. I never claimed to have seen the evidence but Mueller has. Schiff said many months ago (was it prior to Mueller I don't recall) he went to the media and stated he had evidence, so my response: show it. Whoops apparently only Schiff was able to see the information and make claims, it's all locked away from Mueller



I don't think he should resign as a senator but if he ship showed garbage talking points like his excuses above he shouldn't lead the committee at the very least.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Right:



Yeah, clearly there seems to be a problem with communication. I never claimed to have seen the evidence but Mueller has. Schiff said many months ago (was it prior to Mueller I don't recall) he went to the media and stated he had evidence, so my response: show it. Whoops apparently only Schiff was able to see the information and make claims, it's all locked away from Mueller



I don't think he should resign as a senator but if he ship showed garbage talking points like his excuses above he shouldn't lead the committee at the very least.

What makes you think it is not in the report? Have you read it?

If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to redact.

Originally posted by Robtard
Will say Schitt better have some solid reasoning if not plausible proof, if this is just a shit tactic, it's lame and he should just shut up.

Having said that, calling for Schitt to resign because he's seemingly doing his job is typical Trumper intimidation tactics and FFS, release the full report to Congress at least, if the public is deemed not worthy/too stupid to see it my Trump Co.

Well hold on, if Schitt lied about seeing evidence the president committed treason...why should he not resign? That is a pretty spectacular lie to tell.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to redact.
IIRC the federal law surrounding such matters is that personal information unrelated to the evidence or lackof for criminal matters be redacted, because it is beyond the purview of the Justice Department to damage someone's reputation or violate their personal privacy in matters irrelevant.

So for example, if they discovered Trump was ****ing another pornstar but not doing anything illegal, that would be redacted, because it is not criminally relevant information.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well hold on, if Schitt lied about seeing evidence the president committed treason...why should he not resign? That is a pretty spectacular lie to tell.

If we're going to do a "he lied, so he should resign", then you should be shouting for Trump to resign first and foremost as he's accused and lied about things big and small since swearing into office.

The POTUS sets the example; or he did before this Admin.

Originally posted by Robtard
If we're going to do a "he lied, so he should resign", then you should be shouting for Trump to resign first and foremost as he's accused and lied about things big and small since swearing into office.

The POTUS sets the example; or he did before this Admin.

It's not the fact he lied, all politicians lie. It's what he lied about. Treason technically could result in the death penalty.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not the fact he lied, all politicians lie. It's what he lied about. Treason technically could result in the death penalty.


Trump Accuses FBI Officials Who Investigated Him of Treason

Trump Accuses Democrats of 'Treason' Amid Market Rout

There are more examples...

So where's your next double standard and/or moving of the goal post? Cos it's coming.

Originally posted by Robtard
If we're going to do a "he lied, so he should resign", then you should be shouting for Trump to resign first and foremost as he's accused and lied about things big and small since swearing into office.

The POTUS sets the example; or he did before this Admin. fantastic tactic!

Originally posted by Robtard


Trump Accuses FBI Officials Who Investigated Him of Treason

Trump Accuses Democrats of 'Treason' Amid Market Rout

There are more examples...

So where's your next double standard and/or moving of the goal post? Cos it's coming.

Except Trump never said he had seen evidence they committed treason. Schitt did.

And even though that's what we've been discussing(his claim of seeing evidence) you'll be a weasel and pretend it's not and scream about double standards.

Originally posted by Surtur
Except Trump never said he had seen evidence they committed treason. Schitt did.

And even though that's what we've been discussing(his claim of seeing evidence) you'll be a weasel and pretend it's not and scream about double standards.



You said "it's what he lied about. Treason technically could result in the death penalty" that matters, so now you've moved the narrative. If you also don't think being accused of treason by the POTUS carries political weight, you're just being dishonest again.

So yes, you are indeed making "special rules" on the spot because it's Trump. Schitt needs to resign for saying/implying treason, yet Trump gets an pass for outright accusing multiple people; multiple times of treason.

Originally posted by Robtard


You said "it's what he lied about. Treason technically could result in the death penalty" that matters, so now you've moved the narrative. If you also don't think being accused of treason by the POTUS carries political weight, you're just being dishonest again.

So yes, you are indeed making "special rules" on the spot because it's Trump. Schitt needs to resign for saying/implying treason, yet Trump gets an pass for outright accusing multiple people; multiple times of treason.

