Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Release the FULL story
Comments
-
I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
You worried?Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
No. Like not at all.HHusky said:
You worried?Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
Then I hope you agree we should see what it says.Pitchfork51 said:
No. Like not at all.HHusky said:
You worried?Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
We will and then you'll still deny the facts. Just like after the Obama Admin said there was no conspiracy cover up the facts in the Mike Brown shooting, you ignored there response and latched onto another line of bullshit. The one thing we know with certainty is that you'll never admit you were wrong O'Keefed. Your fragile ego won't allow for it.HHusky said:
Then I hope you agree we should see what it says.Pitchfork51 said:
No. Like not at all.HHusky said:
You worried?Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
Well yeah. Absolutely. But we already do know.HHusky said:
Then I hope you agree we should see what it says.Pitchfork51 said:
No. Like not at all.HHusky said:
You worried?Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?! -
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible. -
Graham set the bar to high so it will never happen - "someone we all trust" Bwahaha
-
asstootcreepycoug said:
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible.
-
Right. That's the one thing probably everyone can agree on: is there really a Atticus Finch in DC somewhere?LebamDawg said:Graham set the bar to high so it will never happen - "someone we all trust" Bwahaha
