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.
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.
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toast
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.
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.
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toast
At their own peril. Any Democrat who's really sure there's some incendiary shit on Trump or Trump affiliates in that report is more a gambler than I.
“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.”
You just made something up in order to display your sturdy ego, I guess.
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.
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.
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toast
At their own peril. Any Democrat who's really sure there's some incendiary shit on Trump or Trump affiliates in that report is more a gambler than I.
Being a Dem politician would suck. Half the country hates you, and the most rabid people on your side hate you even more.
“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.”
You just made something up in order to display your sturdy ego, I guess.
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.
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.
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toast
At their own peril. Any Democrat who's really sure there's some incendiary shit on Trump or Trump affiliates in that report is more a gambler than I.
Being a Dem politician would suck. Half the country hates you, and the most rabid people on your side hate you even more.
Some truth to that. When you really boil it down, we need four parties. The Rs could easily be split in 2, and I firmly (hi @PurpleThrobber ) believe that the D party is hopelessly divided as well. Speaking to that rabid side is what lost Hillary the election. I wonder if she still doesn't get it.
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court
I'm guessing that, if the report includes evidence or information of those things to which you allude, then Barr will release it.
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court
I'm guessing that, if the report includes evidence or information of those things to which you allude, then Barr will release it.
The information on things I allude to is already out there thanks to Congress and so far is widely ignored because the Democrats wont vote 420 to 0 to see that
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court
I'm guessing that, if the report includes evidence or information of those things to which you allude, then Barr will release it.
Mueller wont have that in his report
That wasn't his investigation
Yep, that wasn't part of his investigation. He didn't investigate how this entire piece of crap got started.
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.
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.
The D downside is all of the manufactured "evidence" they used start this investigation and to get FISA warrants. The bias will be clear and evident at FBI and DOJ. The CIA had a a hand as well as NSA. Could be ugly for the left. If there was something, anything, that could have been charged Mueller would have done so. He prosecuted people for stuff the FBI chose not to file and knew about for years.
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.
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.
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toast
At their own peril. Any Democrat who's really sure there's some incendiary shit on Trump or Trump affiliates in that report is more a gambler than I.
Being a Dem politician would suck. Half the country hates you, and the most rabid people on your side hate you even more.
Some truth to that. When you really boil it down, we need four parties. The Rs could easily be split in 2, and I firmly (hi @PurpleThrobber ) believe that the D party is hopelessly divided as well. Speaking to that rabid side is what lost Hillary the election. I wonder if she still doesn't get it.
Yeah 4 parties would be good. I don't want to associate with the religious and redneck right.
But I sure as hell don't want to associate with the whiny libs.
Let the far left and far right have their wacko parties and have two normal ones
Really need to get to the bottom of the abuse of the FISA court and the politicialization of the FBI and DOJ by the Obama White House. How does a guy like Strzok find himself at the center of the Hillary email investigation, the Trump Russian collusion investigation, and the Mike Flynn investigation? His superiors knew he was a partisan hack and he was assigned to each of the investigations precisely because he was a partisan hack who would do what they wanted.
Where's that loser DuckNow or is he one of the Hondo bros here?
Really need to get to the bottom of the abuse of the FISA court and the politicialization of the FBI and DOJ by the Obama White House. How does a guy like Strzok find himself at the center of the Hillary email investigation, the Trump Russian collusion investigation, and the Mike Flynn investigation? His superiors knew he was a partisan hack and he was assigned to each of the investigations precisely because he was a partisan hack who would do what they wanted.
Where's that loser DuckNow or is he one of the Hondo bros here?
No, Hondo and his ass munching pals are all dumb as dog shit. City was a shameless liar but he wasn't stupid.
Quite honestly, Race, I've got special counsel fatigue at this poont. It's a very important issue, no doubt. I also have no doubt it will be 81% driven by partisanship.
No worries man...if you don't watch FoxNews or read Breitbart, it will be like it doesn't exist
Comments
“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.”
You just made something up in order to display your sturdy ego, I guess.
Half the country hates you, and the most rabid people on your side hate you even more.
No way in hell Democrats join Graham on that
They're dirty as hell on it
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court
That wasn't his investigation
But I sure as hell don't want to associate with the whiny libs.
Let the far left and far right have their wacko parties and have two normal ones