Nope I'm not moving the narrative. We've been discussing his saying he saw evidence. Seriously, do better. He didn't imply treason. He said he saw *evidence* of it. That's different than "I think he committed treason". You know it, I know it, anyone with a brain knows it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well hold on, if Schitt lied about seeing evidence the president committed treason...why should he not resign? That is a pretty spectacular lie to tell.

^It's right here, do not even try to act like we weren't discussing his claim of seeing evidence.

Your "evidence" angle is a silly distraction as it's irrelevant and you know that, because if you accuse someone of treason and claim evidence, then you either have it and can show or you don't and are exposed. So the only real point here is that you've accused another falsely of treason.

So yes, you are indeed using a double standard in regards to politicians needing to resign if they blew the treason rape whistle in a false manner.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
IIRC the federal law surrounding such matters is that personal information unrelated to the evidence or lackof for criminal matters be redacted, because it is beyond the purview of the Justice Department to damage someone's reputation or violate their personal privacy in matters irrelevant.

So for example, if they discovered Trump was ****ing another pornstar but not doing anything illegal, that would be redacted, because it is not criminally relevant information. The personal stuff is fair I guess unless he lied.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your "evidence" angle is a silly distraction as it's irrelevant, if you accuse someone of treason and claim evidence, then you either have it and can show or you don't and are exposed. The only real point here is that you've accused another falsely of treason.

So yes, you are indeed using a double standard in regards to politicians needing to resign if they blew the treason rape whistle in a false manner.

No I'm not using a double standard. He claimed he saw evidence. Jesus I'm not gonna do this, this isn't gonna be debated lol. I don't care. Troll if you need to., but the situations aren't the same. Period.

Originally posted by Surtur
No I'm not using a double standard. He claimed he saw evidence. Jesus I'm not gonna do this, this isn't gonna be debated lol. I don't care. Troll if you need to., but the situations aren't the same. Period.

So it's okay to falsely accuse others of treason, just as long as you've never claimed to have evidence that can't exist in the first place because it's a false accusation.

Just listen to your mental gymnastics, Surt. All because it's Trump.

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's okay to falsely accuse others of treason, just as long as you've never claimed to have evidence that can't exist in the first place because it's a false accusation.

Just listen to your mental gymnastics, Surt. All because it's Trump.

Nope, I have not said any other democrat needs to resign and Schitt isn't the only one to accuse Trump of treason. He is, to my knowledge, the only one to claim to have seen actual evidence of this.

Robs being a typical douche and ignoring the fact that if Barr lied on the report Mueller and his pack of lawyers would be screaming and leaking to the high heavens.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Robs being a typical douche and ignoring the fact that if Barr lied on the report Mueller and his pack of lawyers would be screaming and leaking to the high heavens.

Plus he's ignoring that more than one democrat has called Trump treasonous. Only one seems to have said they saw evidence.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
The personal stuff is fair I guess unless he lied.

Would be hilarious if it came out that Trump as POTUS had cheated on his wife again(imo, he has, just look how she despises him).

The ridiculous 'this is why it's okay now' flips from Republicans; especially family values types would worth it alone. Pence would have to write another long diatribe to counter the one he wrote in the 90's stating reasons why Clinton should resign for committing adultery alone, as that shows a man is not fit to be POTUS.

Originally posted by Robtard
Would be hilarious if it came out that Trump as POTUS had cheated on his wife again(imo, he has, just look how she despises him).

The ridiculous 'this is why it's okay now' flips from Republicans; especially family values types would worth it alone. Pence would have to write another long diatribe to counter the one he wrote in the 90's stating reasons why Clinton should resign for committing adultery alone, as that shows a man is not fit to be POTUS.

Stop pretending you care about family values lol. It's just like when leftists whine over Trump insulting John McCain. You don't actually give a shit about what he's said about McCain. You just see it as another avenue in which to go after Trump.

Originally posted by Surtur
Stop pretending you care about family values lol.

It's just like when leftists whine over Trump insulting John McCain. You don't actually give a shit about what he's said about McCain. You just see it as another avenue in which to go after Trump.

Nice strawman, Surt. But it's how you avoided my actual point.

Unlike you, I do. McCain had his problems, but shitting on the man because he was a POW is both shitty and indefensible. Trump shit on every US POW when he did that.

Oh, you mean the report that Mueller said that no one in Trump's campaign or US citizen colluded with Russia to meddle in our elections despite the fact Russia was even willing to pay.......

Yup, I read that from the guy who spent two-plus years investigating, interviewing, etc vs a congressperson who feels a certain way (opposite of the investigator.)

Originally posted by snowdragon
Oh, you mean the report that Mueller said that no one in Trump's campaign or US citizen colluded with Russia to meddle in our elections despite the fact Russia was even willing to pay.......

Yup, I read that from the guy who spent two-plus years investigating, interviewing, etc vs a congressperson who feels a certain way (opposite of the investigator.)

Again, how do you know what Mueller said in the report? Have you read it? Because so far, you only have a Trump-appointee's four-page interpretation of an over 300-page document. The only people who have actually seen the same evidence as Mueller are on the House Intelligence Committee, of which Adam Schiff is the chair. Care to try again?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, how do you know what Mueller said in the report? Have you read it? Because so far, you only have a Trump-appointee's four-page interpretation of an over 300-page document. The only people who have actually seen the same evidence as Mueller are on the House Intelligence Committee, of which Adam Schiff is the chair. Care to try again?

Churlish to the bitter end. Yes, that's right I read the summary that stated Trump and his campaign didn't collude with Russia. Now to the point of this particular thread:

Schiff made accusations prior to the completion of Muellers report (months prior) stating Trump was guilty. I am calling on the fact Schiff made accusations without the investigation being completed, hence he had no report to reference at the time of his false accusations.

So your feeble attempt to pretend the summary isn't accurate has no impact on Schiff's comments made months prior to the conclusion of said report, in other words, Schiff lied.

President Trump mocks Adam Schiff with new nickname at Michigan rally, and CNN is very upset over it

Lol!

Litttle Schitt the pencil neck

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Litttle Schitt the pencil neck

You gotta appreciate that the same people who call him a dotard or say he has orange skin get butthurt over Trump giving other people nick names and insulting people.

Sounds like tard and adam

Originally posted by snowdragon
Churlish to the bitter end. Yes, that's right I read the summary that stated Trump and his campaign didn't collude with Russia. Now to the point of this particular thread:

Schiff made accusations prior to the completion of Muellers report (months prior) stating Trump was guilty. I am calling on the fact Schiff made accusations without the investigation being completed, hence he had no report to reference at the time of his false accusations.

So your feeble attempt to pretend the summary isn't accurate has no impact on Schiff's comments made months prior to the conclusion of said report, in other words, Schiff lied.

How is it feeble when you cannot compare the summary to the report and determine if it is accurate, because you only have the summary? Someone did not think about this too hard.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
IIRC the federal law surrounding such matters is that personal information unrelated to the evidence or lackof for criminal matters be redacted, because it is beyond the purview of the Justice Department to damage someone's reputation or violate their personal privacy in matters irrelevant.

So for example, if they discovered Trump was ****ing another pornstar but not doing anything illegal, that would be redacted, because it is not criminally relevant information. I have no problem with them making redactions for info like that, though TBH that wouldn't hurt Trump at all. But yeah... The question is basically that since Trump wasn't completely exonerated, what was the evidence against him? All we can gather from Barr's letter is that the evidence wasn't good enough to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean there's nothing that would be pertinent for Congress or even the electorate to look at.

One of the big reasons this investigation became what it was an drew so much attention is because Trump consistently acts like he has something to hide. There's no telling where any of this might have led if he didn't fire Comey, lie about specific details, etc. If he's clean then releasing the full report will be a huge PR win. Fighting that outcome only helps sew seeds of doubt and mistrust.

^ MikeyB nailed it

Release the report. Trump just looks like he's guilty of something not doing so, when he said he wanted it released and has the executive power to unclassify anything.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How is it feeble when you cannot compare the summary to the report and determine if it is accurate, because you only have the summary? Someone did not think about this too hard.

This isn't about the entire Mueller report now is it? This is specifically about Schiff's statements prior to the conclusion of the Mueller summary, where Schiff stated there was obvious evidence of collusion months prior to the conclusion of the Mueller investigation.

So, one more time. This is about Schiff making statements that were false without supporting his claims, now the end result is Mueller has said no collusion. That means Schiff lied, it doesn't matter what is in the full Mueller report when it's already been declared no collusion vs Schiff stating undeniable proof of collusion (prior to the completion of the Mueller investigation.)

In synopsis, Schiff lied, he used his position of authority to extend credibility to his statements w/o supporting documents even now when the investigator has said otherwise. There isn't any spin from that.

Originally posted by mike brown
I have no problem with them making redactions for info like that, though TBH that wouldn't hurt Trump at all. But yeah... The question is basically that since Trump wasn't completely exonerated, what was the evidence against him? All we can gather from Barr's letter is that the evidence wasn't good enough to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean there's nothing that would be pertinent for Congress or even the electorate to look at.

One of the big reasons this investigation became what it was an drew so much attention is because Trump consistently acts like he has something to hide. There's no telling where any of this might have led if he didn't fire Comey, lie about specific details, etc. If he's clean then releasing the full report will be a huge PR win. Fighting that outcome only helps sew seeds of doubt and mistrust.

This strikes me as naive. It's not hard to see how this plays out: democrats will conclude he did obstruct beyond a reasonable doubt, republicans will agree with Barr and Rosenstein that he didn't.

And then...where are we? More partisan divides.

Originally posted by snowdragon
This isn't about the entire Mueller report now is it? This is specifically about Schiff's statements prior to the conclusion of the Mueller summary, where Schiff stated there was obvious evidence of collusion months prior to the conclusion of the Mueller investigation.

So, one more time. This is about Schiff making statements that were false without supporting his claims, now the end result is Mueller has said no collusion. That means Schiff lied, it doesn't matter what is in the full Mueller report when it's already been declared no collusion vs Schiff stating undeniable proof of collusion (prior to the completion of the Mueller investigation.)

In synopsis, Schiff lied, he used his position of authority to extend credibility to his statements w/o supporting documents even now when the investigator has said otherwise. There isn't any spin from that.

Bingo.

Originally posted by Surtur
This strikes me as naive. It's not hard to see how this plays out: democrats will conclude he did obstruct beyond a reasonable doubt, republicans will agree with Barr and Rosenstein that he didn't.

And then...where are we? More partisan divides. It's unlikely that there will be an actual indictment, I just think we will all be better informed if we can look at the actual evidence. It's unlikely that if it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he obstructed that Mueller wouldn't have said so. That doesn't mean there is no circumstantial evidence that might be politically damaging. Until we see the report, Dems will assume the worst and reps will assume the opposite. At least with some sense of transparency we will have more specific factual information to provide the necessary context for exactly what the report revealed.

Originally posted by mike brown
It's unlikely that there will be an actual indictment, I just think we will all be better informed if we can look at the actual evidence. It's unlikely that if it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he obstructed that Mueller wouldn't have said so. That doesn't mean there is no circumstantial evidence that might be politically damaging. Until we see the report, Dems will assume the worst and reps will assume the opposite. At least with some sense of transparency we will have more specific factual information to provide the necessary context for exactly what the report revealed.

It does indeed come off like they're on a witch hunt to find any politically damaging information they can.

Edit: whoops, dp

Originally posted by Surtur
It does indeed come off like they're on a witch hunt to find any politically damaging information they can. It's politics as usual. They want whatever dirt on him Mueller dug up, and frankly I'd like to see what there is myself. It's not a witch hunt though... Or else he would already be in jail.

Originally posted by mike brown
It's politics as usual. They want whatever dirt on him Mueller dug up, and frankly I'd like to see what there is myself. It's not a witch hunt though... Or else he would already be in jail.

Witch Hunt just means
The searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/witch%20hunt

It's a phrase based on the literal witch hunts where the accused was basically assumed to be guilty and the trial was a complete show trial. Trump was investigated for legitimate reasons and people understandably would like to know what details that investigation uncovered.

I just provided you with the actual definition as it relates to politics.

Your definition is consistent with what I just said. I was just explaining what I meant... a true witch hunt is not about finding out what someone actually did... It's about punishing them regardless of guilt.

There are several similar definitions to yours which bare this out.

an attempt to find and punish people whose opinions are unpopular and who are said to be a danger to society:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/us/amp/english/witch-hunt

A witch-hunt is an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, often simply because of their opinions and not because they have actually done anything wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/us/amp/english/witch-hunt

Trump isn't being persecuted for his beliefs. He was investigated based on real suspicion of wrong doing.

Only per the report, Trump didn't collude. which means he was investigated for something he didn't do.

Most Dems are cowards

Originally posted by Silent Master
Only per the report, Trump didn't collude. which means he was investigated for something he didn't do. Uh.. yeah that's what happens in a functioning legal system. There's no way to determine whether someone can be charged with a crime until they are investigated. The fact that the prosecutor didn't find that he should be charged with collusion only further demonstrates that it wasn't a damn witch hunt.

xwRB_dalxQU

The usual people here are in full blown meltdown

Originally posted by mike brown
Uh.. yeah that's what happens in a functioning legal system. There's no way to determine whether someone can be charged with a crime until they are investigated. The fact that the prosecutor didn't find that he should be charged with collusion only further demonstrates that it wasn't a damn witch hunt.

xwRB_dalxQU

Tell that to all the people that still believe he's guilty and want the investigation to continue until evidence is found.

Last I checked those people aren't the ones in charge of the investigation.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Only per the report, Trump didn't collude. which means he was investigated for something he didn't do.

The Weasel Words I'm seeing from the Anti-Trumpers is that it did not clear his name, only that Mueller could not find enough dirt to recommend an indictment.

My libertarian pal pointed out that this is not only dishonest of the Anti-Trumper crowd, this is dangerously inappropriate as it violates the innocent until proven guilty clause in the 6th amendment. This type of thinking, just to destroy your political enemies, is taking us further down the path of authoritarianism, fascism, and majoritarianism.


I don't want a populist-mob-rule, pure democracy, at all levels of the government. That's a terrible idea. The average person is woefully ignorant and biased. That's the point of NOT having a pure democracy. We already know the electorate are not capable, on average, of making informed decisions. They don't have the time required to do this. That's why we elect representatives.

2017: Republicans need to wait for the Mueller report and respect it's findings.

2019: Uhh.....I respect Mueller BUT.........

Lulz

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal thing. Wanting to see what is in the report =! finding him guilty without evidence. I would like to understand why firing Comey isn't obstruction, for example. I'm not calling for his head I'm just looking for transparency.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The Weasel Words I'm seeing from the Anti-Trumpers is that it did not clear his name, only that Mueller could not find enough dirt to recommend an indictment.

My libertarian pal pointed out that this is not only dishonest of the Anti-Trumper crowd, this is dangerously inappropriate as it violates the innocent until proven guilty clause in the 6th amendment. This type of thinking, just to destroy your political enemies, is taking us further down the path of authoritarianism, fascism, and majoritarianism.


I don't want a populist-mob-rule, pure democracy, at all levels of the government. That's a terrible idea. The average person is woefully ignorant and biased. That's the point of NOT having a pure democracy. We already know the electorate are not capable, on average, of making informed decisions. They don't have the time required to do this. That's why we elect representatives.

Yep, it's weasel shit. "Did not exonerate" is not the important part, "found no crime committed" was the important part.

Just like weasels say Barr decided Trump didn't obstruct...it's easier to just say that cuz they can whine and go "Barr doesn't think a president can get indicted herpy dee herp derpity doo". It gets harder to do if they have to point out Rosenstein was involved in the decision too.

Originally posted by mike brown
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal thing.

A criminal investigation is what Mueller and his team were doing.

Treating Trump like he was guilty for over 2 years is anti-American and goes against the basicis of basics of our founding principles (the good ones based on Lockean principles - not the racist ones). Mueller was doing his job. But the democrats and Anti-Trumpers treated Trump like he was guilty, should resign, etc. during the whole investigation. Which is rather scary. That's a path we should not take as Americans (or as humans).


Originally posted by mike brown
Wanting to see what is in the report =! finding him guilty without evidence.

And you'll notice I made no mention, directly or indirectly, to wanting to know the contents of the report in my post. I did make mention in the past that there should be 0 reason to not disclose those details unless some of the information included classified information (then I would call into question who was involved in the investigation, if "Need to know" was compromised, if information handling was compartmentalized properly, etc.).

I view "disclosing the full report" and my "innocent until proven guilty" point to be almost wholly mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by mike brown
I would like to understand why firing Comey isn't obstruction, for example. I'm not calling for his head I'm just looking for transparency.

Either Trump was under investigation by Comey or he wasn't when Trump fired him.

Comey confirmed Trump wasn't. Therefore, the case is rather easy - impossible to obstruct.

Comey's memos are what sparked the Mueller investigation.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep, it's weasel shit. "Did not exonerate" is not the important part, "found no crime committed" was the important part. As far as prosecution is concerned, that's true. As far as trying to ascertain exactly what.might be the report, they are both potentially pertinent details. I get the impression you guys are just scared there might be something that makes Trump look bad. What is the "danger" in letting Congress/the public see the report?

Originally posted by mike brown
As far as prosecution is concerned, that's true. As far as trying to ascertain exactly what.might be the report, they are both potentially pertinent details. I get the impression you guys are just scared there might be something that makes Trump look bad. What is the "danger" in letting Congress/the public see the report?

None.

And I hope you don't lump me in with "you guys" because I never wanted Trump in office and even made a bet with Stigma (on KMC) that Trump would lose the election.

It gives me great pride knowing Trump has rustled everyone's jimmies as much as he does.

Meanwhile he just passed the biggest criminal justice reform in history

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Meanwhile he just passed the biggest criminal justice reform in history

Really???!?!?!


Now this is an issue near and dear to my heart. I'll google it. I hope it is what I want.

You didnt hear about it because you spend to much time hating Trump

Okay, looks good.


Two phases to the First Step Act.


If we are being honest, this is the biggest Civil Rights reform, for the black community, that we have seen in decades. The Criminal Justice system disparately impacts the black community. The faster a black man can get back to work once released, the better. The less time he spends in prison, the better. The less opportunities for employers to discriminate against his criminal record, the better (for the former inmate).



This definitely is a step in the right direction for prison reform.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-takes-a-second-step-in-the-right-direction-on-criminal-justice-reform



However, the racist leftists are already at it with their propaganda.

Look at MotherJones' headline:

"Trump Is Throwing a Party to Celebrate His Paltry Criminal Justice Reform Efforts"

https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/04/trump-is-throwing-a-party-to-celebrate-his-paltry-criminal-justice-reform-efforts/

That's pathetic, sad, terrible, and racist. Why racist? Because trying to bring down reform that will improve the wrongs minorities experience, is racist.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
You didnt hear about it because you spend to much time hating Trump

It would be great if that was the real reason because then the real reason wouldn't be so bad.

The real reason is due to how much hate Trump gets from left-wing media and how echo-chamber-y content sharing platforms are like reddit. So I just do not get exposed to this type of news unless it happens to be on Fox News when I work out.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, looks good.


Two phases to the First Step Act.


If we are being honest, this is the biggest Civil Rights reform, for the black community, that we have seen in decades. The Criminal Justice system disparately impacts the black community. The faster a black man can get back to work once released, the better. The less time he spends in prison, the better. The less opportunities for employers to discriminate against his criminal record, the better (for the former inmate).



This definitely is a step in the right direction for prison reform.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-takes-a-second-step-in-the-right-direction-on-criminal-justice-reform



However, the racist leftists are already at it with their propaganda.

Look at MotherJones' headline:

"Trump Is Throwing a Party to Celebrate His Paltry Criminal Justice Reform Efforts"

https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/04/trump-is-throwing-a-party-to-celebrate-his-paltry-criminal-justice-reform-efforts/

That's pathetic, sad, terrible, and racist. Why racist? Because trying to bring down reform that will improve the wrongs minorities experience, is racist.

Just goes to show you how pathetic, shameful and cowardly Democrats are. Real pieces of shit

Originally posted by dadudemon
The Criminal Justice system disparately impacts the black community. The faster a black man can get back to work once released, the better. The less time he spends in prison, the better. The less opportunities for employers to discriminate against his criminal record, the better (for the former inmate).

But I've been told here time and time again (by Trumpers) that our justice/penal system does not disparately impact the black community...

baby

Originally posted by Robtard
But I've been told here time and time again (by Trumpers) that our justice/penal system does not disparately impact the black community...

But it does.

There are a few false myths that lefties hold onto, of course. But there are...perhaps 8 measures we can look at and those myths apply to 3-4 of them, but not all.

Stop and frisk comes to mind.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But it does.

There are a few false myths that lefties hold onto, of course. But there are...perhaps 8 measures we can look at and those myths apply to 3-4 of them, but not all.

Stop and frisk comes to mind.

Bingo, I don't recall anyone here saying blacks get treated fairly. I've pushed back against the notion that there are more blacks in prison strictly due to racism.

No point in reasoning with dipshit

For example, whites and blacks both use weed in similar amounts...but blacks get arrested more often for it.

Is this due to nothing but racism? I don't think so.

Originally posted by Surtur
For example, whites and blacks both use weed in similar amounts...but blacks get arrested more often for it.

Is this due to nothing but racism? I don't think so.

That's my "stop and frisk" point.


They get stopped and frisked much more often than others.

But there are other stats that favor blacks in some places such as arrests per encounter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's my "stop and frisk" point.


They get stopped and frisked much more often than others.

But there are other stats that favor blacks in some places such as arrests per encounter.

Yes, but I also think living in higher crime areas with increased police presence increases the chances of getting busted.

Then the question is, why do they get stopped and frisked more than other races? Is it just pure racism? Is it the fact they commit more homicides than any other race? Is it both?

If Black people are going to jail more often for weed and it's because they're being stopped and frisked more, (ie profiled by police) that would be bigotry/racism in effect. SMH.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, but I also think living in higher crime areas with increased police presence increases the chances of getting busted.

Then the question is, why do they get stopped and frisked more than other races? Is it just pure racism? Is it the fact they commit more homicides than any other race? Is it both? I think that generally there are more cops in black neighborhoods because there is more crime in those neighborhoods. But the drug war in general has traditionally had some racial undertones to it.

Originally posted by Robtard
If Black people are going to jail more often for weed and it's because they're being stopped and frisked more, (ie profiled by police) that would be bigotry/racism in effect. SMH. obvious right answe is obvious.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
obvious right answe is obvious.

*answer

Got a question for ya, why do you feel the need to thumbs up and high five everything rob does or says?

It's not that obvious to me since stop and frisk happens more in the dangerous parts of NY where blacks are more likely to live. I think the real rationale behind it is looking by for illegal guns more than bags of weed.

That still would be a systemic bias against blacks due to the racial demographics of poverty and crime... But it's not quite so clear it's just a matter of profiling imo.

Originally posted by Robtard
If Black people are going to jail more often for weed and it's because they're being stopped and frisked more, (ie profiled by police) that would be bigotry/racism in effect. SMH.

Nope.

Originally posted by mike brown
I think that generally there are more cops in black neighborhoods because there is more crime in those neighborhoods. But the drug war in general has traditionally had some racial undertones to it.

Yup.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
*answer

Got a question for ya, why do you feel the need to thumbs up and high five everything rob does or says?

The answer is simple: it's Surtur Derangement Syndrome. SDS is what causes him to put me on ignore while at the same time continually talking about ignoring me while also obsessively commenting nearly every time Rob responds to me.

Originally posted by Surtur
The answer is simple: it's Surtur Derangement Syndrome. SDS is what causes him to put me on ignore while at the same time continually talking about ignoring me while also obsessively commenting nearly every time Rob responds to me.

^ Irony

Trump Deranged ^

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Irony

https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12777757_f520.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
If Black people are going to jail more often for weed and it's because they're being stopped and frisked more, (ie profiled by police) that would be bigotry/racism in effect. SMH.

I mean...I thought my point was rather obvious.


https://i.imgur.com/u3U3uaA.jpg



I'll do better to explain myself, next time.


In Surtur's defense (he doesn't need me to white knight him but I'm doing it anyway), I think he's talking about probability of encounter by race. You'll have poorer neighborhoods that get patrolled more often due to crime because they are poor. Poorer neighborhoods have far more blacks than in suburbs. So the stop and frisk statistics might be another "victim" of population density and poverty statistics rather than a true racist policy. A way to measure and control for this is to check on a "sister city" that has similar population density and crime but a much smaller concentration of black population (in other words, look for a "whiter" city). If stop and frisk activities are better predicted by crime heat maps rather than race heat maps, Surtur is 100% correct and the idea that Stop and Frisk policies are usually racist becomes another one of the false myths.

However, I do not have the time to do a dive into something like this. Nor do I care to do a heat map comparison to find out if this is racist or not. I will take the lazy way out and continue to tell people that, in general, stop and frisk policies are racist and should be stopped. They violate the 4th amendment rights, as well, which is far far more important than finding drugs on a black man. FYI, to my British friend (Whirly), stop and frisk is an illegal search and seizure. They must have probable cause or a warrant before they can stop and frisk someone. Being poor and black is not probable cause.

Guys, we were having good convo with adult stuff and you brought it back to the stupid back and forth petty crap again.

You can still have your petty differences by try to avoid descending into post after post of poop slinging.

That next time I see you guys do this, I'll start issue bans.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I mean...I thought my point was rather obvious.


https://i.imgur.com/u3U3uaA.jpg



I'll do better to explain myself, next time.


In Surtur's defense (he doesn't need me to white knight him but I'm doing it anyway), I think he's talking about probability of encounter by race. You'll have poorer neighborhoods that get patrolled more often due to crime because they are poor. Poorer neighborhoods have far more blacks than in suburbs. So the stop and frisk statistics might be another "victim" of population density and poverty statistics rather than a true racist policy. A way to measure and control for this is to check on a "sister city" that has similar population density and crime but a much smaller concentration of black population (in other words, look for a "whiter" city). If stop and frisk activities are better predicted by crime heat maps rather than race heat maps, Surtur is 100% correct and the idea that Stop and Frisk policies are usually racist becomes another one of the false myths.

However, I do not have the time to do a dive into something like this. Nor do I care to do a heat map comparison to find out if this is racist or not. I will take the lazy way out and continue to tell people that, in general, stop and frisk policies are racist and should be stopped. They violate the 4th amendment rights, as well, which is far far more important than finding drugs on a black man. FYI, to my British friend (Whirly), stop and frisk is an illegal search and seizure. They must have probable cause or a warrant before they can stop and frisk someone. Being poor and black is not probable cause.

"Daddy Dadudemon! No-oooooooooooooooo!" -Surt's inner thoughts right now

I could be wrong but I thought stop and frisk was only in New York.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I mean...I thought my point was rather obvious.


https://i.imgur.com/u3U3uaA.jpg



I'll do better to explain myself, next time.


In Surtur's defense (he doesn't need me to white knight him but I'm doing it anyway), I think he's talking about probability of encounter by race. You'll have poorer neighborhoods that get patrolled more often due to crime because they are poor. Poorer neighborhoods have far more blacks than in suburbs. So the stop and frisk statistics might be another "victim" of population density and poverty statistics rather than a true racist policy. A way to measure and control for this is to check on a "sister city" that has similar population density and crime but a much smaller concentration of black population (in other words, look for a "whiter" city). If stop and frisk activities are better predicted by crime heat maps rather than race heat maps, Surtur is 100% correct and the idea that Stop and Frisk policies are usually racist becomes another one of the false myths.

However, I do not have the time to do a dive into something like this. Nor do I care to do a heat map comparison to find out if this is racist or not. I will take the lazy way out and continue to tell people that, in general, stop and frisk policies are racist and should be stopped. They violate the 4th amendment rights, as well, which is far far more important than finding drugs on a black man. FYI, to my British friend (Whirly), stop and frisk is an illegal search and seizure. They must have probable cause or a warrant before they can stop and frisk someone. Being poor and black is not probable cause.

Bingo.

Lol, he didn't read it, only skimmed

Originally posted by Robtard
Lol, he didn't read it, only skimmed

Wrong, try again

Originally posted by dadudemon
Guys, we were having good convo with adult stuff and you brought it back to the stupid back and forth petty crap again.

You can still have your petty differences by try to avoid descending into post after post of poop slinging.

That next time I see you guys do this, I'll start issue bans.

Too late, Rob couldn't help himself lol. He needed a pretend win and I'll allow it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lol, he didn't read it, only skimmed

You must have a bullshit job to sit around and read bullshit articles all day.

Originally posted by mike brown
I could be wrong but I thought stop and frisk was only in New York.

I have no interest in calling you wrong but there are a ton of states with laws like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes


They fall into the broader category of "Stop and Identify" laws.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lol, he didn't read it, only skimmed

He may have. I gave Surtur a huge out if someone with an immense amount of time wants to the the statistics on it. It's possible that thousands of us are wrong about stop and frisk.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have no interest in calling you wrong but there are a ton of states with laws like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes


They fall into the broader category of "Stop and Identify" laws.

I would think getting frisked would be worse though. They aren't gonna find illegal drugs on you just by asking you to ID yourself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He may have. I gave Surtur a huge out if someone with an immense amount of time wants to the the statistics on it. It's possible that thousands of us are wrong about stop and frisk.

Possible sure, not likely.

Originally posted by Robtard
Possible sure, not likely.

Rob when did you have gender reassingment?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have no interest in calling you wrong but there are a ton of states with laws like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes


They fall into the broader category of "Stop and Identify" laws. actually come to think of it I did get stopped andfrisked when I lived in Florida. I think it's just more common in NY cause it's more of a pedestrian city.

Originally posted by steverules_2
Rob when did you have gender reassingment?

Jul 27th, 2005:

Originally posted by Robtard
Hai guys, new here. I'm Roberta Tardis and I just transitioned into a tranny.

Originally posted by Robtard
Jul 27th, 2005:

Originally posted by Robtard
Hai guys, new here. I'm Roberta Tardis and I just transitioned into a tranny.

shock